Datasets:

timaeus

/

pile-arxiv

like 0

Follow

Timaeus 10

--- abstract: 'Symmetry is a key feature observed in nature (from flowers and leaves, to butterflies and birds) and in human-made objects (from paintings and sculptures, to manufactured objects and architectural design). Rotational, translational, and especially reflectional symmetries, are also important in drawings of graphs. Detecting and classifying symmetries can be very useful in algorithms that aim to create symmetric graph drawings and in this paper we present a machine learning approach for these tasks. Specifically, we show that deep neural networks can be used to detect reflectional symmetries with 92% accuracy. We also build a multi-class classifier to distinguish between reflectional horizontal, reflectional vertical, rotational, and translational symmetries. Finally, we make available a collection of images of graph drawings with specific symmetric features that can be used in machine learning systems for training, testing and validation purposes. Our datasets, best trained ML models, source code are available online.' author: - Felice De Luca - 'Md Iqbal Hossain()' - Stephen Kobourov bibliography: - 'symbib.bib' title: Symmetry Detection and Classification in Drawings of Graphs --- Introduction ============ The surrounding world contains symmetric patterns in objects, animals, plants and celestial bodies. A symmetric feature is defined by the repetition of a pattern along one of more axes, called *axes of symmetry*. Depending on how the repetition occurs the symmetry is classified as *reflection* when the feature is reflected across the reflection axis, and *translation* when the pattern is shifted in the space. Special cases of reflection symmetries are horizontal (reflective) symmetry when the axis of symmetry is horizontal or a vertical (reflective) symmetry when such axis is vertical. Rotational symmetries occur when the translational axes of symmetry are radial. Symmetry has been studied in many different fields such as psychology, art, computer vision, and even graph drawing. In psychology, for example, studies on the impact of symmetry on humans show that the vertical symmetry in objects is perceived pre-attentively. A similar study conducted in the context of graph drawing also shows that the vertical symmetry in drawings of graphs is best perceived among all others [@deluca2018perception]. In this context, algorithms to measure symmetries in graph drawings have been proposed although it has been shown that these measures do not always agree with what humans perceive as symmetric [@welch2017measuring]. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have become a standard image classification technique [@krizhevsky2012imagenet]. CNNs automatically extract features by using information about adjacent pixels to down-sample the image in the first layers, followed by a prediction layer at the end. Led by the lack of a reliable way to identify a symmetric layout and eventually classify it by the symmetry it contains, in this paper we consider CNNs for the detection and classification of symmetries in graph drawing. Specifically we consider the following two problems: (i) Binary classification of symmetric and non-symmetric layout; and (ii) multi-class classification of symmetric layouts by their type: horizontal, vertical, rotational, translational. In particular, our contributions are as follows: 1. We describe a machine learning model that can be used to determine whether a given drawing of a graph has reflectional symmetry or is not-symmetric (binary classification). This model provides 92% accuracy on our test dataset. 2. We describe a multi-class classification model to determine whether a given drawing of a graph has vertical, horizontal, rotational, or translational symmetry. This model provides 99% accuracy on our test dataset. 3. We make available training datasets, as well as the algorithms to generate them. The full version of this paper contains more details, figures and tables [@de2019symmetry]. Related Work {#se:relatedwork} ============ Symmetry detection has applications in different areas such as computer vision, computer graphics, medical imaging, and robotics. Competitions for symmetry detection algorithms have taken place several times; for example, see Liu *et al.* [@liu2013symmetry]. For reflection and translation symmetries the problem can be interpreted as computing one or more axes of symmetry [@kokkinos2006bottomup]. In the context of graph drawing, symmetry is one of the main aesthetic criteria [@purchase2002metrics]. #### Symmetry detection and computer vision: Detection of symmetry is an important subject of study in computer vision [@atallah1985symmetry; @liu2010computational; @mitra2013symmetry]. The last decades have seen a growing interest in this area although the study of bilateral symmetries in shapes dates back to the 1930s [@birkhoff1932aesthetic]. The main focus is on the detection of symmetry in real-world 2D or 3D images. As Park *et al.* [@park2008performance] point out, although symmetry detection in real-world images has been widely studied it still remains a challenging, unsolved problem in computer vision. The method proposed by Loy and Eklundh [@loy2006detecting] performed best in a competition for symmetry detection [@liu2013symmetry] and is considered a state-of-the-art algorithm for computer vision symmetry detection [@cicconet2016convolutional; @park2008performance]. Symmetries in 2D points set have also been studied and Highnam [@highnam1985optimal] proposes an algorithm for discovering mirror symmetries. More recently, Cicconet *et al.* [@cicconet2016convolutional] proposed a computer vision technique to detect the line of reflection (mirror) symmetry in 2D and the straight segment that divides the symmetric object into its mirror symmetric parts. Their technique outperforms the winner of the 2013 competition [@liu2013symmetry] on single symmetry detection. #### Symmetry detection and graphs: In graph theory the symmetry of a graphs is known as automorphism [@lubiw1981some] and testing whether a graph has any axial symmetry is an NP-complete problem [@manning1990geometric]. A mathematical heuristic to detect symmetries in graphs is given in [@fraysseix1999heuristics]. Klapaukh [@klapaukh2014empirical; @klapaukh2018symmetry] and Purchase [@purchase2002metrics] describe algorithms for measuring the symmetry of a graph drawing. While the first measure analyzes the drawing to find reflection, rotation and translation symmetries, the latter considers only the reflection. Welsh and Kobourov [@welch2017measuring] evaluate how well the measures of symmetry agree with human evaluation of symmetry. The results show that in cases where the Klapaukh and Purchase measures strongly disagreed on the scoring of symmetry, human judgment agrees more often with the Purchase metric. #### Symmetry detection and machine learning: Convolutional neural networks can be a powerful tool for the automatic detection of symmetries. Vasudevan *et al.* [@vasudevan2018deep] use this approach for the detection of symmetries in atomically resolved imaging data. The authors train a deep convolutional neural network for symmetry classification using 4000 simulated images, 3 convolutional layers, a fully connected layer, and a final ‘softmax’ output layer on this training dataset. After training over 30 epochs, the authors obtained an accuracy of $85\%$ on the validation set. Tsogkas and Kokkinos [@tsogkas2012learningbased] propose a learning-based approach to detect symmetry axes in natural images, where the symmetry axes are contours lying in the middle of elongated structures. To the best of our knowledge, there are no prior machine learning approaches for detecting or classifying symmetries in graph drawings. #### Neural networks for image classification and detection: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are standard in image recognition and classification, object detection, and video analysis. The Mark I Perception machine was the first implementation of the perceptron algorithm in 1957 by Rosenblatt [@rosenblatt1958perceptron]. Widrow and Hoff proposed a mutlilayer perceptron [@widrow199030]. Back-propagation was introduced by Rumelhart *et al.* [@rumelhart1988learning]. LeNet-5 [@lecun1998gradient] was deployed for zip code and digit recognition. In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky [@krizhevsky2012imagenet] introduced CNNs with AlexNet. Szegedy *et al.* [@ioffe2015batch] introduced GoogLeNet and the Inception module. Other notable developments include VGGNet [@simonyan2014very] and residual networks (ResNet) [@he2016deep]. Background and Preliminaries {#se:Background} ============================= In this section we give a brief overview of machine learning in the context of our experiments. We also attempt to clarify some of the terminology we use throughout the paper, focusing in particular on *Deep Neural Networks* and *Convolutional Neural Networks*. A deep neural network is made of several layers of neurons. Information flows through a neural network in two ways: via the *feedforward network* and via *backpropagation*. During the training phase, information is fed into the network via the input units, which trigger the layers of hidden units, and these in turn arrive at the output units. This common design is called a *feedforward network*. Not all units fire all the time. Each unit receives inputs from the units of the previous layer, and the inputs are multiplied by the weights of the connections they travel along. Every unit adds up all the inputs it receives in this way and if the sum exceeds a certain threshold value, the unit fires and triggers the units it is connected to in the next layer. Importantly, there is a feedback process called *backpropagation* that can be used to improve the weights. This involves the comparison of the output the network produces with the output it was meant to produce, and using the difference between them to modify the weights of the connections between the units in the network, working from the output units, through the hidden units, and to the input units. Over time, backpropagation helps the network to “learn," reducing the difference between actual and intended outputs. Convolutional neural network (CNN) are used mainly for image data classification where intermediate layers and computations are a bit different then fully connected neural networks. Each pixel of input image is mapped with a neuron of the input layer. Output neurons are mapped to target classes. Figure \[fig:cnnarch\] shows a simple CNN architecture. Different types of layers in a typical CNN include: ![A typical convolutional neural network.[]{data-label="fig:cnnarch"}](figures/typicalCNN.png){width="100.00000%"} - *convolution layer (convnet)*: in this layer a small filter (usually $3\times 3$) is taken and moved over the image. Applying filters in the layer helps to detect low and high level features in the image so that spatial features are preserved in the layer. The convolutional layer helps to reduce the number of parameters compared to a fully connected layer. Keeping the same set of filters helps to share parameters and sparsity helps to further reduce the parameters. For example, in a $3\times 3$ filter every node in the next layer is only connected to $9$ nodes in the previous layer. This sparse connection helps to avoid over-fitting. - *activation layer*: this layer applies an activation function from the previous layer. Example functions include ReLU, tanh and sigmoid. - *pooling*: the pooling layer is used to reduce size of the convnet. Filter size $f$, stride $s$, padding $p$ are used as parameters of the pooling layer. Average pooling or max pooling are the standard options. After applying the pooling to a given image shape ($N_h \times N_w \times N_c$), it turns into $\lfloor \frac{N_h - f}{s} + 1 \rfloor \times \lfloor \frac{N_w - f}{s} + 1 \rfloor \times N_c$. - *Fully Connected Layer* (FCL): a fully connected layer creates a complete bipartite graph with the previous layer. Adding a fully-connected layer is useful when learning combinations of non-linear features. We now review some common machine learning terms. *Training loss* is the error on the training set of data, and *validation loss* is the error after running the validation set of data through the trained network. Ideally, train loss and validation loss should gradually decrease, and training and validation accuracy should increase over training epochs. The *training set* is the data used to adjust the weights on the neural network. The *validation set* is used to verify that increase in accuracy over the training data actually yields an increase in accuracy. If the accuracy over the training data set increases, but the accuracy over the validation data decreases, it is a sign of *overfitting*. The *testing set* is used only for testing the final solution in order to confirm the actual predictive power of the network. A *confusion matrix* is a table summarizing the performance in classification tasks. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in a predicted class while each column represents the instances in an actual class. The *precision $p$* represents how many selected item are relevant and *recall $r$* represents how many relevant items are selected. *$F1$-score* is measured by the formula $2*\frac{r*p}{p+r}$. Datasets {#se:Dataset} ======== In this section we describe how we generated datasets for our machine learning systems. To the best of our knowledge, there is no dataset of images suitable for training machine learning systems for symmetry detection in graph drawings. Our dataset contains images that feature different types of symmetries, including reflection, translation or rotation symmetries and variants thereof. An overview all types of layouts is given in Fig. \[fig:ourdataset\]. We started with a dataset of simple symmetric images and inspected the results trying to identify which characteristic of the layout leads to its classification as symmetric or not symmetric. If we observed a characteristic in the symmetric layouts we generated non symmetric layouts that expose it and symmetric layouts without it. Then we fed them to the system for the classification. In case of inaccurate results we included the new layouts (that we call *breaking instances* of the dataset) in the training system and repeated the process until we could not identify any other specific feature. In order to distinguish inputs of different sizes, we refer to layouts in our dataset as *small* or *large* based on the number of vertices, $|V|$. A small layout has $|V| \in [5, 8]$ while a large layout has $|V| \in [10, 20]$. The number of edges is a random integer $|E| \in [|V|, \floor*{1.2*|V|}]$. The layouts included in the global dataset used for all experiments can be summarized as follows: - *SmallSym*: small reflective symmetric layout - *SmallNonSym*: non symmetric generated from SmallSym with random node positions - *ReflectionalLarge*: large reflective symmetric layouts with random axis of symmetry - *NonSymLarge*: non symmetric generated from ReflectionalLarge layouts - *HorizontalLarge*: large reflective symmetric layouts with a 0 degree axis of symmetry - *VerticalLarge*: large reflective symmetric layouts with a 90 degree axis of symmetry - *RotationalLarge*: rotational symmetric with random axes between $4$ and $10$ - *TranslationalLarge*: translational symmetric translated along x-axis In the remainder of this section we discuss how we generated our layouts and the process that led to them. Reflectional Layout Generation ------------------------------ A reflectional symmetric layout may expose different characteristics such as “parallel lines” orthogonal to the axis of symmetry and edge crossings on the axis of symmetry. The generation procedure for symmetric graphs and layouts thereof differs slightly depending on the type of symmetry we attempt to capture. We used the procedure for generating a graph and a reflectional symmetric layout with the “parallel lines” feature following the algotithm in [@deluca2018perception] as follows. Given a graph with $\frac{n}{2}$ vertices, called a [*component*]{}, we assign to each vertex of the component positive random coordinates. Then we copy this component and replace the $x$-coordinates of each vertex with the negative value of the original. This results in a layout with two disjoint components that are then connected by a random number of edges in $[1, \floor*{|V|/3}]$ selecting random vertices in one component and connecting them to their corresponding vertices in the other component. This results in layouts with vertical axis of symmetry; see Fig. \[fig:layout1\](b). To create layouts with horizontal axis of symmetry we add a 90 degree rotation; see Fig. \[fig:layout1\](a). The procedure for generating a graph and a reflectional symmetric layout without the “parallel lines” feature is described in Algorithm [*SymGG*]{}. This algorithm gives an overview on how to create the symmetric versions with the different features. In the following we explain how we defined [*SymGG*]{} based on experimental improvements of our dataset. Given a symmetric graph with $n$ vertices by Algorithm [*SymGG*]{}, we create a non-symmetric layout by assigning to each vertex of the input graph any random $y$-coordinate and a positive random $x$-coordinate to the vertices with identifier $<\frac{n}{2}$ and a negative random $x$-coordinate, otherwise. To create reflectional symmetric layouts, instead, if a vertex with identifier $i < \frac{n}{2}$ gets coordinates $(x_r, y_r)$ then the vertex with identifier $i_c = i+\frac{n}{2}$ gets assigned coordinates $(-x_r, y_r)$. If the graph has an odd number of vertices then the vertex with identifier $n-1$ gets $x=0$. Note that, by construction, the resulting layouts have a vertical axis of symmetry; see Fig. \[fig:layout1\](e). To create layouts with horizontal axis of symmetry we add a 90 degree rotation; see Fig. \[fig:layout1\](f). define **$G = (V, E)$** where $|V|=n$ with id $[0, n-1]$ and $|E|=0$ add $m$ edges to $G$ selecting one or more edge types from \[3-6\] and continuing with steps \[7-12\] for a random edge choose random integers $u, v$ in $[0, n-1]$ such as $(u,v) \notin E$; for a random edge that does not cross the axis of reflection choose random integers $u, v$ in $[0, \floor*{n/2}-1]$ such as $(u,v) \notin E$; for parallel edge feature choose random integer $u$ in $[0, \floor*{n/2}-1]$ and $v=u+\floor*{n/2}$ such as $(u,v) \notin E$; for crossing edge feature choose random integer $u$ in $[0,\floor*{n/2}-1]$ and $v$ in $[n/2, n-1]$ such as $(u,v) \notin E$; Generate the symmetric edge $(u\_sym, v\_sym)$ of $(u, v)$ $u\_sym = u \mp \floor*{n/2}$ if $u \gtrless \floor*{n/2}$ $v\_sym = v \mp \floor*{n/2}$ if $v \gtrless \floor*{n/2}$ $u\_sym = u$ if $n$ is odd and $u = n-1$ $v\_sym = v$ if $n$ is odd and $v=n-1$ add $(u, v)$ and $(u\_sym, v\_sym)$ to $E$ Dataset Definition ------------------ Here we describe the process that led to us to the dataset of reflectional symmetric layouts. To this aim we generated the SmallSym, SmallNonSym, NonSymLarge and ReflectionalLarge layouts. ### First improvement: At first, we trained our system with the reflective symmetric layouts and random layouts generated using the approach in [@deluca2018perception] as described above. #### Observations: Using this simple dataset we observed that the system could always classify the layouts correctly for any of the used layouts. #### Layouts characteristic: Analyzing the used dataset we observed that the generation algorithm used gives symmetric layout for reflective symmetry with a clear symmetric feature that is ‘parallel lines’ orthogonal to the reflection axis. These lines separate two identical but reflected subcomponents, as Fig. \[fig:layout1\](a-b) show. #### Breaking layout: After identifying the ‘parallel lines’ feature, we generated non-symmetric layouts with the same feature. These layouts were created starting from the symmetric layouts and then assigning random positions to the vertices not linked to the parallel edges; an example of random layout with parallel edges is shown in Fig. \[fig:nonsymparallel\]. Without re-training the system, these layouts are misclassifed as symmetric, breaking the previously built model. ![Symmetric layouts in the dataset: (a) Horizontal, (b) Vertical, (c) Translational, (d) Rotational, (e) Vertical without parallel lines, (f) Horizontal without parallel lines.[]{data-label="fig:layouts"}](figures/symexample.pdf){width="100.00000%"} \[fig:layout1\] ### Second improvement: Here we added to our dataset the breaking instances of the previous model and new symmetric layouts that do not show the ‘parallel lines’ feature. The parallel lines of a symmetric layouts are given by vertices that are connected to their reflected copy (since they share either the $x$ or $y$ coordinate in the space). The new layouts we generated have the two subcomponents not only connected by edges between a vertex and his reflected copy but also by edges connecting a random vertex of one component to a random vertex of the other (and viceversa to keep the symmetry). These edges generate crossings on the axis of symmetry of the symmetric layout, instead of the parallel lines. Pseudocode for the symmetric graph generation Algorithm SymGG (with even number of edges as input) can be found above. Analogously we generated some random layouts that show the same feature, starting from a symmetric layout with non-parallel edges and shuffling the position of the vertices not connected to such edges. Figure \[fig:layout1\](e) illustrates and example of symmetric layout with crossings while Fig. \[fig:nonsymlayouts\](c) depicts a non symmetric layout with crossings. #### Observations: Training the system with these new layouts we obtained good results on all layouts, including those misclassified in the previous setup. #### Breaking instance: Inspecting the current dataset we identified another characteristic of the current symmetric layouts: an even number of vertices. We then generates symmetric layouts with an odd number of vertices. The generation algorithm for these layouts is given in Algorithm SymGG. Again, without training, the the current system fails on such layouts misclassifying them as a non-symmetric. Further, we observed that rotating the symmetric layouts also makes our machinery fail. ### Final improvement: Here we added to our dataset instances with odd number of vertices for both symmetric and non symmetric layouts. We also added instances rotated by a random angle between 0 and 360. Since we could not find further breaking instance for this dataset, we used it for our experiments. Other symmetric layouts ----------------------- In addition to the instances above we generated the translational layouts and rotational layouts using the algorithm in [@deluca2018perception], as follows. To create translational symmetric layouts we use the same process of generation of reflectional symmetric layout with parallel edges above but instead of taking the negative value of the $x$-coordinate of the copied component we shift each component by a predefined value $\delta$. If a vertex in the given component gets coordinates $(x, y)$ then the vertex in the copied component is assigned coordinates $(x-\delta, y)$; see Fig. \[fig:layout1\](c). The generation process for rotational symmetric layouts is different, since the number of vertices depends on the number of symmetric axes. To generate such layouts we start from a given graph component with $n$ vertices and then we select a random number of radial symmetric axes in the range $[4, 10]$. After assigning a random position to the vertices of the component we copy and shift it over the reflection axes. Then we choose two random vertices in the component and use them to connect pairs of rotationally consecutive components; see Fig. \[fig:layout1\](d). Experimental Setup {#sec:experiment} ================== Our images are in black and white with a size of $200 \times 200$ pixels. We use 1 pixel for the edge width and $3 \times 3$ pixels for a vertex. We configured our system with the following settings: 1 grayscale channel, with resealing by 1/255, batch size 16 and number of epochs 20. In all of our experiment we use 80% of our data as training set, 10% as validation set, and 10% as test set. Test sets are never used in during training, those are reserved for computing the final accuracy. During training, in every epoch we check the validation accuracy and save the best trained model as checkpoint. The best trained model is used on the final test set. Since images of graph drawings have different features than that of real-world images (e.g., textures and shapes), we tested different popular CNN architectures with same parameter settings. Name parameters layers references our training time (h) ------------------- ------------ -------- ---------------------------- ----------------------- ResNet50 23.59M 177  [@he2016deep] 15.25 MobileNet 3.23M 93  [@howard2017mobilenets] 6.22 MobileNetV2 2.26M 157  [@sandler2018mobilenetv2] 8.36 NASNetMobile 4.27M 771  [@zoph2018learning] 5.79 NASNetLarge 84.93M 1041  [@zoph2018learning] 10.21 VGG16 107.01M 23  [@simonyan2014very] 24.24 VGG19 112.32M 26  [@chen2017sca] 25.32 Xception 20.87M 134  [@chollet2017xception] 19.59 InceptionResNetV2 54.34M 782  [@szegedy2017inception] 15.18 DenseNet121 7.04M 429  [@huang2017densely] 20.11 DenseNet201 18.32M 709  [@huang2017densely] 28.49 : Overview of the CNN models used in the experiment.[]{data-label="tbl:pic"} We use CNN architectures from the Keras implementation; Keras is a high-level API of Tensorflow that supports training with multiple CPUs[^1]. For our experiments, we used the High Performance Computing system at the University of Arizona. Specifically, training was done on 28 CPUs, each with Intel Xeon 3.2GHz processor and 6GB of memory. Training time for the different models ranged from 6 to 29 hours; see Table \[tbl:pic\]. Detecting reflectional symmetry {#se:bc} =============================== ***Small Binary Classification* (SPBC) Experiment:** In this experiment we test how accurately we can distinguish between drawings of graphs with reflectional symmetry and ones without. We use a binary classifier trained on *SmallSym* and *SmallNonSym* instances from our dataset; see Fig. \[fig:ourdataset\]. We use the *InceptionResNet* CNN model with 12000 images for training, 2000 images for validation, and 2000 image for testing. The model achieves 92% accuracy. We evaluated several different models before settling on *InceptionResNet*; see the full paper for more details [@de2019symmetry]. We cross-validate our results with two earlier metrics specifically designed to evaluate the symmetry in drawing of graphs, namely the Purchase metric [@purchase2002metrics] and the Klapaukh metric [@klapaukh2014empirical]. These two metrics were not designed for binary classification, but given a graph layout they provide a score in the range $[0, 1]$. We interpret a score of $\ge0.5$ as a vote for “symmetry" and a score of $<0.5$ as a vote of “no symmetry." We can now compare the performance of our CNN model against those of the Purchase metric and the Klapaukh metric on the same set of 2000 test images. We report accuracy, precision, recall and F1-score in Table \[table:HKI\]. We can see that while the two older metrics perform well, the CNN is better in all aspects (except recall, where the Purchase metric is .01% better). Model Accuracy Precision recall F1-Score ----------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -------- ---------- Purchase [@purchase2002metrics] 82% 0.67 0.96 0.79 Klapaukh [@klapaukh2014empirical] 82% 0.80 0.86 0.83 InceptionResNet 92% 0.90 0.95 0.93 : Comparison between the CNN model and existing symmetry metrics.[]{data-label="table:HKI"} Training loss, validation loss, training accuracy and validation accuracy for our [*E*xperiment SPBC]{} are shown in the full version of the paper [@de2019symmetry]. Detecting different types of symmetries {#se:mc} ======================================= ***Multi-class symmetric layouts classification (LHVRT) Experiement:*** In this experiment we test how accurately we can distinguish between drawings of graphs with different types of symmetries. We use a multi-class classifier trained on several types of symmetries: Horizontal, Vertical, Rotational and Translational. Recall that Horizontal and Vertical are special cases of reflection symmetry, where the axis of reflection is horizontal or vertical, respectively. We train the CNN with *HorizontalLarge*, *VerticalLarge*, *RotationalLarge*, and *TranslationalLarge* instances from our dataset; see Fig. \[fig:ourdataset\]. We use the *ResNet50* CNN model with 16000 images for training, 2000 images for validation, and 4280 image for testing. The model achieves 99% accuracy. Table \[table:CM\] shows the corresponding confusion matrix. We evaluated several different models before settling on *ResNet50*. Training loss, validation loss, training accuracy and validation accuracy for our [*E*xperiment LHVRT]{} are shown in the full version of the paper, where more results and discussion thereof can also be found [@de2019symmetry]. HorizontalLarge RotationalLarge TranslationalLarge VerticalLarge -------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------------- --------------- HorizontalLarge 1280 0 0 0 RotationalLarge 0 800 0 0 TranslationalLarge 0 0 798 2 VerticalLarge 0 0 1 1599 : Confusion matrix from *ResNet50*. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in a predicted class while each column represents the instances in an actual class.[]{data-label="table:CM"} Conclusions =========== In the experiments above we achieved high accuracy for both detection and classification. Compared to existing evaluation metrics for symmetric layout we observed that our machinery outperforms the mathematical formulae proposed when used as classifiers. Note, however, that there are many limitations to consider. First of all, we generated all the datasets and have not tested the models on layouts obtained from other layout algorithms. Further, the graphs we used are small and we have not confirmed how well humans agree with the decisions of the machine learning system. Finally, the two tasks we performed are limited in power, and we do not yet have a model that can accurately predict whether a graph drawing is symmetric or not, or which of two drawings of the same graph is more symmetric. Nevertheless, we believe our dataset can be useful for future experiments and our initial results on limited tasks indicate that a machine learning framework can be useful for symmetry detection and classification. Our dataset, models, results details can be found in <https://github.com/enggiqbal/mlsymmetric> [**Acknowledgement**]{}\ This work is supported in part by NSF grants CCF-1740858, CCF-1712119, DMS-1839274, and DMS-1839307. This experiment uses High Performance Computing resources supported by the University of Arizona TRIF, UITS, and RDI and maintained by the University of Arizona Research Technologies department. Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== Discussion ========== We performed further experiments to test the behavior of the machine learning system on slightly larger graphs and with slightly more difficult tasks. We report on two such experiments, LNBC and LRefRotTra, below. Experiment LNBC (*ReflectionalLarge*, *NonSymLarge*) ---------------------------------------------------- In this experiment we use more complex input instances when detecting symmetries. The dataset *ReflectionalLarge* and *NonSymLarge* are used as symmetric and non-symmetric in this experiment with 10000 samples; see Fig. \[fig:ourdataset\]. We use 80% of our data as training set, 10% as validation set, and 10% as test set. Note that *ReflectionalLarge* dataset combines all types of reflection symmetries, including horizontal reflection, vertical reflection and arbitrary axis reflection. This makes the set of symmetric instances more varied then when considering only one type of symmetry. Further, *NonSymLarge* contains more complex non-symmetric instances, where starting from a symmetric layout a few vertices are slightly perturbed in order to break the symmetry. This task is clearly harder and accuracy decreases to 78%; see Table \[tbl:totalresults\]. The experiment above motivates three more focused experiments that we use to identify the nature of the difficulty of the LNBC task . - [**Experiment LHnonSym**]{}: tests whether the model can distinguish between complex non-symmetric (dataset *NonSymLarge*) and only horizontal symmetric samples (dataset *HorizontalLarge*). - [**Experiment LVnonSym**]{}: tests whether the model can distinguish between complex non-symmetric (dataset *NonSymLarge* ) and only vertical symmetric samples (dataset *VerticalLarge*). - [**Experiment LHVSym**]{}: tests whether the model can distinguish between horizontal symmetric (dataset *HorizontalLarge*) and only vertical symmetric samples (dataset *VerticalLarge*). Table \[tbl:totalresults\] shows that several of models achieve 100% accuracy for all 3 of these experiments (LHnonSym, LVnonSym and LHVSym). This provides a possible explanation for the low accuracy of the LNBC experiment: the machine learning algorithms are struggling to distinguish symmetric from non-symmetric layouts when both the symmetric instances are more complex (different types of symmetries) and when the non-symmetric instances are also more complex (different types of non-symmetric layouts). Experiment LRefRotTra (*ReflectionalLarge*, *RotationalLarge*, *TranslationalLarge*) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We next conducted an experiment to detect the type of symmetry in a given layout, from the possible options: reflectional, rotational, and translational. Note that in this experiment we do not distinguish among the various types of reflectional symmetry (horizontal, vertical, arbitrary axis). That is, the reflectional layouts include vertical, horizontal, and reflectional with random angle of rotation samples. From the total of 24720 instances in these three datasets, we choose 80% for training, 10% for validation, and 10% for testing; see the *ReflectionalLarge*, *RotationalLarge* and *TranslationalLarge* rows in Fig. \[fig:ourdataset\]. The best performing models achieve 69% accuracy, which indicates difficulty in distinguishing the different types of symmetries. In particular, the confusion matrix in Table \[table:CM2\] shows that the translational symmetric instances are incorrectly detected as reflectional symmetric instances. ReflectionalLarge RotationalLarge TranslationalLarge -------------------- ------------------- ----------------- -------------------- ReflectionalLarge 872 0 0 RotationalLarge 0 800 0 TranslationalLarge 800 0 0 : Confusion matrix of [*Experiment LRefRotTra*]{}. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in a predicted class while each column represents the instances in an actual class. Note that the translational symmetric instances are incorrectly detected as reflectional symmetric instances.[]{data-label="table:CM2"} Experimental statistics ======================== In this section we present some statistics of training progress of different models. Figure \[fig:binary\_total\] show training loss, validation loss, training accuracy and validation accuracy of different CCN architectures for *Experiment SPBC*. For each graphic, the $x$-axis represents the epochs and the $y$-axis represents the value of loss or accuracy, depending on the color of the line (see legend). Overall, we ovserve that InceptionResNetV2 has the best behavior showing decreasing loss and increasing accuracy. Figure \[fig:multi\] shows similar statistics for *Experiment LHVRT* where only two models converge fast, namely ResNet50, InceptionResNetV2. ![Training loss, validation loss, training accuracy and validation accuracy of different CCN architectures for binary classification. The $x$-axis represents epochs and the $y$-axis represents loss or accuracy. InceptionResNetV2 shows the correct behavior with decreasing losses increasing accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:binary_total"}](figures/binary_total.png){width="100.00000%"} ![Training loss, validation loss, training accuracy and validation accuracy of different CCN architectures for multi-class classification.[]{data-label="fig:multi"}](figures/multi_total.png){width="100.00000%"} We summarize results of all experiments in the Table \[tbl:totalresults\] where training and validation accuracy are reported. [ | l |c |a| c |a |c| a |c |a|c|a|c|a|c|a|]{} model & & & & & & &\ & tracc & vacc & tracc & vacc &tracc & vacc &tracc & vacc &tracc & vacc &tracc & vacc &tracc & vacc\ ResNet50 & 0.89 & 0.85 & 0.89 & 0.76 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.68\ MobileNet & 0.95 & 0.89 & 0.96 & 0.72 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.69\ MobileNetV2 & 0.92 & 0.55 & 0.93 & 0.42 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.89 & 1.0 & 0.8 & 1.0 & 0.68\ NASNetMobile & 0.97 & 0.52 & 0.98 & 0.63 & 1.0 & 0.59 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.53 & 1.0 & 0.68 & 1.0 & 0.66\ NASNetLarge & 0.64 & 0.56 & 0.87 & 0.67 & 0.99 & 0.68 & 1.0 & 0.92 & 1.0 & 0.54 & 0.97 & 0.38 & 1.0 & 0.67\ VGG16 & 0.51 & 0.52 & 0.47 & 0.41 & 0.56 & 0.58 & 0.45 & 0.47 & 0.51 & 0.53 & 0.36 & 0.38 & 0.51 & 0.33\ VGG19 & 0.51 & 0.51 & 0.46 & 0.42 & 0.56 & 0.58 & 0.45 & 0.46 & 0.51 & 0.53 & 0.36 & 0.37 & 0.51 & 0.34\ Xception & 0.94 & 0.72 & 0.97 & 0.71 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.68\ InceptionResNetV2 & 0.97 & 0.94 & 0.99 & 0.78 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.69\ DenseNet121 & 0.95 & 0.87 & 0.96 & 0.62 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.69\ DenseNet201 & 0.86 & 0.83 & 0.89 & 0.69 & 1.0 & 0.99 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.68\ [^1]: <https://github.com/keras-team/keras/tree/master/keras/applications>

--- abstract: 'We describe some interesting effects observed during the evolution of nonequilibrium systems, using domain growth and glassy systems as examples. We breafly discuss the analytical tools that have been recently used to study the dynamics of these systems. We mainly concentrate on one of the results obtained from this study, the violation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and we discuss, in particular, its relation to the definition and measurement of effective temperatures out of equilibrium.' address: | *Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de l’École Normale Supérieure\ 24 rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France and\ Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies, Jussieu\ 5 ème étage, Tour 24, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris France* author: - 'Leticia F. Cugliandolo' title: 'Effective temperatures out of equilibrium[^1] ' --- = 10000 One of the major challenges in physics is to understand the behaviour of systems that are far from equilibrium. These systems are ubiquitous in nature. Some examples are phase separation, systems undergoing domain growth, all types of glasses, turbulent flows, systems driven by non-potential forces, etc. All these systems are “large” in the sense that they are composed of many, $N\to\infty$, dynamic degrees of freedom. Apart from succeeding in predicting the time evolution of their macroscopic properties, one would like to know which, if any, of the thermodynamic notions apply to these nonequilibrium cases. Systems undergoing domain growth, or phase separation, provide the best known example of a nonequilibrium evolution.[@Bray] Take for instance a magnetic system with ferromagnetic interactions in contact with a thermal bath. If the bath temperature is very high the sample is in its paramagnetic phase and the magnetic moments, or spins, point in random directions. If one next cools down the bath, and hence the sample, through a transition temperature $T_c$, the system enters the low temperature phase and starts forming [*domains*]{} or islands of the two ordered phases, say up and down. For definiteness, let us fix the final temperature to be $0<T<T_c$. At any time $t_w$ after crossing the transition at the initial time, two types of dynamics appear: (i) [*fast*]{} fluctuations of some spins, due to thermal fluctuations, inside the otherwise fully ordered domains; (ii) [*slow*]{} motion of the domain walls leading to the growth of the averaged domain size $L(t_w)$. If the size of the sample is infinite, in real life very large, the nonequilibrium domain-growth process can take so long that the sample simply does not equilibrate in the time-window that is accessible experimentally. In other words, below the critical temperature $T_c$ one always has $\tau_{\sc obs} < \tau_{\sc eq}$ with $\tau_{\sc obs}$ the observation time and $\tau_{\sc eq}$ the equilibration time. The two types of dynamics itemized above are clearly seen in Fig. 1 where three two-dimensional slices of a system undergoing domain-growth are displayed. The pictures are obtained at increasing waiting times after the quench. One sees the domains growing as well as the existence, in each of the snapshots, of some reversed spins inside the otherwise ordered domains. Scaling arguments have been extensively used to describe the dynamics below $T_c$; they are based on the assumption (sometimes derivation) of the evolution of the averaged domain size $L(t_w)$ and on further proposals for the space and time-dependence of the correlation functions. Understanding the physics of glassy materials is perhaps a problem of intermediate difficulty.[@angell; @review] Glassy materials can be of very many different types; one has for instance structural glasses,[@angell] orientational glasses,[@aging_orient] spin-glasses,[@spin_glasses; @aging_spinglasses] plastics,[@aging_polymers] gels and clays,[@aging_colloids] glycerol,[@aging_glycerol] etc. Their hallmark is that below some transition range they also fall out of equilibrium. The easiest way of preparing a glassy system is again through an annealing.[@angell] This is implemented by decreasing the temperature of the bath with a given cooling-rate. Take for example the case of a molecular liquid. For high enough bath temperatures the sample is in its liquid phase and it achieves equilibrium with the bath. At an intermediate bath-temperature range the liquid avoids the crystallization transition, enters a metastable phase and becomes a [*super-cooled liquid*]{}, that is to say a liquid with some peculiar properties as, for example, a extremely high viscousity. At an even lower bath-temperature the liquid cannot follow the pace of the annealing and falls out of equilibrium, it becomes a [*glass*]{}. If one stops the annealing at any temperature below this range the system stays in its glassy phase for practical purposes forever and is typically an amorphous solid. We talk about a “transition range” since the transition might not be clearcut but depend on the cooling-rate. Actually one can form a glass of probably any substance by choosing a fast enough cooling-rate. Many other routes to the glassy phase are also possible. There have been proposals to describe the evolution of some glasses, notably spin-glasses, with scaling arguments based on domain growth ideas.[@Fihu; @Tarjus] The assumption is that the glassy dynamics is simply given by the growth of domains of two competing ground states. However, it has been very difficult to prove (or disprove!) either experimentally or numerically that this is indeed the scenario: no “ordered structures” have been identified in general as the growing phases. Thus, domain growth, phase separation and glassy materials are all “self-sustained”[^2] out of equilibrium systems. If one follows their time-evolution, keeping all parameters fixed, in particular the bath-temperature, some of the main features observed during their nonequilibrium evolution are: [*Slow dynamics.*]{} The evolution is very slow. “One-time quantities”, as the energy-density, approach their asymptotic limit with some slow decaying function, say power law, logarithmic or more complicated. It is very important to notice though that even if these one-time quantities can get very close to their asymptotic values, this does not mean that the systems [*get frozen*]{} in a metastable state: they are not equilibrated in a restricted region of phase space characterised by these asympotic values. This is most clearly demonstrated by the measurement of “two-time quantities”. [*Two-time quantities and physical aging.*]{} The measurement of these quantities prove that, even if one-time quantities approach a limit, the system is still changing in an important way. One can distinguish two types of two-time quantities. Those measured during the free evolution of the system, quantifying the spontaneous fluctuations, such as any two-time correlation function, and those measured after applying a small perturbation, such as any response function. These quantities depend on both times involved in the measurement and not only on the time-difference. This shows that the systems neither are equilibrated with the bath nor have approached equilibrium in any metastable state. They are indeed rather far from equilibrium. The measurement of the spontaneous fluctuations is quite easy to implement in a numerical simulation.[@Rieger] One prepares the sample at an initial time $t_o$ and lets it evolve until a waiting time $t_w$ when the system configuration is recorded. One then lets the sample further evolve and computes, at all subsequent times $t\equiv \tau+t_w$, the correlation function between the reference configuration at $t_w$ and the configurations at $\tau+t_w$. These curves depend on both $t_w$ and $\tau$ and they are not invariant under time translations showing that the system is out of equilibrium. Furthermore, the decay as a function of $\tau$ is slower the longer $t_w$. This is the phenomenon called [*physical aging*]{}: the younger (older) the sample the faster (slower) the decay. The result of the measurement of a local auto-correlation function is very easy to visualize for a domain growth. Take again the case of ferromagnetic domain growth. the dynamic variables are the Ising spins that we encode in a time-dependent $N$-dimensional vector ${\bbox \phi}(t)=(\phi_1(t),\dots,\phi_N(t))$ (the index $i=1,\dots,N$ labels the spins) and the local auto-correlation function is just the scalar product of two configurations evaluated a different times, $NC(t,t_w) = \langle {\bbox \phi}(t) \cdot {\bbox \phi}(t_w) \rangle$. For Ising spins, the auto-correlation function is normalized to one at equal times. A departure from one measures how different are any two configurations as those shown in Fig. 1. For any fixed $t_w$ the auto-correlation has two distinct regimes depending on the time-difference $\tau\equiv t-t_w$. Let us choose a waiting time ${t_w}_1$ and plot $C(\tau+{t_w}_1,{t_w}_1)$ as a function of $\tau$. The curve has a first fast decay from one to a bath-temperature dependent value $q_{EA}(T)$ (the Edwards-Anderson temperature-dependent parameter). This corresponds to the decorrelation associated to the fast flipping of the spins inside the domains. In this regime $\tau$ is small compared to an increasing function of the domain size $g(L(t_w))$. When $\tau$ increases and becomes of the order of $g(L(t_w))$ one starts seeing the motion of the domain-walls, i.e. the growth of the domains, and the decay slows down. If one repeats this calculation choosing a longer waiting-time ${t_w}_2 > {t_w}_1$, and its associated reference configuration, one observes that the first decay is identical to the one for ${t_w}_1$ though it lasts for longer, and that the second regime is notably slower that the one associated to ${t_w}_1$. These features can be easily understood. While $\tau$ is smaller than $g(L(t_w))$ the dynamics takes place only inside the domains as thermal fluctuations. The domain walls are ignored and the correlation behaves as if the system were a patchwork of the two equilibrium states. The correlation function decay is then independent of the waiting-time and approaches $q_{EA}(T) = m_{\sc eq}^2(T)$. However, after a time-difference of the order of $g(L(t_w))$ the system realizes it has domain walls, the subsequent decay is associated to the motion of the walls and is nonequilibrium in nature. The decay gets slower the longer the $t_w$ simply because the size of the domains reached at $t_w$ is larger. For glassy systems the correlation functions have exactly the same qualitative behaviour though, as already mentioned, it is not easy to decide if there is any type of order growing. Plots like the one displayed in Fig. 2 have been obtained for an impressive number of glassy models of different nature. Some of them are the 3D Edwards-Anderson model,[@Rieger] a polymer melt,[@Baschnagel] a polymer in a random potential,[@Yoshino0] a binary Lennard-Jones mixture,[@Kob1] etc. Furthemore, the kind of curves were found in several sandpile models and other kind of systems.[@sandpile] The measurement of “dc-response” functions or, more precisely, integrated dc-responses is what is usually done experimentally. The starting procedure is similar to the precedent: one prepares the sample at an initial time and lets it freely evolve until $t_w$. At this waiting time one applies a small, constant, perturbation and then measures the associated integrated response of the system as a function of $\tau$ for different $t_w$. For example, experimenting with spin-glasses one applies a small magnetic field and measures the increase of magnetization,[@aging_spinglasses] manipulating with polymer glasses one applies a stress and measure the tensile creep compliance,[@aging_polymers] etc. In all cases, the integrated responses are studied as functions of $t_w$ and $\tau$ and they all show aging effects that manifest in a similar way as in the correlation measurement. There is a first increase of the time-integrated susceptibility towards a value $\chi_1(T)$ that does not depend on the waiting-time while there is a second increase of the time-integrated susceptibility towards the equilibrium value $\chi_{\sc eq}(T)$ that is waiting-time dependent. This can again be simply visualize in the domain growth problem. The first regime corresponds to the response of the spins inside the domains, i.e. to the response of the full system taken to be roughly a patchwork of independent equilibrium states. The second regime instead corresponds to the response of the domain walls. Since their density decreases as time elapses, one expects this nonequilibrium response to vanish in the long witing-time limit. “Ac-response” measurements are also usually performed experimentally.[@aging_orient; @aging_glycerol] In these experiments one applies an ac small field of fixed frequency $\omega$ at the initial time $t_0$ and keeps it applied until the measuring time $t_w$. The relation with the previous results is given by identifying $\omega \sim 1/\tau$. The out of equilibrium character of the evolution is given by an explicit $t_w$ dependence in the relaxation of the in and out of phase susceptibilities. It is important to notice that these effects are [*physical aging*]{} as opposed to [*chemical aging*]{}. Physical aging is totally reversible: it suffices to heat the sample above the transition range and cool it back again below it to recover a fully rejuvenated system. The comparison of spontaneous fluctuation, e.g. a correlation function, to induced fluctuations, measured by its associated response function, is well established for systems evolving in equilibrium. Indeed, this relation involves the temperature of the bath and it is called the [*fluctuation-dissipation theorem*]{}. However, for systems that are far from equilibrium this relation does not necessarily hold. The problem of reaching a theoretical understanding of nonequilibrium physics is important both from a practical and a theoretical point of view. It is obvious that for some applications, one would like to predict the time-evolution of the samples with great precision and avoid undesired changes that depend on the, sometimes unknown, age of the samples. From an analytic point of view, domain-growth and glassy materials are a pattern of out of equilibrium systems whose properties one could try to capture with simple models or simplified approaches to more complex models. The predictions thus obtained can then be experimentally (or numerically) tested in real systems. Importantly enough, one could also try to extend some of these predictions to other nonequilibrium systems such as those externally driven. Some connections between glassy systems and driven systems are discussed in Ref. \[\]. How can one modelise domain growth or glassy systems? The “microscopic” constituents and interactions and, consequently, the microscopic models differ from glass to glass. Spin-glasses are composed of magnetic impurities (spins) that occupy fixed random positions in the sample and interact via RKKY interactions; polymer glasses are composed of polymers (strings) that interact via potentials of (oversimplifying) Lennard-Jones type. In the former case, there is quenched (time-independent) disorder in the system that is associated to the random positions of the spins, that give rise to random interactions between them (the RKKY interactions oscillate very rapidly with the distance between the magnetic impurities and change sign in an almost random manner). In the latter case nothing can be interpreted as being quenched disorder. Though one could expect that these two systems (and other type of glasses) behave very differently, the experimental results as well as the recent theoretical developments show that their dynamical behaviour is indeed rather similar. In other words, one can identify certain quantities that have the same qualitative behaviour. In order to describe the dynamic evolution of a [*classical*]{} system in contact with an environment one starts by identifying the relevant variables of the system that evolve in time. One then proposes a Langevin equation, with noise and friction mimicking the coupling of the system to the thermal bath, to determine the time-evolution of the time-dependent variables. These variables are the (soft) spins in the case of a spin-glass, the monomer positions in the case of the polymer glass, etc. This procedure leads to a set of $N$, the number of dynamic variables in the system, coupled differential equations of second (if inertia is included) or first (if inertia is neglected) order. Obviously, this huge system cannot be solved and one has to resort to some alternative method to further advance in the analysis. Indeed, one would like to obtain information about “macroscopic” quantities, that can be related to experimental measurements, instead of following the erratic motion of any microcopic variable. The two-point correlation or response functions are macroscopic quantities we would like to monitor. A well-known theoretical method, known under the name of Martin-Siggia-Rose (MSR) formalism,[@MSR] allows us to obtain a generating functional, and from it the Schwinger-Dyson integro-differential equations, for these quantities. This method can be applied in complete generality, to any classical model. For models with non-linear interactions of finite range it recquires the calculation of an infinite series of diagrams that one cannot in general resum and express in terms of two-point functions in an explicit form.[@Cirano] One then faces the problem of choosing some approximation scheme to simplify this series expansion. Before discussing how to deal with this problem, let us describe the formalism used to study a [*quantum*]{} system in contact with an environment. The Schwinger-Keldysh closed-time path (CTP) formalism was developed to monitor the nonequilibrium time-evolution of a quantum system, and to obtain information about two-time quantities.[@SK] The environment is usually modelized by a set of harmonic oscillators (infinitely many for each variable in the system) with a spectral distribution of frequencies.[@FV] The coupling of system and bath is usually chosen to be linear but of course more general situations can be considered. In this way, one obtains the CTP generating functional that, as in the classical case, involves a series expansion that, in general, cannot be obtained explicitly. (The classical limit of the CTP generating functional is the MSR generating functional.) Typically, two routes are followed to approximate these generating functionals. They are equally applicable in the classical and quantum case and are the following:[@review] - The microscopic models, namely the starting Hamiltonians, are simplified in such a way that the construction can be carried through and that explicit equations can be derived. This is the choice made when one uses, for example, the large $N$ limit of a $O(N)$-model to describe domain growth, fully connected spin models to describe spin-glasses or when one embeds a finite dimensional manifold in an infinite dimensional space to describe an interface motion, the motion of a polymer in a random medium. - The microscopic models are realistic but some approximation scheme is chosen to select, from the infinite series, a still infinite subset of diagrams that can be resummed to yield an explicit set of dynamic equations for correlations and responses. Many such recipes exist in the literature,[@DIA; @MCA; @SCSA] some of them are the mode-coupling approximation, the direct interaction approximation, the self-consistent screening approximation, etc. These two procedures yield the same “form” of coupled integro-differential causal equations. Actually, in some cases one can show that a simplified microscopic model with infinite range interactions (e.g. the $p$ spin-glass model) yields the same dynamic equations that an approximation scheme (e.g. the mode coupling appoximation) applied to a more realistic model for a glassy material.[@Kithwo; @Frhe] The structure of these equations is always the same: there might be a second time-derivative term if there is inertia, some terms describe the interaction of the system with the bath and some other integral terms describe the interactions in the system (through the self-energy and vertex). It is the explicit form of the self-energy and vertex that is selected by the model or the approximation. Once one has the equations governing the evolution of the two-time quantities, for all values of the parameters, the question then arises as to which is the phenomenology that they describe. A combination of analytic and numeric methods are used to study these equations. One can attempt a numerical solution taking advantage of the fact that they are causal. The solution shows that they present a dynamic phase transition at a temperature $T_d$. Above $T_d$, the solution reaches, in the long waiting-time limit, a stationary form. All two-time correlations and responses are functions of the time-difference only and are related through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The high-temperature dynamic equations for spin-glass were studied in detail by Sompolinsky and Zippelius[@Sozi] for spin-glass models, by Götze and collaborators[@gotze] for glass-models and the relation between these two was signalled and investigated by Kirkpatrick, Thirumalai and Wolynes[@Kithwo] in a series of beautiful papers. Below $T_d$, a drawback of the numerical method is that, due to the slowness of the dynamics and the memory of the system, one cannot reach very long time intervals. The numerical solution gives us hints about the structure of the solution but does not give us extremely precise information about more detailed features such as the two-time scaling laws, etc. Nevertheless, the numerical solution sufficed to show that below $T_d$ two-time functions start depending on the waiting-time and that aging is captured by these equations.[@Cuku] Below $T_d$, and in the asymptotic limit of long waiting-time, an analytical solution was developed first for the $p$ spin-glass model[@Cuku] and later for other mean-field disordered models such as Sherrington-Kirkpatrick[@Cuku2] or the motion of manifolds in infinite dimensional random potentials.[@Frme; @manifold] One of the main ingredients of this solution[@Cuku; @Cuku2] concerns the [*fluctuation-dissipation theorem*]{} that relates, in equilibrium, the spontaneous to the induced fluctuations. Indeed, if one follows the dynamics of a classical system that is in equilibrium with a bath, one can easily show that $$R(t,t') \equiv \left. \frac{\delta \langle O(t) \rangle}{\delta h(t')} \right|_{h=0} = \frac{1}{T} \frac{\partial}{\partial t'} \langle O(t) O(t') \rangle \;\; \theta(t-t') = \frac{1}{T} \frac{\partial}{\partial t'} C(t,t') \;\; \theta(t-t') \; ,$$ with $O(t)$ any observable taken to have zero mean for simplicity and $h$ an infinitesimal field acting a time $t'$ that modifies the energy of the system according to $V \to V - h O$ and that is not correlated with the equilibrium configuration of the system. In the glassy phase, this relation does not hold. This does not come as a surprise since the equilibrium condition under which it can be proven does not apply. What really comes as a surprise is that the modification of the relation between response and correlation takes a rather simple form for domain-growth and glassy systems. A way to quantify the modification of FDT in the out of equilibrium phase and to use it to classify different systems is the following. Let us integrate the response function over a time-interval going from a waiting-time $t_w$ to a final time $t$: $$\chi(t,t_w) = \int_{t_w}^t dt' \, R(t,t') \; .$$ This yields a time-integrated susceptibility that is exactly what is measured experimentally. Next, we compare this integrated-susceptibility to the auto-correlation function. [*In equilibrium*]{}, one can use FDT to show that $$\chi(t,t_w) = \frac{1}{T} \left( C(t,t) - C(t,t_w) \right) \; .$$ Hence, if one draws a plot of $\chi$ against $C$, for increasing $t_w$, using $\tau = t-t_w$ as a parameter, in the large $t_w$ limit the plot will approach a straight line of slope $-1/T$ joining $(\lim_{t\to\infty} C(t,t),0)$ and $(0,\chi_{\sc eq})$. From now on and without loss of generality we take $\lim_{t\to\infty}C(t,t)=1$. Any departure from this straight line signals a modification of FDT and a departure from equilibrium. The analytic solution of simplifed models shows that, in the [*nonequilibrium*]{} phase, this construction converges to a limiting curve given by $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{ t_w\to\infty, C(t,t_w)=C } \chi(t,t_w) &=& \frac{1}{T_{\sc eff}(C)} \, (1-C) \; \end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\sc eff}(C)$ is a function of the correlation $C$. We shall discuss the notation and justify the name of this function below. In the large $t_w$ limit two distinct regimes develop in the $\chi$ vs $C$ curve. There is a first straight line of slope $-1/T$, joining $(1,0)$ and $(q_{EA}(T),\chi_1(T))$. This characterises what is called the FDT regime. The straight line then breaks and the $\chi$ vs $C$ curve goes on in a different manner. The subsequent behaviour depends on the model. Indeed, three families have been identified: - Models describing domain growth like, for example, the $O(N)$ model in $D$ dimensions in the large $N$ limit. In this case, one follows the local correlation $N C(t,t_w) \equiv \langle {\bbox \phi}({\bbox x},t)\cdot {\bbox \phi}({\bbox x},t_w)\rangle $ and its associated local susceptibility. The plot for $C \leq q_{EA}(T)$ is flat.[@Cude] The susceptibility gets stuck at its value $\chi_1(T)$ while the correlation continues decreasing towards zero. The same result holds for the Ohta-Jasnow-Kawasaki approximation to the $\lambda \phi^4$ model of phase separation.[@Cukupa] - Models describing structural glasses like, for example, the so-called $F_{p-1}$ models of the mode-coupling approach or the $p$ spin-glass models. In this case the $\chi$ vs $C$ plot, for $C\leq q_{EA}(T)$, is a straight line of slope larger than $-1/T$.[@Cuku] - Models describing spin-glasses like, for example, the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. In this case the $\chi$ vs $C$ plot, for $C\leq q_{EA}(T)$, is a non-trivial curve.[@Cuku2] This “classification” in three families has been checked numerically for more realistic models. Many numerical simulations using either Montecarlo (MC) techniques or molecular dynamics (MD) have shown that several models fall into the expected cathegories. Some models belonging to the first group are the $2D$ Ising model with conserved and non-conserved order parameter,[@Barrat] the site diluted ferromagnet and the random field Ising model[@Juan2] and the $2D$ Ising model with ferromagnetic exchange and antiferromagnetic dipolar interactions.[@cannas] The binary Lennard-Jones mixtures are a standard model for the glass transtion. Both MC and MD simulations show that they belong to the second class.[@Parisi] Finally, MC simulations of finite dimensional spin-glass models, the three and four dimensional Edwards-Anderson model, yield the third kind of behaviour.[@Juan1] Another particularly interesting problem, relevant for the physics of dirty superconductors,[@manifold] is the one of a manifold diffusing in a random potential. The analytic prediction using an infinite dimensional embedding space depends on the nature of the quenched random potential, namely on it being short or long range correlated.[@Cukule] This prediction is partially confirmed by the simulations in finite dimensional transverse space with the proviso of a very interesting modification that is not captured by the infinite dimensional approach.[@Yoshino] Besides, numerical simulations of lattice-gas modes with kinetic constraints[@sellitto] and sandpile models[@Nicodemi] also show FDT violations. Once this modification of FDT in the nonequilibrium situation is identified, several questions arise, all connected with the initial purpose of checking which thermodynamic concepts can be applied, perhaps after some modifications, to the nonequilibrium case. In the following we discuss three interesting issues. - Why is there always a two-time regime, when $C$ first decays from its equal times value to $q_{EA}(T)$, where FDT holds? For the domain-growth problem the presence of this piece is easy to justify. In this time-scale one only sees the dynamics and the effect of the perturbation inside the domains. Since one can then ignore the presence of domain walls, the equilibrium relation between correlation and response is expected to hold. Of course, one cannot easily extend this argument to a more general situation. There is however a totally general reason for having FDT when $C \geq q_{EA}(T)$ and it is the following. For any system in contact with an environment, with bounded correlation functions and without non-potential forces[^3] the departure from FDT is bounded by[@Cudeku] $${\displaystyle \left| T \chi(t,t_w) - C(t,t) + C(t,t_w) \right| } \leq K \int_{t_w}^t dt' \; \left( -\frac{1}{\gamma N} \frac{d {\cal H}(t')}{dt'} \right)^{1/2} \; \label{bound}$$ where $K$ is a finite constant and $\gamma$ the friction coefficient that characterises the coupling to the bath. The Kubo ${\cal H}$-function is defined as[@Kubo] $${\cal H}(t') \equiv \int d{\bbox \phi} d{\bbox {\dot\phi}} \; P({\bbox \phi},{\bbox {\dot\phi}}, t) \left( T \ln P({\bbox \phi},{\bbox {\dot\phi}}, t) + V({\bbox \phi}) + \frac{m {\bbox {\dot\phi}}^2}{2} \right) \; ,$$ with $P({\bbox \phi},{\bbox {\dot\phi}}, t)$ the time-dependent probability distribution, $V({\bbox \phi})$ the potential energy and $m$ a mass. The ${\cal H}$-function satifies $\dot {\cal H} \leq 0$ for all times and it vanishes only for the canonical distribution. From this bound one sees that if ${\cal H}(t)$ falls to zero faster than $1/t$ no FDT violations are allowed in the long $t_w$ limit since the right-hand-side in Eq. (\[bound\]) vanishes. Instead, if ${\cal H}(t)$ falls to zero in a slower manner, FDT is imposed by the bound for small time-differences but violations are allowed for longer time-differences. This argument proves that there is always a region of correlations close to $C=1$ in which FDT holds, even for a system that is not close to equilibrium. - Can one identify the slope of the plot with an inverse effective temperature and call it $-1/T_{\sc eff}(t,t_w)= -1/T_{\sc eff}(C)$? About ten years ago, in the context of weak-turbulence, Hohenberg and Shraiman[@Hosh] proposed to define an effective temperature through the departure from FDT. However, a detailed analysis of this quantity and its properties was not given in this reference. Indeed, one expects that any quantity to be defined as a nonequilibrium effective temperature must fulfill the requirements associated to the intuitive idea of temperature. The first property to check is if this effective temperature is measurable by a thermometer that is weakly coupled to the system, in a statistical manner, at any chosen waiting time.[@Cukupe] This property can be proven by studying the time-evolution of the thermometer coupled to $M$ identical copies of the system, all of age $t_w$, and by verifying that this equation becomes a Langevin equation in the presence of a thermal bath characterised by a [*coloured noise*]{} with correlation given by the system’s correlation and response given by the system’s response. Thus, if the system has several time-scales characterized by different values of the effective temperatures[^4] $$\begin{aligned} C(t,t_w) &=& C^{\sc fdt}(t,t_w) + C^{(1)}(t,t_w) + C^{(2)}(t,t_w) + \dots \\ R(t,t_w) &=& R^{\sc fdt}(t,t_w) + R^{(1)}(t,t_w) + R^{(2)}(t,t_w) + \dots\end{aligned}$$ with $$R^{\sc fdt}(t,t_w) = \frac{1}{T} \frac{\partial}{\partial t_w} C^{\sc fdt}(t,t_w) \, \theta(t-t_w) \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; R^{(i)}(t,t_w) = \frac{1}{T^{(i)}} \frac{\partial}{\partial t_w} C^{(i)}(t,t_w) \, \theta(t-t_w)$$ one can select which value $T^{(i)}$ is measured by choosing the internal time-scale of the thermometer. Say, for example, that the thermometer is a harmonic oscillator of internal frequency $\omega_o$. Then, one chooses the system time-scale to be explored, and hence the value of the effective temperature to be measured, by comparing $\omega_o$ to $t_w$. Many desirable “thermodynamic” properties of $T_{\sc eff}$ defined in this way can also be checked,[@Cukupe] for example: - $T_{\sc eff}$ controls the direction of heat flows. - $T_{\sc eff}$ controls partial equilibrations between observables in a system that evolve in the same time-scales and interact strongly enough. - Let us take two different glasses, in contact with a single bath of temperature $T$. These glasses are constructed in such a way that when they are not in contact each of them has a piecewise $T_{\sc eff}(C)$ of the form $$\begin{aligned} T^{\sc syst \, 1}_{\sc eff}(C) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} T & {\mbox{if}} \;\; C > q^{(1)}_{EA} \\ T^{(1)} & {\mbox{if}} \;\; C < q^{(1)}_{EA} \end{array} \right. & \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; T^{\sc syst \, 2}_{\sc eff}(C) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} T & {\mbox{if}} \;\; C > q^{(2)}_{EA} \\ T^{(2)} & {\mbox{if}} \;\; C < q^{(2)}_{EA} \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ with $T^{(1)} \neq T^{(2)}$. One can then reproduce the experiment of setting two observables in contact by coupling these two systems through a small linear coupling between their microscopic variables. The result is that above a critical (though small) value of the coupling strength the two values the effective temperatures below $q_{EA}$ equal while below the same critical value of the coupling strength the values remain unaltered. One concludes that if the two observables interact strongly the systems arrange their time-scales in such a way to partially thermalise. The presence of non trivial effective temperatures in glycerol out of equilibrium is presently being checked experimentally by Grigera and Israeloff.[@Tomas] Their results show that, at fixed measuring frequency $\omega_o \sim 8$ Hz, this system has an effective temperature $T_{\sc eff} > T=180 K$ until measuring times of at least $10^5$ sec, that is to say of the order of days! (Note that the bath temperature $T$ is below $T_c=187$ K.) Further support to the notion of effective temperatures comes from the study of the effect of quantum fluctuations on the same family of models.[@Culo] Below a critical line, that separates glassy from equilibrium phases, and in the slow dynamic regime, one finds violations of the quantum fluctuation dissipation theorem. These are characterised by the replacement of the bath temperature by an effective temperature $T_{\sc eff}(t,t_w)$. The effective temperature is again piecewise. It coincides with the bath-temperature $T$ when $C$ is larger than $q_{EA}$ and it is different when $C$ goes below $q_{EA}$. This nonequilibrium value has the nice property of being non-zero even at zero bath-temperature. Again, this result can be interpreted within the domain growth example. Whenever one looks at short time-differences with respect to the waiting-time one explores the quantum and thermal fluctuation in the bulk, i.e. one observes a quantum equilibrium dynamics that satisfies the quantum FDT. Instead, when $\tau$ is comparable to $g(L(t_w))$ one observes the domain wall motion. These are macroscopic objects for which quantum fluctuation do not have a strong effect. This can be seen, for example, in the form of the FDT violations: they look classical though with an effective temperature that depends on the strength of quantum fluctuations. - Do effective temperatures in out of equilibrium systems emerge from a symmetry breaking? In the classical case, one can study the structure of time-scales and effective temperatures with the help of the supersymmetric formulation of stochastic processes.[@Zinn; @Frku] Indeed, it is well-known that the effective action in the MSR generating functional is invariant under a supersymmetric group (with a possible symmetry breaking due to the initial condition). In the kind of glassy systems we deal with, there is a neat separation of time-scales in the long waiting-time limit. This allows us to separate the dynamics in the fast scale from the dynamics in the slow time-scales. The equation governing the slow time-scales, have an enlarged symmetry: they acquire an invariance under super-reparametrizations. The only solution that respects the large symmetry is a trivial, constant one. Hence, in order to have non-trivial dynamics in the long waiting-time limit, the system has to spontaneously break the super-reparametrization invariance. One can prove that the choice of effective temperatures is intimately related to the spontaneous breaking of this invariance.[@Cuku3] A similar analysis in the quantum case remains to be developed. In conclusion, we have summarized some interesting features of the slow out of equilibrium dynamics of domain growth and glassy systems. We have explained why these features arise in the domain-growth case. A similar understanding has not been reached for glassy systems yet. With the purpose of developing a “visual” understanding of glassy physics, a careful analysis of the statistics and organisation of the configurations visited by a glass model during its nonequilibrium evolution is in order. The use of simplified models or, alternatively, self-consistent approximations to more realistic ones have yielded a number of very interesting results and new predicitons. In particular, these models capture much of the aging phenomenology of glassy systems. Surprisingly enough, even puzzling effects of temperature cyclings during aging in spin-glasses, and the absence of these effects in other kind of glasses, can be described by fully-connected models.[@Cuku4] Some of these new predictions, notably the modification of FDT, have been tested numerically and experiments are now being performed. Obviously, it is desirable to go beyond these approximations and study more realistic models in finite dimensions. This, however, is a very difficult task. There have been innumerable attempts to define a temperature for an out of equilibrium system. In particular, in the context of glassy materials, a “fictive temperature” is often introduced to describe some of the experimental findings.[@aging_polymers] The effective temperature discussed in this article has the most welcome property of being measurable, hence being open to experimental tests. As far as we have checked the definition, it also has the welcome property of conforming to the common prejudices one has of a temperature. Of course there are still many open questions related to it. Just to mention one, let us say that it would be very interesting to extend the analytical experiment of “coupling a thermometer to a system” to the quantum case. I wish to especially thank J. Kurchan with whom I have done much of the work on this subject and H. Castillo for suggestions concerning the preparation of this manuscript. [99]{} For a review of domain growth see A. J. Bray, [*Adv. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{}, 357 (1994). C. A. A. Angell, Science [**267**]{}, 1924 (1995). For a review of the theoretical approach to glassy dynamics see J-P Bouchaud, L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and M. Mézard, [*Out of equilibrium dynamics in spin-glasses and other glassy systems*]{}, cond-mat/9702070, in [*Spin-glasses and random fields*]{}, A. P. Young ed. (World Scientific, Singapore). F. Alberici-Kious, J-P Bouchaud, L. F. Cugliandolo, P. Doussineau and A. Levelut; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4987 (1998). K. Binder and A. P. Young; Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{}, 801 (1986). M. Mézard, G. Parisi and M. A. Virasoro; [*Spin glass theory and beyond*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987). K. H. Fischer and J. A. Hertz, [*Spin Glasses*]{}, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991). L. Lundgren, P. Svedlindh, P. Nordblad and O. Beckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 911 (1983). E. Vincent, J. Hammann, M. Ocio, J.P. Bouchaud and L. F. Cugliandolo; [*Slow dynamics and aging*]{} in Sitges Conference on Glassy Systems, M. Rubí ed. (Springer-Verlag, 1997), cond-mat/9607224. L. C. E. Struick, [*Physical aging in amorphous systems and other materials*]{} (Elsevier, Houston, 1978). I. Hodge, Science [**267**]{}, 1945 (1996). G. B. Mc Kenna, J. Res. NIST [**99**]{}, 169 (1994) and references therein. D. Bonn, H. Tanaka, H. Kellay, G. Wegdam and J. Meunier; Europhys. Lett. (1998). D. Bonn, H. Tanaka and J. Meunier, Europhys. Lett. [**45**]{}, 52 (1999). R. L. Leheny and S. Nagel; Phys. Rev. [**B57**]{}, 5154 (1998). D.S. Fisher and D.A. Huse; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 1601 (1986); Phys. Rev. [**B38**]{}, 373 (1988). G. Tarjus and D. Kivelson, J. Chem. Phys. [**109**]{}, 5481 (1998). H. Rieger, [*Ann Rev. of Comp. Phys.*]{} II, ed. D. Stauffer (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995). W. Paul and J. Baschnagel, in [*Monte Carlo dynamic simulations in polymer science*]{}, K. Binder ed. (Oxford University Press, 1995). H. Yoshino, J. Phys. [**A29**]{}, 1421 (1996). A. Barrat, Phys. Rev. [**E55**]{}, 5651 (1997). W. Kob and J-L Barrat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4581 (1997). S. Boettcher and M. Paczuski, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**79**]{}, 889 (1997). S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. [**E56**]{}, 6466 (1997). O. Sotolongo-Costa, A. Vázquez, J. C. Antoranz, [*Aging and Lévy distributions in sandpiles*]{} cond-mat/9901086. J. Kurchan, [*Rheology, and how to stop aging*]{}, cond-mat/9812347, Proceedings of [*Jamming and Rheology: constrained dynamics on microscopic and macroscopic scales*]{}, ITP, Santa Barbara, 1997. C. P. Martin, E. Siggia and H. A. Rose, Phys. Rev. [**A8**]{}, 423 (1973). H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. [**B23**]{}, 377 (1976); [*Dynamics of critical phenomena and related Topics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**104**]{}, C. P. Enz ed., (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979). C. de Dominicis and P. C. Martin, J. Math. Phys. [**5**]{}, 14 (1964), [*ibid*]{} 31 (1964). L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. [**D9**]{}, 2904 (1974), [*ibid*]{} 3320 (1974). J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. [**D10**]{}, 2428 (1974). J. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 407 (1961). L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**47**]{}, 1515 (1964), Sov. Phys JETP [ **20**]{}, 235 (1965). R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann Phys. [**24**]{}, 118 (1963). R. Kraichnan, J. Fluid. Mech. [**5**]{}, 497 (1959), [*ibid*]{} [**7**]{} (1961) 124. K. Kawasaki, Ann. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (1970). A. J. Bray, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 1413 (1974). T. D. Kirkpatrick and D. Thirumalai; Phys. Rev. [**B36**]{}, 5388 (1987). T. R. Kirkpatrick and P. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. [**A35**]{}, 3072 (1987). Phys. Rev. [**B36**]{}, 8552 (1987). T. R. Kirkpatrick, D. Thirumalai, P. G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. [**A40**]{}, 1045 (1989). S. Franz and J. Hertz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2114 (1995). H. Sompolinsky and A. Zippelius, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 359 (1981), Phys. Rev. [**B25**]{}, 6860 (1982). W. Götze, in [*Liquids, freezing and glass transition*]{}, eds. JP Hansen, D. Levesque, J. Zinn-Justin Editors, Les Houches 1989 (North Holland). W. Götze and L. Sjögren, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**55**]{}, 241 (1992). L. F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 173 (1993); Phil. Mag. [**B71**]{}, 501 (1995). L. F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan; J. Phys. [**A27**]{}, 5749 (1994). S. Franz and M. Mézard; Europhys. Lett. [**26**]{}, 209 (1994); Physica [**A209**]{}, 1 (1994). L. F. Cugliandolo and P. Le Doussal; Phys. Rev. [**E53**]{}, 1525 (1996). T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, [*Statics and Dynamics of Disordered Elastic Systems*]{}, cond-mat/9705096, in [*Spin Glasses and Random Fields*]{}, ed. A.P. Young, World Scientific (Singapore) 1998. L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and P. Le Doussal; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2390 (1996). L. F. Cugliandolo and D. S. Dean, J. Phys. [**A28**]{}, 4213 (1995), [*ibid*]{} L453 (1995). L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and G. Parisi, [*J. Phys.*]{} I (France), [**4**]{}, 1641 (1994). L. Berthier, J-L Barrat and J. Kurchan, [*Response Function of Coarsening Systems*]{}, cond-mat/9903091. A. Barrat, Phys. Rev. [**E57**]{}, 3629 (1998). G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, cond-mat/9811374. D. A. Stariolo and S. A. Cannas; [*Violation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem in a two-dimensional Ising model with dipolar interactions*]{}, cond-mat/9903136. G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3660 (1997). W. Kob and J-L Barrat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4581 (1997). J-L Barrat and W. Kob, [*Fluctuation dissipation ratio in an aging Lennard-Jones glass*]{}, cond-mat/9806027 and in preparation. S. Franz and H. Rieger, J. Stat. Phys. [**79**]{}, 749 (1995). E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, J. Phys. [**A31**]{}, 2611 (1998). H. Yoshino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1493 (1998). M. Sellitto, [*Fluctuation-dissipation ratio in lattice-gas models with kinetic constraints*]{}, cond-mat/9804168. M. Nicodemi, [*Dynamical response functions in models of vibrated granular media*]{}, cond-mat/9809346. L. F. Cugliandolo, D. S. Dean and J. Kurchan; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2168 (1997). L. Laloux and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. [**E57**]{}, 6296 (1998). R. Kubo, M. Toda and N. Hashitume, [*Statistical Physics II. Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1992. P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Shraiman, Physica [**D37**]{}, 109 (1989). L.F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. [**E55**]{}, 3898 (1997). N. E. Israeloff and T. Grigera, Europhys. Lett. [**43**]{}, 308 (1998). T. Grigera and N. E. Israeloff, in preparation. L. F. Cugliandolo and G. Lozano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4979 (1998); Phys. Rev. [**B59**]{}, 915 (1999). J. Zinn-Justin, [*Quantum field theory and critical phenomena*]{}, Oxford University Press, 1996. J. Kurchan, J. Phys. (France) I [**2**]{}, 1333 (1992). S. Franz and J. Kurchan, Europhys. Lett. [**20**]{}, 197 (1992). L. F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, Physica [**A263**]{}, 242 (1999), cond-mat/9807226, and in preparation. L. F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, cond-mat/9812229, to appear in Phys. Rev. [**B**]{}. [^1]: Based on talks given at “Trends in Theoretical Physics II”, November 30 - December 4, 1998, Buenos Aires, Argentina and in the NATO Advanced Study Institute “Topological Defects and the Non-Equilibrium Dynamics of Symmetry Breaking Phase Transitions", February 16 - 26, 1999, Les Houches, France. LPTENS/9910 [^2]: In the sense that no external perturbation is keeping them far from equilibrium. [^3]: Other bounds can be found if diffusion and/or non-potential forces are allowed.[@Cudeku; @Lale] [^4]: See Ref. \[\] for a precise definition of two-time scales.

--- abstract: | We consider zero sum stochastic differential games with possibly path–dependent controlled state. Unlike the previous literature, we allow for weak solutions of the state equation so that the players’ controls are automatically of feedback type. Under some restrictions, needed for the [*a priori*]{} regularity of the upper and lower value functions of the game, we show that the game value exists when both the appropriate path–dependent Isaacs condition, and the uniqueness of viscosity solutions of the corresponding [path–dependent]{} Isaacs–HJB equation hold. We also provide a general verification argument and a characterisation of saddle–points by means of an appropriate notion of second–order backward SDE. [**Key words:**]{} Stochastic differential games, viscosity solutions of path–dependent PDEs, second–order backward SDEs. [**AMS 2000 subject classifications:**]{} 35D40, 35K10, 60H10, 60H30. author: - 'Dylan [Possamaï]{}[^1]' - 'Nizar [Touzi]{}[^2]' - 'Jianfeng [Zhang]{}[^3]' bibliography: - 'bibliographyDylan.bib' title: '**Zero–sum path–dependent stochastic differential games in weak formulation**' --- Introduction {#sect:introduction} ============ Stochastic differential games have attracted important attention during the last three decades. Due to the crucial role of the information structure, the corresponding literature is technically and conceptually more involved than standard stochastic control. It had been recognised as early as in the 60s, in a series of papers by Varaiya [@varaiya1967existence], Roxin [@roxin1969axiomatic] and Elliot and Kalton [@elliot1972existence], in the context of deterministic differential games, that having both players play a classical control generally led to ill–posed problems, and that the appropriate notion was rather that of a strategy, that is to say that a given player uses a non–anticipative map from the other player’s set of controls to his own set of controls. Earlier definitions of value functions for games require appropriate approximations procedures, by discrete–time games in Fleming’s definition [@fleming1957note; @fleming1961convergence; @fleming1964convergence], or by discretising the players’s actions in Friedman’s definition [@friedman1970definition; @friedman1971differential] (see also Varaiya and Lin [@varaiya1969existence] for an earlier related notion). This makes the whole approach technically cumbersome. The connexion between the value function of the game and the corresponding Hamilton–Jacobi–Isaacs partial differential equation was formally established by Isaacs [@isaacs1954differential; @isaacs1965differential] in the 50s. The Elliot–Kalton definition induces an easy argument to prove rigorously this connexion by using the notion of viscosity solutions, see Evans and Souganidis [@evans1984differential2], as well as the generalisation by Evans and Ishii [@evans1984differential][^4]. The Elliot–Kalton strategies have been successfully generalised to the context of stochastic differential games by Fleming and Souganidis [@fleming1989existence], where the above mentioned strategy map is restricted to adapted controls. Despite the asymmetry between the two players of the induced game problem formulation, this approach has been followed by an important strand of the literature in continuous–time stochastic differential games, see notably the revisits of Buckdahn and Li [@buckdahn2008stochastic] or Fleming and Hernández-Hernández [@fleming2011value]. [ This approach has some important drawbacks, however. Besides some stemming from practical considerations, see Remark \[rem-fleming1989existence1\], the asymmetry between the players makes the problem of existence of saddle–points much harder in general. This justified the recent emergence of several alternative formulations of the game. While the corresponding results may look similar at first sight, these reformulations have very subtle differences. We shall devote Section \[sect:formulation\] completely to an incremental presentation of the different formulations which appeared in the literature, with appropriate examples highlighting the main differences. In particular, when the diffusion coefficient is not controlled by any of the players, the problem is completely addressed in Hamadène and Lepeltier [@hamadene1995zero], see Subsection \[sect:hamadene1995zero\]. However, when the diffusion coefficient is also controlled, all the results in the literature require the control/strategy to be simple in some sense. This constraint makes it essentially impossible to obtain the existence of saddle points under those formulations. ]{} The main contribution of this paper is to show that considering stochastic differential games in weak formulation allows to bypass major difficulties pointed out in the previous literature. In our setting, introduced in Section \[sect:setting\], the controlled state process is a weak solution of the possibly path–dependent stochastic differential equation $$\mathrm{d}X^{\alpha}_t = b_t\big(X^{\alpha},\alpha^0_t,\alpha^1_t\big) \mathrm{d}t + \sigma_t\big(X^{\alpha},\alpha^0_t,\alpha^1_t\big) \mathrm{d}W_t,$$ where $W$ is a Brownian motion with appropriate dimension, $b$ and $\sigma$ are non–anticipating functions of the path, and $\alpha=(\alpha^0,\alpha^1)$ is the pair of controls of Players $0$ and $1$, respectively. We consider the largest set of controls $\alpha^i:[0,T]\times C^0([0,T])\longmapsto A^i$, $i=0,1$, by only assuming the natural non–anticipativity and measurability properties. In particular, we do not impose that they are simple in some sense so as to guarantee existence of a strong solution for the above state equation. Again, our approach is to consider weak solutions, without requiring uniqueness of such a solution. Our first main result, reported in Theorem \[thm-gamevalue\], states that, under the path–dependent Isaacs condition, uniqueness of viscosity solutions implies existence of the game value. Section \[sect-Vt\] contains the technical arguments to prove this result, following the dynamic programming arguments as in Pham and Zhang [@pham2014two]. Our proof relies on the notion of path–dependent viscosity solutions, introduced by Ekren, Touzi and Zhang [@ekren2016viscosity; @ekren2012viscosity]. Observe that this result covers the Markovian setting under the uniqueness condition of viscosity solutions in the standard sense of Crandall and Lions [@crandall1983viscosity], as our set of test functions includes theirs. As our technique requires some [*a priori*]{} regularity for the game upper and lower values, Theorem \[thm-gamevalue\] is established under restricting conditions on the coefficients $b$ and $\sigma$ which are essentially summarised in Assumption \[assum-bsi\], see also Section \[sect-extension\] for a slight weakening of these conditions. Notice that the remarkable work of Sîrbu [@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic] does not need any such restrictions, as the Perron–like method this author uses allows to bypass the task of deriving directly the dynamic programming principle. However, the method is restricted to the Markovian setting, and the players controls are simple and thus much less general than the ones we consider here. As a second main result reported in Theorem \[thm-verification\], we provide a verification argument, still under the path-dependent Isaacs condition, including a characterisation of saddle–points. We emphasise that when the volatility of the diffusion is degenerate, this result is new, even in the special Markovian setting, as the value function of the game may fail to lie in the standard Sobolev spaces, due to possible non–existence of a density of the corresponding state equation. By further considering a convenient relaxation, we also provide in Theorem \[thm:2bsde\] a characterisation by means of an appropriate notion of second–order backward SDE, which plays the same role as the Sobolev–type solution for the corresponding Hamilton–Jacobi-Bellman–Isaacs (HJBI for short) partial differential equation. [**Notations:**]{} Throughout the paper, for $i=0, 1$, we assume that the control of Player $i$ takes values in $A_i\subset \dbR^{d_i}$, for some arbitrary integer $d_i$. We define $A := A_1 \times A_2$, and denote typically the elements of $A$ as $a = (a_0, a_1)$. Throughout this paper, for every $p-$dimensional vector $b$ with $p\in \mathbb{N}$, we denote by $b^{1},\ldots,b^{p}$ its entries, for $1\leq i\leq p$. For $\alpha,\beta \in \R^p$ we denote by $\alpha\cdot \beta$ the usual inner product, with associated norm $|\cdot|$. For any $(\ell,c)\in\mathbb N \times\mathbb N $, $\mathcal M_{\ell,c}(\mathbb R)$ denotes the space of $\ell\times c$ matrices with real entries. The elements of matrix $M\in\mathcal M_{\ell,c}$ are denoted $(M^{i,j})_{1\leq i\leq \ell,\ 1\leq j\leq c}$, and the transpose of $M$ is denoted by $M^\top$. We identify $\mathcal M_{\ell,1}$ with $\R^\ell$. When $\ell=c$, we let $\mathcal M_{\ell}(\mathbb R):=\mathcal M_{\ell,\ell}(\mathbb R)$. We also denote by $\dbS^\ell$ (resp. $\dbS^\ell_+$) the set of symmetric (resp. symmetric semi–definite positive) matrices in $\Mc_{\ell}(\R)$. The trace of a matrix $M\in\mathcal M_\ell(\R)$ will be denoted by ${\rm Tr}[M]$. [For further reference, we list here all the filtrations that will be used throughout the paper. For any filtration $\mathbb G:=(\Gc_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$, and for any probability measure $\P$ on our space $(\O,\Fc)$, we denote by $\G^\P:=(\Gc^\P_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ the usual $\P-$augmentation[^5] of $\G$, and by $\G^+:=(\Gc_t^+)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ the right–limit of $\G$. Similarly, the right limit of $\G^\P$ will be denoted by $\G^{\P+}:=(\Gc^{\P+}_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$. For technical reasons, we also need to introduce the universal filtration $\G^{U} := \big(\Gc^{U}_t \big)_{0 \le t \le T}$ defined by $\mathcal G^{U}_t:=\cap_{\P \in \mbox{\tiny Prob}(\Omega)}\Gc_t^{\P}$, $t\in[0,T]$, where ${\rm Prob}(\O)$ is the set of all probability measures on $(\O,\Fc)$, ]{}and we denote by [$\G^{U+}$]{}, the corresponding right–continuous limit. Moreover, for a subset $\Pc\subset \mbox{Prob}(\Omega)$, we introduce the set of $\Pc-$polar sets $\mathcal N^{\Pc}:=\big\{N\subset\Omega: N\subset A$ for some $A\in\mathcal F_T$ with $\sup_{\P\in\Pc}\P(A)=0\big\}$, and we introduce the $\Pc-$completion of $\G$, $\G^{\Pc}:=\left(\Gc^{\Pc}_t\right)_{t\in[0,T]},$ with $\Gc^{\Pc}_t:=\Gc^{U}_t\vee\sigma\left(\Nc^{\Pc}\right),$ $t\in[0,T],$ together with the corresponding right–continuous limit $\G^{\Pc+}$. Stochastic differential game formulations and examples {#sect:formulation} ====================================================== In this section we introduce the main formulations of zero–sum stochastic differential games from the existing literature, and explain through several examples why we have chosen to concentrate our attention on the “weak formulation with control against control”. [The section is somewhat lengthy. However, due to the subtleties involved in the formulations, we think such a detailed introduction will prove helpful for our readers.]{} Strong formulation with control against control {#sect:strong} ----------------------------------------------- Fix some time horizon $T>0$. In the strong formulation paradigm, a filtered probability space $(\O, \mathcal F,\dbF:=(\mathcal F_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}, \dbP_0)$, on which is defined a $d-$dimensional Brownian motion $W$, is fixed. We denote by $\mathbb F^W$ the natural filtration of $W$, augmented under $\mathbb P_0$, and for $i=0,1$, we let $\cA^i_{\rm S}$ denote the set of $\dbF^W-$progressively measurable $A_i-$valued processes, and $\cA_{\rm S}:= \cA^0_{\rm S}\times \cA^1_{\rm S}$. Throughout the paper, we take the notational convention that we write $i$ as subscript for deterministic objects and as superscript for random objects. Consider then, for $i=0,1$ the following $n-$dimensional controlled state processes with controls $\a := (\a^0,\a^1)\in \cA_{\rm S}$ $$\label{Strong-X} X^{\a}_t := \int_0^t b(s, X^\a_s, \a_s) \mathrm{d}s+ \int_0^t \si(s, X^\a_s, \a_s) \mathrm{d}W_s,\; t\in[0,T],\; \dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ where $b:[0,T]\times\mathbb R^n\times A\longrightarrow\mathbb R^n$ and $\sigma: [0,T]\times\mathbb R^n\times A\longrightarrow\mathbb R^{n\times d}$ are appropriate Borel measurable functions so that the above SDE has a unique strong solution for any $\a \in \cA_{\rm S}$. We introduce the so–called upper and lower values of the game $$\begin{aligned} \label{Strong-V0} \overline{V}^{\rm S}_0 := \inf_{\a^0\in \Ac_{\rm S}^0} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA_{\rm S}^1} J_{\rm S}(\a^0,\a^1), &\mbox{and}& \underline{V}^{\rm S}_0 := \sup_{\a^1\in \cA_{\rm S}^1} \inf_{\a^0\in \cA_{\rm S}^0} J_{\rm S}(\a^0,\a^1),\end{aligned}$$ where the criterion of the players $J_{\rm S}$ is defined, for some appropriate functions $f: [0,T]\times\mathbb R^n\times A\longrightarrow\mathbb R$ and $g:\mathbb R^n\longrightarrow\mathbb R$, by $$\label{Strong-J} J_{\rm S}(\a) := \dbE^{\dbP_0}\bigg[g(X^\a_T) + \int_0^T f(t, X^\a_t, \a_t) \mathrm{d}t\bigg].$$ It is clear by definition that ${\underline}V^{\rm S}_0 \le {\overline}V^{\rm S}_0$. There are two central problems for the game defined above: - Does the game value exists, namely ${\overline}V^{\rm S}_0 = {\underline}V^{\rm S}_0$? - Is there a saddle–point (also called equilibrium) for the game? That is to say, can we find some $\widehat\a:= (\widehat \a^0, \widehat \a^1) \in \cA_{\rm S}$ such that $$\label{Strong-equilibrium} J_{\rm S}(\widehat \a^0, \a^1) \le J_{\rm S}(\widehat \a^0, \widehat \a^1) \le J_{\rm S}(\a^0, \widehat \a^1),~\mbox{for any}~ \a^0\in \cA_{\rm S}^0,\; \a^1 \in \cA_{\rm S}^1.$$ Notice immediately that the existence of a saddle–point $\widehat \a$ implies automatically that the game value exists, and is equal to $J_S(\widehat \a)$. Despite the fact that the above formulation is very close to the usual framework of stochastic control, it has never been considered in the literature, since even in seemingly benign situations, the game value may fail to exist. \[eg-strong\] This is a simplified version of an example borrowed from R. Buckdahn, see [@pham2014two Appendix E]. Let $A_0=A_1 = [-1,1]$, $d=n=2$, and $c\in\dbR$, $\rho \in [-1, 1]$ be two constants. Consider the following specification $$f:=0,\; g(x):=\big|x_1-x_2\big|^2,\; b(t,x,a):=\begin{pmatrix}a_0\\ a_1\end{pmatrix},\; \sigma(t,x,a):=\begin{pmatrix}c & 0\\ c\rho & c\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\end{pmatrix}.$$ In this case, we have $$X^{1,\a}_t := \int_0^t \a^0_s \mathrm{d}s + c W^1_t,\; X^{2,\a}_t := \int_0^t \a^1_s \mathrm{d}s + c \big[\rho W^1_t + \sqrt{1-\rho^2} W^2_t\big],\; J_{\rm S}(\a) := \dbE^{\dbP_0}\Big[|X^{1,\a}_T-X^{2,\a}_T|^2\Big].$$ Then, we claim that $$\begin{aligned} {\underline}V^{\rm S}_0 \;\le\; 2(1-\rho)c^2 T &\mbox{and}& T^2 \;\le\; {\overline}V^{\rm S}_0. \end{aligned}$$ so that ${\underline}V^{\rm S}_0 < {\overline}V^{\rm S}_0$ whenever $2(1-\rho)c^2 < T$, and the game does not have a value in this formulation. To see this, notice that for any $\a^1 \in \cA_S^1$, if Player $0$ also plays the control $\alpha^1$, we have $$J_{\rm S}(\a^1, \a^1) = \dbE^{\dbP_0}\Big[\big|c(1-\rho) W^1_T - c\sqrt{1-\rho^2} W^2_T\big|^2\Big] = 2(1-\rho)c^2T.$$ Thus $\inf_{\a^0\in \cA_{\rm S}^0} J_{\rm S}(\a^0, \a^1) \le 2(1-\rho)c^2T$, so that by arbitrariness of $\a^1\in \mathcal A_{\rm S}^1$, we have ${\underline}V^S_0\le 2(1-\rho)c^2T$. On the other hand, for any $\a^0\in \cA_{\rm S}^0$, set $$x_0 := \dbE^{\dbP_0}\bigg[\int_0^T \a^0_sds\bigg], \; {\rm sgn}(x_0) := \1_{\{x_0\ge 0\}} - \1_{\{x_0< 0\}}\in A_1,\; \a^1_t := - {\rm sgn}(x_0), \; t\in [0,T].$$ Then by Jensen’s inequality $$\begin{aligned} J_{\rm S}(\a^0, \a^1) \ge \Big|\dbE^{\dbP_0}\big[X^{1,\a}_T-X^{2,\a}_T\big]\Big|^2&= \bigg|\dbE^{\dbP_0}\bigg[\int_0^T \a^0_s \mathrm{d}s -\int_0^T\a^1_sds\bigg]\bigg|^2= \big|x_0 + T{\rm sgn}(x_0)\big|^2 \ge |T{\rm sgn}(x_0)|^2 = T^2.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $\sup_{\a^1\in\cA_{\rm S}^1} J_{\rm S}(\a^0, \a^1)\ge T^2$ for any $\a^0\in\cA_{\rm S}^0$, and thus ${\overline}V^{\rm S}_0\ge T^2$. [ We recall that the zero–sum game – is closely related to the following HJBI PDEs $$\label{PDE1} - \pa_t {\overline}v - {\overline}H(t, x, D {\overline}v, D^2{\overline}v) =0,\; - \pa_t {\underline}v - {\underline}H(t, x,D {\underline}v, D^2 {\underline}v) =0,$$ where the Hamiltonians ${\overline}H, {\underline}H$ are defined as: $$\label{Hamiltonian1} \left.\begin{array}{c} \dis h(t,x,z,\g, a) := {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[(\si\si^\top)(t,x,a) \g\big] + b(t,x,a) \cd z+ f(t,x, a), \; (t,x,z,\gamma,a)\in[0,T]\times\R^d\times\mathbb R^d\times\mathbb S^d,\\[0.5em] \dis {\overline}H(t,x,z,\g) := \inf_{a_0\in A_0} \sup_{a_1\in A_1} h(t,x,z,\g, a_0, a_1), \; {\underline}H(t,x,z,\g) := \sup_{a_1\in A_1}\inf_{a_0\in A_0} h(t,x,z,\g, a_0, a_1). \end{array}\right.$$ Moreover, the following Isaacs condition is crucial for the existence of the game value: $$\label{Isaacs1} {\overline}H = {\underline}H =: H.$$ Under the above condition, we say $(\hat a_0, \hat a_1)\in A$ is a saddle point of the Hamiltonian $H$ at $(t,x,z,\g)$ if $$\label{saddle1} h(t,x,z,\g, \hat a_0, a_1) \le H(t,x,z,\g) \le h(t,x,z,\g, a_0, \hat a_1) \q\mbox{for all}\q a_0\in A_0, a_1\in A_1.$$ ]{} \[rem-novalue\] Direct calculation reveals that the Isaacs condition holds in the context of Example \[eg-strong\], with $$H(z,\g) ={\frac{c^2}2} \big(\g_{11} + \g_{22} + 2\rho \g_{12}\big)+ |z_2|- |z_1|,\; (z,\g)\in \dbR^2\times \dbS^2.$$ So the game value does not exist, despite the fact that Isaacs’s condition holds. Notice as well that when $c=0$, this is a deterministic game, and when $c>0$ and $|\rho|<1$, $\si$ is non–degenerate. Thus potential degeneracy of the diffusion coefficient is not the reason for the non–existence of the game value. Strong formulation with strategy against control {#sect:fleming1989existence} ------------------------------------------------ As we have seen above, naively considering games in a control against control formulation usually leads to non–existence of the game value. One way to properly formalise the fact that in continuous–time differential games the players also observe each other continuously consists in introducing the notion of non–anticipative strategies. Roughly speaking, in such a framework a strategy for one player is simply a non–anticipative map from the set of controls of the other player to the set of controls of this player. Though strategies were introduced in deterministic games by Varaiya [@varaiya1967existence], Roxin [@roxin1969axiomatic] and Elliot and Kalton [@elliot1972existence], the first work to extend this notion in a stochastic setting is due to Fleming and Souganidis [@fleming1989existence]. Let us now give a proper definition. \[fleming1989existence-strategy\] Let $\cS^0$ denote the set of mappings ${\rm a}^0: \cA_S^1\longrightarrow \cA_S^0$ such that, for any $t\in [0,T]$, and any $(\a^1, \widetilde \a^1)\in \cA_S^1\times \Ac^1_S$ satisfying $\a^1 = \widetilde \a^1$, $ds\times d\dbP_0-$[a.s.]{} on $[0, t]\times \O$, we have ${\rm a}^0(\a^1) ={\rm a}^0(\widetilde \a^1)$, $ds\times d\dbP_0-$[a.s.]{} on $[0, t]\times \O$. Similarly we define $\cS^1$ as the set of appropriate mappings ${\rm a}^1: \cA_S^0\longrightarrow \cA_S^1$. The upper and lower values in this formulation are then defined as $$\label{fleming1989existence-V} {\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0 := \sup_{{\rm a}^1 \in \cS^1} \inf_{\a^0 \in \cA_S^0} J_{\rm S}(\a^0, {\rm a}^1(\a^0)), \; {\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0 := \inf_{{\rm a}^0 \in \cS^0} \sup_{\a^1 \in \cA_S^1} J_{\rm S}({\rm a}^0(\a^1), \a^1).$$ We emphasise that in this framework, the upper value is defined as a $\sup \inf$, rather than an $\inf \sup$. Besides, since the setting is by nature asymmetric, it is not [*a priori*]{} clear that $${\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0 \le {\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0,\; \text{or}\; {\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0 \le {\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0.$$ Nevertheless, this formulation has been very successful in the existing literature because the game value is well understood, and characterised by the so–called Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman–Isaacs PDE. The main result of Fleming and Souganidis [@fleming1989existence Theorem 2.6] is the following. \[thm-fleming1989existence\] Under appropriate technical conditions on the coefficients $b, \si, f, g$, we have ${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0 = {\overline}v(0,0)$, ${\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0 = {\underline}v(0,0)$, where ${\overline}v$, ${\underline}v$ are viscosity solutions of the corresponding [HJBI]{} equations . In particular, if Isaacs condition holds, and the viscosity solution to the above [PDEs]{} is unique, then ${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0={\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0$, and the game value exists. Notice that the approach of Fleming and Souganidis [@fleming1989existence] has been substantially improved and simplified by Buckdahn and Li [@buckdahn2008stochastic] (see also the works of Bouchard, Moreau and Nutz [@bouchard2014stochastic] and Bouchard and Nutz [@bouchard2015stochastic] for a similar approach in stochastic target games), who considered a similar framework, allowing for controls depending on the full past of the trajectories of $W$ (implying in particular that their cost functionals become random variables), and also for more general running cost functionals in the form of backward SDEs. Though their framework remains Markovian, a recent extension to non–Markovian dynamics has been proposed by Zhang [@zhang2017existence; @zhang2017existence2], relying on top of the BSDE method of Buckdahn and Li, on an approximation of the non–Markovian game by sequences of standard Markovian games. While the above results are beautiful mathematically, it has two major drawbacks, as illustrated in the following two remarks. \[rem-fleming1989existence1\] The strategies are typically difficult to implement in practice. In the problem ${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0$, Player $1$ needs to observe the control $\a^0$ of Player $0$. But since this is a zero–sum game, the players typically would not tell their competitors their controls, due to the so–called moral hazard. Notice further that the strategy ${\rm a}^1$ is a function of the whole process $\a^1$, rather than the paths of $\a^1$. This imposes further difficulty for the practical implementation of non–anticipative strategies. [Even in the full information case $($without moral hazard$)$]{}, the players do not actually observe their opponent’s adapted control, but just a realisation of this control in the actual state of the world. \[rem-fleming1989existence2\] The study of the existence of saddle–points in this setting also proves very difficult. Among some of the reasons, we would like to highlight the following. The information is asymmetric in this setting. As a consequence, it is not possible to define saddle–points as conveniently as in the spirit of . The problem ${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0$ can be viewed as a zero–sum Stackelberg game, which requires to solve sequential optimisation problems. Given ${\rm a}^1$, it will in general be difficult to solve $\inf_{\a^0\in \cA_S^0} J_S(\a^0, {\rm a}^1(\a^0))$, since as a general strategy there are not many properties we can impose on ${\rm a}^1$. The optimisation over ${\rm a}^1$ can then become even harder. Moreover, we emphasise that this formulation is still in a strong setting, namely all involved processes are required to be $\dbF^W-$progressively measurable. In this case, the set $\cA_S$ of admissible controls is typically not compact, meaning that saddle–points are even less likely to exist. We illustrate the above points by considering two examples where saddle–points cannot exist, no matter how one defines them. For this purpose, we borrow a function $\zeta$ from Barlow [@barlow1982one] which satisfies the following properties - $\zeta: \dbR\longrightarrow [1, 2]$ and is uniformly Hölder continuous. - The following SDE admits a unique (in law) weak solution but no strong solution $$\label{BarlowSDE} X_t = \int_0^t \zeta(X_s) \mathrm{d}W_s,\; \dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ \[eg-fleming1989existence\] Set $A_0 := [1, 2], A_1 := \{0\}$ and $d=1$. Consider the following specification $$b(t,x,a):=0,\; \sigma(t,x,a):=|a_0|,\; g(x):=|x|^2,\; f(t,x,a):=\big|\zeta(x)\big|^2-2a_0\zeta(x).$$ We then have $$X^{\a}_t = \int_0^t |\a^0_s| \mathrm{d}W_s,\; \dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.},\; J_{\rm S}(\a) := \dbE^{\dbP_0}\bigg[ |X^\a_T|^2 - \int_0^T \big[ 2\a^0_t \zeta(X^\a_t) - |\zeta(X^\a_t)|^2\big] \mathrm{d}t\bigg].$$ Then ${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0={\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0$, but there is no saddle–point in any appropriate sense. To see this, observe that $\cA^1_S$ consists of only the constant process $0$, and thus $\cS^1$ also consists only of the trivial mapping ${\rm a}^1 =0$. Then it is clear that $${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0 = {\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0 =\inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_S} J_{\rm S}(\a^0,0).$$ This is a standard optimal control problem, and we know its value is $v(0,0)$, where $v$ is the unique viscosity solution to the following [HJB]{} equation $$-\pa_t v - \inf_{a_0\in A_0} \Big\{{\frac12} |a_0|^2 \pa^2_{xx} v - 2a_0 \zeta(x) + |\zeta(x)|^2\Big\} =0,\; v(T,x) = x^2.$$ One can check straightforwardly that $v(t,x) = x^2$ is the classical solution to the above [PDE]{}. In particular, uniqueness for the last [HJB]{} equation follows from the standard verification argument, and this implies that $${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0 = {\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0 =\sup_{\a^0\in \cA^0_{\rm S}} J_{\rm S}( \a^0, 0) = v(0,0) = 0.$$ Now assume the game has a saddle–point in some appropriate sense, which will be associated to a certain $\widehat a^0 \in \cA_S^0$ and $\widehat \a^1=0$. Then, denoting $\widehat X := X^{\widehat\a^0, 0}$ $$0 = J_S(\widehat\a^0,0) = \dbE^{\dbP_0} \bigg[\int_0^T \big[|\widehat\a^0_t|^2 -2\widehat\a^0_t \zeta(\widehat X_t) +|\zeta(\widehat X_t)|^2\big] dt\bigg] = \dbE^{\dbP_0} \bigg[\int_0^T\big |\widehat\a^0_t -\zeta(\widehat X_t)\big|^2 \mathrm{d}t\bigg] .$$ This implies that necessarily $\widehat \a^0 = \zeta(\hat X)$, $\dbP_0-$a.s. In other words, $\widehat X$ must satisfy $$\widehat X_t = \int_0^t |\widehat \a_s| dW_s = \int_0^t \zeta\big(\widehat X_s\big) \mathrm{d}W_s,\; t\in[0,T],\; \dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ By Barlow [[@barlow1982one]]{}, the above [SDE]{} has no strong solution, which contradicts with our assumption that $\widehat X = X^{ \widehat\a^0,0}$ is $\dbF^W-$measurable. The last example may seem very special, since the game problem is actually reduced to a stochastic control problem. The following example shows that similar concerns appear in a genuine game problem. \[eg-fleming1989existence2\] Set $A_0:=[1,2]$, $A_1:=[0,1]$. Consider the following specification $$b(t,x,a):=0,\; \sigma(t,x,a):=|a_0|,\; g(x):=|x|^2,\; f(t,x,a):=\big|\bar\zeta(x)\big|^2-2a_0\bar\zeta(x),\; \bar\zeta := \sqrt{|\zeta|^2-1}.$$ Then Isaacs condition holds and $$J_{\rm S}(\a) = \dbE^{\dbP_0}\bigg[ |X^\a_T|^2 - \int_0^T \big[ 2\a^0_t\bar\zeta(X^\a_t) - |\bar\zeta(X^\a_t)|^2\big] \mathrm{d}t\bigg].$$ In this case, we still have ${\overline}V^{\rm FS}_0={\underline}V^{\rm FS}_0 = v(0,0)$, where $v(t,x) = x^2+T-t$ is the unique classical solution to the following [HJBI]{} equation $$\label{egfleming1989existence2-Isaacs} -\pa_t v - \inf_{a_0\in A_0} \Big\{{\frac12} |a_0|^2 \pa^2_{xx} v - 2a_0\bar\zeta(x)+ |\bar\zeta(x)|^2 \Big\} - \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \Big\{{\frac12} |a_1|^2 \pa^2_{xx} v \Big\} =0, \; v(T,x) = x^2.$$ Moreover, the $($unique$)$ saddle–point of the Hamiltonian in the sense of is $$\label{eg3-saddle} \widehat a_0 = \bar \zeta(x),\; \widehat a_1 = 1,\; \mbox{and thus}\; |\widehat a|= \sqrt{|\widehat a_0|^2 + |\widehat a_1|^2} = \zeta.$$ Consequently, any natural saddle–point for the game should correspond to these feedback controls. Unfortunately, similar to the previous example, no strong solution exists under these feedback controls. Since this formulation is in strong setting, all involved processes should be $\dbF^W-$measurable, so it is very unlikely that a saddle–point under any reasonable definition will exist for this example. \[rem-eg3\] [ We emphasise that the feedback controls can be obtained naturally from the Hamiltonian of the [PDE]{} $($provided the [PDE]{} has a classical solution$)$. In weak formulation of the game, which will be introduced soon and will be the main focus of this paper, the saddle–points of the Hamiltonian indeed lead to the saddle points of the game. However, in strategy against control formulation, saddle–points of the Hamiltonian provide no clue on the possible saddle–points for the game. This is one of the main drawbacks of this formulation.]{} Strong formulation with symmetric delayed pathwise strategies {#sect:CR} ------------------------------------------------------------- Recall that the setting in the previous subsection is not symmetric. Cardaliaguet and Rainer [@cardaliaguet2013pathwise] have reformulated the game problem by using what they call non–anticipative strategies with delay, thus, formalising the fact that the players only observe their opponent’s action in the actual state, as well as the path of the resulting solution of the stochastic differential equation. Their framework could thus be coined as “strategy against strategy”. \[fleming1989existence-delayed\] Let $\cS^0_{\rm CR}$ be the collection of progressively measurable $($deterministic$)$ maps ${\rm a}^0: C^0([0, T], \dbR^d)\times \dbL^0([0, T], A_1) \longrightarrow \dbL^0([0, T], A_0)$ satisfying the following delay condition $$[{\rm a}^0(\o, \a^1)](t) = \big[{\rm a}^0( \o_{(t-\delta)^+ \wedge \cd}, \a^1_{(t-\delta)^+\wedge \cd})\big](t),\; 0\le t\le T,$$ for some $\delta>0$ independent of $(\o, \a^1)$, and where for a generic set $E$, $\dbL^0([0, T], E)$ is the set of Borel measurable $E-$valued maps. We define similarly $\cS^1_{\rm CR}$. For delayed strategies, the following simple but crucial result holds. \[lem-delay\] For any $({\rm a}^0, {\rm a}^1)\in \cS^0_{\rm CR}\times \cS^1_{\rm CR}$, there exists unique $(\a^0, \a^1)\in \cA^0_{\rm S}\times \cA^1_{\rm S}$ such that $$\label{tha} \a^0(\o) = {\rm a}^0(\o, \a^1(\o)),\; \a^1(\o) = {\rm a}^1(\o, \a^0(\o)),\; \mbox{for all}~\o\in\O$$ Then Cardaliaguet and Rainer [@cardaliaguet2013pathwise] define upper and lower values of the game as $$\label{CR-V0} {\overline}V^{\rm CR}_0 := \inf_{{\rm a}^0\in \cS^0_{\rm CR}} \sup_{{\rm a}^1\in \cS^1_{\rm CR}} J_{\rm S}(\a^0, \a^1), \; {\underline}V^{\rm CR}_0 :=\sup_{{\rm a}^1\in \cS^1_{\rm CR}} \inf_{{\rm a}^0\in \cS^0_{\rm CR}} J_{\rm S}(\a^0, \a^1),$$ where $(\a^0, \a^1)$ are determined by Lemma \[lem-delay\]. We emphasise that the mapping from $({\rm a}^0, {\rm a}^1)$ to $(\a^0,\a^1)$ is in pairs, and it does not necessarily induce a mapping from ${\rm a}^0$ to $\a^0$ (or from ${\rm a}^1$ to $\a^1$). Consequently, the game values $({\overline}V^{\rm CR}_0, {\underline}V^{\rm CR}_0)$ are different from the values $({\overline}V^{\rm S}_0, {\underline}V^{\rm S}_0)$ in . We also notice that, unlike in the upper value is defined an $\inf \sup$, since the setting is symmetric again. The main result of [@cardaliaguet2013pathwise] is the following. \[thm-cardaliaguet2013pathwise\] Under appropriate conditions, including the Isaacs condition, we have ${\overline}V^{\rm CR}_0 = {\underline}V^{\rm CR}_0 = v(0,0)$, where $v$ is the unique viscosity solution to the corresponding [HJBI]{} equation. In particular, under the above conditions the game values in [@fleming1989existence] and [@cardaliaguet2013pathwise] are equal. Notice as well that without Isaacs condition, [@cardaliaguet2013pathwise] establishes a partial comparison principle, implying that ${\overline}v$ and ${\underline}v$ are only viscosity semi–solutions, not necessarily viscosity solutions of the associated HJBI PDE. We remark in addition that this setting is symmetric and one can naturally define saddle–points $(\widehat {\rm a}^0, \widehat {\rm a}^1)$. However, the comments in Remark \[rem-fleming1989existence1\] (i) and Remark \[rem-fleming1989existence2\] (ii), (iii) remain valid, and no existence result of saddle–points is available in general because of the delay restriction on the strategies. Notice also that Buckdahn, Cardaliaguet and Quincampoix [@buckdahn2011some] have adapted the BSDE method of Buckdahn and Li [@buckdahn2008stochastic] to the framework of non–anticipative strategies with delay. Another way of symmetrising the game problem has been proposed by Fleming and Hernández-Hernández [@fleming2011value]. Building upon the fact that Elliott–Kalton strategies are such that, for instance for the lower value the minimising player has an advantage in the information available to him at each time, they propose to restrict to so–called strictly progressively measurable strategies which make this advantage disappear. They then define a notion of approximate $\eps-$saddle–points, but cannot obtain the existence of a saddle–point in the sense we have considered so far. Strong formulation with symmetric feedback controls {#sect:CRpham2014two} --------------------------------------------------- The works closest to our present paper are Cardaliaguet and Rainer [@cardaliaguet2009stochastic], Pham and Zhang [@pham2014two], and Sîrbu [@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic]. Consider the following SDE with feedback controls $\alpha:[0,T]\times C^0([0,T],\dbR^d)\longrightarrow A$ $$\label{SDE-feedbacksimple} X_t = X_0+\int_0^t \si(s, X_s, \a_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}W_s + \int_0^t b(s, X_s, \a_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}s,\; \mathbb P_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ Let $\cA_{\rm sp}$ denote the set of certain simple feedback controls (meaning controls which are constant or deterministic in between points of a partition of $[0,T]$ and/or $\Omega$), in particular so that the above SDE has a unique strong solution for every admissible control $\a$. We remark that the sets $\cA_{\rm sp}$ in [@cardaliaguet2009stochastic], [@pham2014two], [@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic] are not the same, differing mainly on whether some mixing is allowed in the strategies or not, and on whether stopping times are allowed in the time–discretisation. The upper and lower game values are then defined as $${\overline}V^{\rm sp}_0 := \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_{\rm sp}} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_{\rm sp}} J_{\rm S}\big(\a^0(X), \a^1(X)\big), \; {\underline}V^{\rm sp}_0 :=\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_{\rm sp}} \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_{\rm sp}} J_{\rm S}\big(\a^0(X_\cdot), \a^1(X_\cdot)\big),$$ where, for $\a\in\cA_{\rm sp}$, $X$ is determined by . Then we still have \[thm-pham2014two\] Under appropriate conditions, including the Isaacs condition, we have ${\overline}V^{\rm sp}_0 = {\underline}V^{\rm sp}_0 = v(0,0)$, where $v$ is the unique viscosity solution to the HJBI equation . We observe that, in contrast with [@cardaliaguet2009stochastic] and [@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic], the framework of [@pham2014two] allows for path–dependent dynamics, and in this case the Isaacs equation becomes a so–called path–dependent PDE, which will be the main tool in this paper. However, [@pham2014two] does not allow for $x-$dependence in the coefficients $b$ and $\sigma$, mainly for the purpose of proving the regularity of the value functions, an issue which becomes very subtle in the present feedback formulation. In the Markovian setting, this difficulty is remarkably by–passed in [@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic] by using the notion of stochastic viscosity solutions of Bayraktar and Sîrbu [@bayraktar2012stochastic; @bayraktar2013stochastic]. We also remark that for feedback controls, it is a lot more convenient to use the so–called weak formulation, under which the state process $X$ is fixed and the players control its distribution. We finally note that the restriction to simple feedback controls is a serious obstacle for obtaining a saddle–point. This is the main drawback that addressed in this paper. A complete result in the uncontrolled diffusion setting {#sect:hamadene1995zero} ------------------------------------------------------- The case where the diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ is not controlled by any of the players has received a lot of attention since the inception of the study of stochastic differential games, as it allowed for a much simpler treatment. Hence, using PDE methods in a Markovian setting with feedback controls (though it is not clear whether strong or weak formulation is considered, see [@friedman1972stochastic Another remark, p. 85]), Friedman [@friedman1971differential; @friedman1972stochastic] proved existence of an equilibrium for an $N-$players game, as well as existence of a value and a saddle–point for two–players zero–sum games. Using the martingale approach of Davis and Varaiya [@davis1973dynamic] for stochastic control problems, a version of the problem in weak formulation was then considered by Elliott [@elliott1976existence; @elliott1977existence], and Elliott and Davis [@elliott1981optimal], allowing in particular for non–Markovian dynamics. Their approach was subsequently streamlined and simplified by Hamadène and Lepeltier [@hamadene1995zero; @hamadene1995backward] and Hamadène, Lepeltier and Peng [@hamadene1997bsdes] using BSDEs methods. Since their approach is close in spirit to the one we wish to follow, we dedicate this section to describing it. Consider the following drift–less SDE $$\label{SDE-driftless} X_t = \int_0^t \si_s(X_\cd) \mathrm{d}W_s,\ \dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ where $\si:[0,T]\times C^0([0,T],\dbR^d)\longrightarrow\dbS^d$ is progressively measurable, bounded, non–degenerate, and uniformly Lipschitz in $x$. Hence, the above SDE has a unique strong solution, and $X$ and $W$ generate the same filtration. We next introduce a progressively measurable bounded map $\lambda:[0,T]\times C^0([0,T],\dbR^d)\times A\longrightarrow\dbR^d$, together with the equivalent probability measures $$\frac{ \mathrm{d} \dbP^\a}{ \mathrm{d}\dbP_0}:= \exp\bigg(\int_0^T \lambda_t\big(X_\cd,\alpha_t(X_\cd)\big)\cdot \mathrm{d}W_t - {\frac12} \int_0^T |\lambda_t\big(X_\cd,\alpha_t(X_\cd)\big)|^2 \mathrm{d}t\bigg) \mbox{ for all } \alpha \in \cA_{\rm HL},$$ where $\cA_{\rm HL}$ is the set of admissible controls, for which the above probability measure is well–defined. By Girsanov’s theorem, the process $W^\a:=W-\int_0^\cd \lambda_t(X_\cd,\alpha_t(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}t$ is an $\dbP^\a-$Brownian motion, and $(\dbP^\a, X)$ is a weak solution of the drift–controlled SDE $$\label{SDE-drift} X_t = \int_0^t b_s(X_\cd, \a_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}s+ \int_0^t \si_s(X_\cd) \mathrm{d}W^\a_s,\; \dbP^\a-\mbox{a.s., where}~ b := \si \l.$$ The upper and lower values of the game are then defined by $${\overline}V^{\rm HL}_0 := \inf_{\a^0\in \cA_{\rm HL}^0} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA_{\rm HL}^1} J_{\rm W}(\a^0,\a^1), \; {\underline}V^{\rm HL}_0 := \sup_{\a^1\in \cA_{\rm HL}^1} \inf_{\a^0\in \cA_{\rm HL}^0} J_{\rm W}(\a^0,\a^1), ~\mbox{where}~ J_{\rm W}(\a) := \dbE^{\dbP^\a}\Big[\xi + \int_0^T f_t(, \a_t) \mathrm{d}t\Big],$$ for some appropriate functions $f:[0,T]\times C^0([0,T],\dbR^d)\times A\longrightarrow \R$ and $\xi:C^0([0,T],\dbR^d)\longrightarrow\R$. We finally introduce $${\overline}F_t(x,z) := \inf_{a_0\in A_0} \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \big\{b_t(x,a)\cdot z + f_t(x,a) \big\} ~\mbox{and}~ {\underline}F_t(x,z) := \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \inf_{a_0\in A_0} \big\{b_t(x,a)\cdot z + f_t(x,a) \big\},$$ where as usual $a=(a_0,a_1)$. Notice that, by extending the Hamiltonians to the path dependent case in the obvious way, we have the correspondence $${\overline}H={\overline}F + \frac12{\rm Tr}[\sigma^2\g], \; \text{and}\; {\underline}H={\underline}F + \frac12{\rm Tr}[\sigma^2\g].$$ The main result of [@hamadene1995zero] is the following. \[thm-hamadene1995zero\] Under appropriate conditions, including Isaacs’s condition ${\overline}F={\underline}F=:F$, we have ${\overline}V^{\rm HL}_0 = {\underline}V^{\rm HL}_0 = Y_0$, where $(Y,Z)$ is the unique solution to the backward [SDE]{} $$\label{hamadene1995zero-BSDE} dY_t = -F_t(X_\cd,Z_t) \mathrm{d}t + Z_t\cdot \mathrm{d}X_t, ~\mbox{and}~Y_T=\xi(X_\cdot), ~\dbP_0-{\rm a.s.}$$ Moreover, any saddle–point of $F$ induces a saddle–point of the game. The following example shows that the framework of [@hamadene1995zero] allows to obtain a saddle–point of a game in typical situations where all the previous frameworks of this section fail. \[eg-weak1\] Consider the setting in Example \[eg-strong\] with $c=1, \rho=0$, except that $X = (X^1, X^2)$ should be viewed as weak solution of the following [SDE]{} $$X^{1}_t = \int_0^t \a^0_s(X^{1}_\cd, X^{2}_\cd) \mathrm{d}s + W^{1,\a}_t,\; X^{2}_t = \int_0^t \a^1_s(X^{1}_\cd, X^{2}_\cd) \mathrm{d}s + W^{2,\a}_t.$$ Note that, unlike in Example \[eg-strong\], here $X^{1}$ and $X^{2}$ depend on both $\a^0$ and $\a^1$. In this case, we have $${\overline}F_t(z) = {\underline}F_t(z) = F_t(z) = \inf_{|a_0|\le 1} \{a_0 z_1\} + \sup_{|a_1|\le 1} \{a_1 z_2\} = - |z_1| +|z_2|,$$ and the unique saddle–point of $F$ is given by $$\widehat a_0(z) := -{\rm sgn}(z_1),\; \widehat a_1(z) := {\rm sgn}(z_2).$$ Notice that since $\sigma$ is the identity matrix here, we have $X=W$ and the [BSDE]{} becomes $$Y_t = \big|X^1_T-X^2_T\big|^2 + \int_t^T \big(|Z^2_s|-|Z^1_s|\big) \mathrm{d}s - \int_t^T Z_s \cd \mathrm{d}X_s,\;\dbP_0-{\rm a.s.}$$ In fact, one may verify straightforwardly that the solution to the above [BSDE]{} is $$Y_t := \big|X^1_t-X^2_t\big|^2+2(T-t), \; Z^1_t := 2\big(X^1_t-X^2_t\big),\; Z^2_t = 2\big(X^2_t - X^1_t\big).$$ Consequently, the game value is $Y_0 = 2T$ and the saddle–point of the game is given by $$\widehat \a^0_t := -{\rm sgn}(Z^1_t) = - {\rm sgn}\big(X^1_t - X^2_t\big), ~\widehat \a^1_t := {\rm sgn}(Z^2_t) = {\rm sgn}\big(X^2_t-X^1_t\big).$$ Our objective of this paper is to extend Theorem \[thm-hamadene1995zero\] to a controlled (possibly degenerate) diffusion framework. Again we shall use weak formulation and our main tool will be path dependent PDEs, whose semi–linear counterpart is exactly the backward SDE. In particular, our results will provide a complete characterisations of Examples \[eg-fleming1989existence\] and \[eg-fleming1989existence2\], once reformulated in the setting of weak solutions, as well as the degenerate situation of Example \[eg-weak1\] (namely $|\rho| = 1$). As will become clearer later, the assumptions on the coefficients we will require are slightly stronger than in the recent work of Zhang [@zhang2017existence; @zhang2017existence2], but the latter considers the strong formulation with strategy against control and thus cannot obtain any positive results towards existence of saddle–points. The weak formulation allows to do so, but at the price of more stringent assumptions on the coefficients. Main results {#sect:main} ============ Path dependent game in weak formulation {#sect:setting} --------------------------------------- The canonical space $\O:= \{\o\in C([0, T]; \dbR^d):\o_0=0\}$ is endowed with the $\dbL^\infty-$norm. The corresponding canonical process $X$ induces the natural filtration $\dbF$. The time space set $\Th := [0, T]\times \O$ is equipped with the pseudo-distance $d_\infty((t,\o), (t',\o')) := |t-t'| + \|\o_{\wedge t} - \o'_{\wedge t'}\|_\infty$. The set of control processes ${\overline}\cA :={\overline}\cA^0\times{\overline}\cA^1$ consists of all $\dbF-$progressively measurable $A-$valued processes, for some subset $A:=A_0\times A_1$ of a finite dimensional space. For all $\a\in {\overline}\cA$, we denote by $\cP(\a)$ the set of weak solutions of the following path–dependent SDE $$\label{SDE} X_t = \int_0^t b_s(X_\cd, \alpha_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}s+ \int_0^t \sigma_s(X_\cd, \alpha_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}W_s, ~t\in[0,T],$$ where $b: \Th\times A \longrightarrow \dbR^d$, $\si: \Th\times A \longrightarrow \dbS^d$ satisfies the conditions in Assumption \[assum-coef\] below. Here, for simplicity, we assume that $X$ and $W$ have the same dimension $d$ and $\si$ is symmetric, but the extension to the more general situation is straightfroward. Equivalently, any $\dbP\in \cP(\a)$ is a probability measure on the canonical space $\O$ which solves the following martingale problem $$\begin{aligned} \label{cPa} M^\a_t := X_t - \int_0^t b_s(\a_s) \mathrm{d}s &\mbox{is a $\dbP-$martingale, with}& {\langle}M^\a{\rangle}_t =\int_0^t \si^2_s(\a_s) \mathrm{d}s,~0\le t\le T,~\dbP-\mbox{a.s.} \end{aligned}$$ Here we take the notational convention that, by putting the time variable $s$ as subscript, we mean $b_s, \si_s, \a_s$ depend on $X$, but we often omit $X$ itself for notational simplicity. Notice that in general, the set $\cP(\a)$ for an arbitrary $\a\in\overline \Ac$ may be empty. We thus introduce the following subset $\cA := \cA^0\times \cA^1$, where[^6] $$\begin{aligned} \label{cA} \cA^i \;:=\; \big \{\a^i\in {\overline}\cA^i: \cP(\a^i)\neq \emptyset\big\}, &\mbox{where}& \cP(\a^i) \;:=\; \bigcup_{\a^{1-i}\in {\overline}\cA^{1-i}} \cP(\a^0,\a^1), ~~i=0,1.\end{aligned}$$ For an $\cF_T-$measurable random variable $\xi$ and an $\dbF-$progressively measurable $f: \Th \times A \longrightarrow \dbR$, we now define $$\label{J} J_0(\a, \dbP) := \dbE^\dbP\bigg[\xi + \int_0^T f_s(\a_s) \mathrm{d}s\bigg], ~~ {\overline}J_0(\a) := \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a)} J_0(\a, \dbP), ~~\mbox{and}~ {\underline}J_0(\a) := \inf_{\dbP\in \cP(\a)} J_0(\a, \dbP),$$ with the convention that $\sup \emptyset := -\infty$ and $\inf\emptyset := \infty$. The upper and lower values of the game are then $$\begin{aligned} \label{ubar} {\overline}V_0 \;:=\; \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1} {\overline}J_0(\a), &\mbox{and}& {\underline}V_0 \;:=\; \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1} \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0} {\underline}J_0(\a). \end{aligned}$$ Notice that the inequality $\infty\ge {\overline}V_0 \ge {\underline}V_0\ge -\infty$ always holds. \[assum-coef\] [(i)]{} $b$, $\si$, and $f$ are bounded, $\dbF-$progressively measurable in all variables, and uniformly continuous in $(t,\o)$ under $d_\infty$, uniformly in $a\in A$. $\xi$ is bounded and uniformly continuous in $\o$. We remark that we allow $\si$ to be degenerate. Under the assumptions on $b$ and $\si$, the sets $\cA^1$ and $\cA^2$ are not empty, as they contain constant and even piecewise constant controls. The remaining conditions on $f$ and $\xi$ guarantee that $J_0$ is finite. We emphasise that the boundedness assumption may be relaxed to linear growth. \[defn-saddle\] The game value exists if ${\overline}V_0 = {\underline}V_0$. A control $\widehat \a = (\widehat \a^0, \widehat \a^1)\in \cA$ is a saddle–point of the game if $$\label{saddle} {\overline}J_0(\widehat \a^0,\a^1) \;\le\; {\overline}J_0(\widehat \a) \;=\; {\overline}V_0 \;=\; {\underline}V_0 \;=\; {\underline}J_0(\widehat\a) \;\le\; {\underline}J_0(\a^0, \widehat\a^1), ~\mbox{for all}~~ (\a^0, \a^1)\in \cA.$$ We remark that, if $\widehat \a$ is a saddle–point, then $\cP(\widehat\a)\neq \emptyset$ and $J_0(\widehat\a, \dbP) = {\overline}V_0 = {\underline}V_0$ for all $\dbP\in \cP(\widehat\a)$. We conclude this subsection with a generic result concerning saddle–points. Denote $$\label{J0a} {\overline}J_0(\a^0) := \sup_{\a^1 \in \cA^1} {\overline}J_0(\a^0, \a^1), ~~\mbox{and}~~ {\underline}J_0(\a^1) := \inf_{\a^0 \in \cA^0} {\underline}J_0(\a^0, \a^1).$$ Then the game problems in can be rewritten $$\label{ubar2} {\overline}V_0 = \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0} {\overline}J_0(\a^0) \mbox{ and } {\underline}V_0 =\; \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1} {\underline}J_0(\a^1).$$ \[prop-saddle\] Assume the game value exists. Then $\widehat \a\in \cA$ is a saddle–point of the game if and only if $\widehat \a^0$ and $\widehat \a^1$ are optimal controls of ${\overline}V_0$ and ${\underline}V_0$ in , respectively. The proof is omitted as it follows directly from Definition \[defn-saddle\]. We shall see that the existence of the game value will typically follow from the uniqueness of the viscosity solution to the corresponding [HJBI]{} equation. By Proposition \[prop-saddle\], it seems that the existence of saddle–points is then reduced to two standard optimisation problems. However, we emphasise that, due to the weak formulation or more specifically our choice of feedback controls, the mappings $\a^0 \in \cA^0 \longmapsto {\overline}J_0(\a^0)$ and $\a^1 \in \cA^1\longmapsto {\underline}J_0(\a^1)$ are typically not continuous. Even worse, it is not clear what is the appropriate topology for the sets $\cA^0$ and $\cA^1$, and whether they do have the appropriate topological requirements. Therefore, the optimisation problems in are actually real challenges. Path-dependent HJBI characterisation {#sect:viscosity} ------------------------------------ Similar to the Markovian case, we shall use path–dependent PDEs as a powerful tool to study the present path–dependent differential games. For $a=(a_0, a_1) \in A$, similar to we define $$\label{Hamiltonian} \left.\begin{array}{c} \dis h_t(\o,z,\g, a) := {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[\si^2_t(\o, a) \g\big] + b_t(\o,a) \cd z+ f_t(\o, a), \\ \dis{\overline}H_t := \inf_{a_0\in A_0} \sup_{a_1\in A_1} h_t(., a_0, a_1), ~~ {\underline}H_t := \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \inf_{a_0\in A_0} h_t(., a_0, a_1). \end{array}\right.$$ Our main result requires the standard Isaacs condition $$\label{Isaacs} {\overline}H = {\underline}H =: H.$$ To prove existence of the game value, we shall use the viscosity theory of path–dependent PDEs (PPDE hereafter). Let $C^0(\Th, \dbR)$ denote the set of functions $u: \Th\longrightarrow \dbR$ continuous under $d_\infty$, $C^0_b(\Th, \dbR)$ the subset of bounded functions, and ${\rm UC}_b(\Th, \dbR)$ the subset of uniformly continuous functions. For any $L>0$, $\cP_L$ denotes the set of semimartingale measures on $\O$ such that the drift and diffusion of $X$ are bounded by $L$ and $\sqrt{2L}$, respectively, and $\cP_\infty := \cup_{L>0} \cP_L$. For any $t\in[0,T]$, let $\mathcal T_t$ denote the set of $\mathbb F-$stopping times smaller than $t$. For a generic measurable set $E$, we also denote by $\dbL^0(\Th, E)$ the set of $\dbF-$progressively measurable $E-$valued functions. For any subset $\Pc$ of $\Pc_\infty$, we say that a property holds $\Pc-$q.s. if it holds $\P-$a.s. for any $\P\in\Pc$. For $\th=(t,\o)\in \Th$ and $\o'\in \O$, define $$(\o\otimes_t \o')_s := \o_s \1_{[0, t]} + (\o_t + \o'_{s-t} - \o'_0) \1_{(t, T]} (s), ~\zeta^{\th}(\o') := \zeta(\o\otimes_t \o'), ~\mbox{and}~ \eta_s^{\th}(\o') := \eta_{t+s}(\o\otimes_t \o'), ~ s\in[0,T-t],$$ for an $\cF_T-$measurable random variable $\zeta$, and an $\dbF-$measurable process $\{\eta_s,s\in[0,T]\}$. We observe in particular that $\zeta^{\th}$ is $\cF_{T-t}-$measurable, and the process $\eta^{\th}$ is $\dbF-$adapted. Finally, for $\eps>0$, we introduce the stopping time $\ch_\eps(\o) := \inf\big\{t: d_\infty((t,\o), (0,0)) \ge \eps\big\}\wedge T$. For $u\in C^0(\Th, \dbR)$ and $\th:= (t,\o) \in\Th$, the super and sub–jets are defined by the subsets of $\dbR\times \dbR^d\times \dbS^d$: $$\label{cJ} \left.\begin{array}{c} \dis {\overline}\cJ^L u(\th) := \Big\{ (\kappa, z, \g): -u(\th) = \sup_{\dbP\in \cP_L} \sup_{\t\in\mathcal T_{\ch_\eps}} \dbE^\dbP\big[\kappa \t + q^{z,\g}(X_\t) - u^\th_\t\big], ~\mbox{for some}~ \eps>0\Big\}, \\ \dis {\underline}\cJ^L u(\th) := \Big\{ (\kappa, z, \g): -u(\th) = \inf_{\dbP\in \cP_L} \inf_{\t\in\mathcal T_{\ch_\eps}} \dbE^\dbP\big[\kappa \t + q^{z,\g}(X_\t) - u^\th_\t\big], ~\mbox{for some}~ \eps>0\Big\}. \end{array}\right.$$ where we used the notation $q^{z,\g}({\rm x}):= z\cd {\rm x} + {\frac12}{\rm Tr}\big[\g {\rm x} {\rm x}^\top\big],$ for all $({\rm x},z, \g)\in\dbR^d\times\R^d\times\dbS^d$. Now consider the following PPDE with generator $G: \Th \times \dbR\times \dbR^d\times \dbS^d \longrightarrow \dbR$ $$\label{PPDEG} - \pa_t u_t(\o) - G_t(\o, u, \pa_\o u, \pa^2_{\o\o} u)=0.$$ The appropriate notion of path–derivatives in the above equation has been proposed first by Dupire [[@dupire2009functional]]{}, and consists essentially in a directional derivative with respect to perturbations of the last value taken by the path. Since we are only interested in viscosity solutions, we do not need to detail this any further. \[defn-viscosity\] Let $u\in C^0(\Th, \dbR)$.\ [(i)]{} For any $L>0$, we say $u$ is a $\cP_L-$viscosity super–solution $($resp. sub–solution$)$ of [PPDE]{} if, for any $\th\in\Th$ and any $(\kappa, z, \g) \in {\overline}\cJ^L u(\th)$ $($resp. in $ {\underline}\cJ^L u(\th))$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned} - \kappa - G_t(\o, u_t(\o), z, \g) &\ge~(\mbox{\rm resp.}~ \le)& 0.\end{aligned}$$ [(ii)]{} $u$ is a $\cP_L-$viscosity solution of [PPDE]{} if it is both a $\cP_L-$viscosity super and sub–solution of . Moreover, $u$ is a $\cP_\infty-$viscosity solution of [PPDE]{} if it is an $\cP_L-$viscosity solution for some $L>0$. We remark that in our weak formulation setting (or more precisely due to the feedback type of controls), the regularity of the game value is a very subtle question. As will be explained later on in the paper, our main need for [*a priori*]{} regularity is linked to our proof of the dynamic programming principle. This is in stark contrast with the usual control theory, for which proving dynamic programming in weak formulation requires merely to assume proper measurability of the coefficients, see for instance the recent papers by El Karoui and Tan [@karoui2013capacities; @karoui2013capacities2]. Proving regularity in a strong formulation framework, either in the strategy against control setting or the delayed strategies one of Section \[sect:formulation\], is usually simply a matter of obtaining appropriate estimates on the moments of the controlled diffusion, which does not pose any specific problem in general. However in weak formulation, the fact that the players are controlling the distribution of $X$ makes matters much worse. Once again, this is the price to pay if one wishes to obtain general existence results for saddle–points, as shown in our previous examples. In order to bypass this difficulty and for the sake of clarity, we consider in this subsection a special case which is easier to deal with. A more general case will be studied in Section \[sect-extension\] below. \[assum-bsi\] $b= b(t, a)$ and $\si = \si(t, a)$ are independent of $\o$. Our first main result is the following. The proof is postponed to the next section. \[thm-gamevalue\] Let Assumptions \[assum-coef\], \[assum-bsi\], and Isaacs’s condition hold. Then\ [(i)]{} The following path dependent Isaacs equation has a viscosity solution $u\in \mbox{\rm UC}_b(\Theta,\dbR)$ $$\label{PPDE} -\pa_t u - H_t(\o, \pa_\o u, \pa^2_{\o\o} u) =0,\; t<T,\; u_T = \xi.$$ [(ii)]{} Assume further that this [PPDE]{} has a unique viscosity solution in $ \mbox{\rm UC}_b(\Theta,\dbR)$. Then ${\overline}V_0={\underline}V_0=u_0(0)$. \[rem-gamevalue\] [(i)]{} The uniqueness of viscosity solution is a highly nontrivial issue. In Ekren, Touzi and Zhang [[@ekren2012viscosity]]{} and Pham and Zhang [[@pham2014two]]{}, uniqueness was proved only in the case where $\si$ is uniformly non–degenerate and the dimension $d$ is either $1$ or $2$. If one can prove the existence of viscosity solution in a smaller class $\mathfrak{C} \subset C( \Theta,\dbR)$ $($or more precisely show that the dynamic upper and lower value processes of the game are in $\mathfrak{C})$, then it is actually enough to prove the uniqueness of viscosity solution in the class $\mathfrak{C}$. Hence, Ren,Touzi and Zhang [[@ren2015comparison]]{} proved the existence and uniqueness in a subclass of $\mbox{\rm UC}_b(\Theta,\dbR)$, under slightly stronger regularity assumptions on $\xi$ and $f$ in terms of $\o$. Using their result provides us with the existence of the game value, even when $\si$ is degenerate or $d\ge 3$. Notice however that [[@ren2015comparison]]{} requires that $b$ and $\si$ are independent of $\o$. On the other hand, Ekren and Zhang [[@ekren2016pseudo]]{} have introduced a different type of viscosity solution called pseudo–Markovian viscosity solutions, and proved the corresponding uniqueness under weaker conditions. This will be interesting for us when we extend our game problem to path dependent $(b, \si)$ in Section \[sect-extension\] below. Finally, in the Markovian case, we can replace our uniqueness assumption with the uniqueness in the standard Crandall–Lions notion of viscosity solutions. However, notice that our uniqueness assumption is always weaker. A verification result {#sect-verification} --------------------- In this subsection we establish the existence of a saddle–point under the stronger condition that the Isaacs equation has additional regularity inspired from the $W^{1,2}-$Sobolev solutions in the PDE literature. We emphasise that in this subsection we do not require Assumption \[assum-bsi\] to hold. This is to be expected as already in standard stochastic control problems, verification–type arguments do not require to prove beforehand the dynamic programming principle, which, once more, is the only result which requires regularity of the value function. Note that $$\label{hatsi} \mathrm{d}{\langle}X{\rangle}_t \;=:\; \widehat \si^2_t \mathrm{d}t, ~\mbox{holds}~\cP_\infty-\mbox{q.s.},$$ and can be defined without reference to a specific measure in $\Pc_\infty$ by classical results of Bichteler [@bichteler1981stochastic]. \[defn-W12loc\] Let $u \in \dbL^0(\Th, \dbR)$ and $\cP \subset \cP_\infty$. We say that $u\in W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}(\cP)$ if\ [(i)]{} $u$ is a uniformly integrable semimartinagle under any $\dbP\in \cP$;\ [(ii)]{} for some measurable processes $\pa_t u,\pa_\o u,\pa^2_{\o\o} u$ valued in $\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^d$, and $\mathbb{S}^d $, $u$ has the decomposition $$\label{Ito} \mathrm{d} u_t = \pa_t u_t \,dt + \pa_\o u_t \cd \mathrm{d}X_t + {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[\pa^2_{\o\o} u_t \,d{\langle}X{\rangle}_t\big], ~ \cP-\mbox{\rm q.s.} ,$$ with $\int_0^T \Big(\Big|\pa_t u_t + {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[\pa^2_{\o\o} u_t \widehat \si^2_t\big]\Big| + |\pa_\o u_t|^2 \Big) \mathrm{d}t <\infty$, $\cP-$q.s. \[rem-W12\] [(i)]{} By definition, any $u\in W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}(\cP)$ is continuous in $t$, $\cP-$q.s. However, unlike in Dupire [[@dupire2009functional]]{} or in Ekren, Touzi and Zhang [[@ekren2016viscosity; @ekren2012viscosity]]{}, we do not require pointwise continuity in $\o$. In particular, this relaxation will allow us to cover [BSDEs]{} and [2BSDEs]{} with measurable coefficients. Clearly, is closely related to the functional Itô formula in [[@dupire2009functional; @ekren2016viscosity; @ekren2012viscosity]]{}. However, our requirements here are weaker. In particular, we do not require the uniqueness of $\pa_t u$ and $\pa^2_{\o\o} u$. One can easily see that $\pa_\o u$ is unique $ \mathrm{d}{\langle}X{\rangle}_t \times \mathrm{d}\dbP-$[a.s.]{}, and $\pa_t u_t + {\frac12} {\rm Tr}[\widehat \si^2_t \pa^2_{\o\o} u_t]$ is unique $ \mathrm{d}t\times \mathrm{d}\dbP-$[a.s.]{}, for all $\dbP\in \cP$. If we set $\cP = \cP_L$ for some $L>0$, and require $\pa_t u_t$ and $\pa^2_{\o\o} u_t$ to be $\cP_L-$[q.s.]{} continuous, then it follows from Song [[@song2012uniqueness]]{} that $\pa_t u$ and $\pa^2_{\o\o} u$ are unique in the $\cP_L-$[q.s.]{} sense. This additional quasi–sure continuity requirement leads to the $G-$Sobolev space $W^{1,2}_G$ introduced by Peng and Song [[@peng2015g]]{}. \[thm-verification\] Let Assumption \[assum-coef\] and Isaacs’s condition hold. Assume further that The [PPDE]{} has a $W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}(\cP)-$solution $u$, where $\cP := \cup_{\a\in\cA} \cP(\a)$. In other words, there exist, not necessarily unique, $(\pa_t u, \pa_\o u, \pa^2_{\o\o} u)$ satisfying and $$\label{PPDEqs} -\pa_t u - H_t(\pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2 u)=0,\; \cP-{\rm q.s.}$$ [(ii)]{} The Hamiltonian $H_t(\o, \pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2 u)$ has a measurable saddle–point $\widehat \a_t(\o)$, such that $\cP-{\rm q.s.}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{Isaacs-H-saddle} h_t(\pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2u, \widehat \a^0_t, a_1) &\le h_t(\pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2u, \widehat\a^0_t, \widehat \a^1_t) = H_t(\pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2 u)\le h_t(\pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2u, a_0, \widehat \a^1_t),\;\mbox{for all}\; a\in A.\end{aligned}$$ [(iii)]{} The set $\cP(\widehat \a)$ is not empty. Then ${\overline}V_0 = u_0 = {\underline}V_0$ and $\widehat \a$ is a saddle–point of the game. For any $\a^0\in \cA^0$, and $\dbP\in \cP(\a^0, \widehat \a^1)$, it follows from and that, $\dbP-\mbox{a.s.}$ $$d u_t = \Big(b_t(\a^0_t, \widehat\a^1_t) \cd \pa_\o u + {\frac12}{\rm Tr}\big[ \si^2_t(\a^0_t, \widehat\a^1_t) \pa_{\o\o}^2u\big] - H_t(\pa_\o u, \pa_{\o\o}^2 u)\Big) \mathrm{d}t + \pa_\o u \cdot \mathrm{d} M^{\a^0, \widehat \a^1}_t \ge -f_t(\a^0_t, \hat\a^1_t) \mathrm{d}t +\pa_\o u \cdot \mathrm{d} M^{\a^0, \widehat \a^1}_t.$$ Recall the integrability condition in Definition \[defn-W12loc\] (ii), and denote $\t_n := T\wedge\inf\big\{t: \int_0^t (|\pa_t u_s + {\frac12}{\rm Tr}[ \pa^2_{\o\o} u_s \hat \si^2_s]| + |\pa_\o u_s|^2 ) ds \ge n\big\}$, so that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\dbP[\t_n = T]=1$. As $\widehat \si^2_t = \si^2_t(\a^0_t, \widehat\a^1_t)$, $\dbP-$a.s. we see by integrating and taking expectations above that $u_0 \le \dbE^\dbP\big[u_{\t_n} + \int_0^{\t_n} f_t(\a^0_t, \hat\a^1_t) \mathrm{d}t\big]$. Send now $n\longrightarrow \infty$, since $u$ is continuous in $t$ and uniformly integrable under $\dbP$, we obtain from the dominated convergence theorem under $\dbP$ that $$J_0(\a^0, \widehat\a^1, \dbP) \;=\; \dbE^\dbP\bigg[\xi + \int_0^T f_t(\a^0_t, \widehat\a^1_t) \mathrm{d}t\bigg] \;\ge\; u_0.$$ Following similar arguments, for any $\a^0\in \cA^0$, $\a^1\in \cA^1$, $\dbP^0\in \cP(\a^0, \widehat \a^1)$, $\dbP^1\in \cP(\widehat\a^0, \a^1)$, $\widehat \dbP\in \cP(\widehat\a)$, we obtain $$J_0(\widehat\a^0, \a^1, \dbP^1) \;\le\; u_0 \;=\; J_0(\widehat\a, \widehat\dbP) \;\le\; J_0(\a^0, \widehat\a^1, \dbP^0).$$ This implies immediately that ${\overline}V_0 = u_0 = {\underline}V_0$ and $\widehat \a$ is a saddle–point of the game. \[rem-unique\] Notice that in Theorem \[thm-verification\] (iii), we do not require $\cP(\widehat \a)$ to be a singleton. When it consists of several measures $\dbP$, the value $J_0(\widehat \a, \dbP)$ is actually independent of the choice of $\P$. \[rem-vW12\] In the Markovian case, it is not enough to assume that the [PDE]{} has a Sobolev solution $u$ in the standard $W^{1,2}-$space. Indeed, consider the first inequality of in that setting $$\label{Isaacs-Markov} h(t,x, D u, D^2u, \widehat \a^0(t,x), a_1) \le H(t,x, D u, D^2 u),\; (t, x) \notin N,$$ where $N$ is an appropriate set with Lebesgue measure $0$ on $[0,T]\times\mathbb R^d$. When $\sigma$ is uniformly elliptic, the generalised Itô formula of Krylov [[@krylov1980controlled Theorem 2.10.1]]{} allows to conclude as usual. However, in the degenerate case, equality fails to hold in general, see [[@krylov1980controlled Theorem 2.10.2]]{}, which means that does not imply that the corresponding inequality in holds $\dbP-$a.s. so that the arguments in Theorem \[thm-verification\] would fail. In other words, even in the Markovian setting, with degenerate volatility, our quasi–sure characterisation of the Sobolev solution and the saddle–points of the Hamiltonian seems necessary for the verification arguments. A saddle–point exists under our formulation in the following examples. We emphasise that none of the formulations in the existing literature allows to handle these examples, see Section \[sect:formulation\]. \[eg-fleming1989existence3\] Compare to Example \[eg-fleming1989existence2\]. Set $A_0:=[1,2]$, $A_1:=[0,1]$, $d:=1$, $b:=0$, $\si_t(a) := |a_0|$, $f_t(a) := {\overline}\zeta(\o_t) - 2 a_0 {\overline}\zeta(\o_t)$, $\xi(\o) := |\o_T|^2$. That is, $\cP(\a)$ consists of weak solutions of $$\begin{aligned} \label{egfleming1989existence3-X} X_t = \int_0^t |\a^0_s(X_\cd)| \mathrm{d}W_s, &\mbox{and}& J_0(\a, \dbP) := \dbE^{\dbP}\Big[ |X_T|^2 - \int_0^T \big[2\a^0_t\bar\zeta(X_t) - |\bar\zeta(X_t)|^2\big] \mathrm{d}t\Big].\end{aligned}$$ We remark that $f$ and $\xi$ here violate the boundedness assumption in Assumption \[assum-coef\]. However, this condition is mainly for the convenience of the general path dependent PDEs, and in this particular example, it is not needed. Nevertheless, in this case, we have ${\overline}V_0={\underline}V_0 = v(0,0)$, where $v(t,x) = x^2+T-t$ is the classical solution to the [HJBI]{} equation . Again, the $($unique$)$ saddle–point of the Hamiltonian in the sense of is provided by . Define $\widehat \a_t(\o) := \widehat a_t(\o_t)$. Then $|\widehat \a_t(\o)| = \zeta(\o_t)$ and thus becomes . By Barlow [[@barlow1982one]]{}, $\cP(\hat\a)$ is a singleton. This implies easily that $\widehat \a$ is indeed a saddle–point of the game. The next example extends Example \[eg-weak1\] to the degenerate case, namely $c=0$ or $|\rho|=1$. We remark that the result of Hamadène and Lepeltier [@hamadene1995zero] does not apply in this case. \[eg-weak2\] Consider the setting of Example \[eg-weak1\], but with $c=0$ or $|\rho|=1$.\ [(i)]{} Let $\rho=1$ and $c>0$; the case $\rho=-1$ can be treated similarly. The [HJBI]{} equation reduces to $$-\pa_t v - {\frac12}c^2\big(\pa_{x_1x_1} v + \pa_{x_2x_2} v + 2 \pa_{x_1x_2} v \big) +|\pa_{x_1} v| - |\pa_{x_2} v|=0,\; v(T,x_1,x_2) = |x_1-x_2|^2,$$ which has a classical solution $v(t,x_1, x_2) = |x_1-x_2|^2$. The saddle–points for the Hamiltonian are then given by $$\widehat a_0(t,x) := -{\rm sgn} (x_1-x_2) - \beta_1(t,x) \1_{\{x_1=x_2\}},~ \widehat a_1(t,x) := {\rm sgn} (x_2-x_1) + \beta_2(t,x)\1_{\{x_1=x_2\}},$$ for any arbitrary measurable functions $\beta_1, \beta_2$ taking values in $[-1,1]$. Denote $\D X := X^2-X^1$. In order to prove that the two–dimensional [SDE]{} $X^{i}_t = \int_0^t \big({\rm sgn} (\D X_s) - \beta_1(s, X_s) \1_{\{\D X_s = 0\}}\big) \mathrm{d}s + c W_t$, $i=0,1$, has a weak solution, we observe that the difference satisfies the [ODE]{} $\D X_t = \int_0^t (\beta_1+\beta_2)(s, X_s) \1_{\{\D X_s = 0\}} \mathrm{d}s$, which has a solution if and only if $\beta_1 + \beta_2=0$. In this case, the unique solution is $\D X_t = 0$, i.e. $X^1=X^0$, and we are reduced to the ODE $X^0_t = \int_0^t \beta_1(s, X^0_s,X^0_s) \mathrm{d}s + c W_t$, which also has a unique weak solution since $c>0$ and $\beta_1$ is bounded by definition. Therefore, the saddle–points of the game are $$\begin{aligned} \widehat \a^0_t =\widehat \a^1_t = {\rm sgn}(X^1_t-X^0_t) + \beta(t, X^0_t) \1_{\{X^0_t = X^1_t\}}, &\mbox{for an arbitrary measurable}& \beta: [0, T]\times \dbR\longrightarrow [-1, 1]. \end{aligned}$$ [(ii)]{} When $c=0$, the last characterisation of the saddle–point still holds true provided that the [ODE]{} $X^0_t = \int_0^t \beta(s, X^0_s) \mathrm{d}s$ has a solution. In the rest of this section, we investigate the question of existence of weak solutions for path–dependent SDEs, thus providing sufficient conditions for Theorem \[thm-verification\] (iii). In the Markovian setting, we refer to Krylov [@krylov1980controlled Section 2.6] for existence of weak solutions of SDEs with measurable coefficients. We emphasise again that uniqueness is not required in our approach. \[qscont\] An $\dbF-$mesurable process $\f$, with values in an Euclidean space, is called $\cP-$[q.s.]{} continuous if, for any $\eps>0$, there exist closed subsets $\{\O^\eps_t\}_{0\le t\le T} \subset \O$ such that\ [(i)]{} the process $\1_{\O^\eps_t}$ is $\dbF-$progressively measurable with $\sup_{\dbP\in \cP} \dbE^\dbP\Big[\int_0^T \1_{(\O^\eps_t)^c} \mathrm{d}t \Big] \le \eps$.\ [(ii)]{} For each $t$, $\f(t,\cd)$ is continuous in $\O^\eps_t$. The following existence result looks standard and its proof is postponed to the Appendix Section \[sect:Appendix\]. \[thm-qsSDE\] Assume $b:\Th \longrightarrow \dbR^d$ and $\si: \Th\longrightarrow \dbS^d$ are bounded by a certain constant $L$, are $\dbF-$measurable, and $\cP_L-$[q.s.]{} continuous. Then there is a weak solution to the [SDE]{} $X_t = \int_0^t b(s, X_\cd) \mathrm{d}s + \int_0^t \si(s, X_\cd) \mathrm{d}W_s$. We finally discuss the desired regularity for saddle–points of the Hamiltonian, for which we define $W^{1,2}(\cP)$ as the subset of $W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}(\cP)$ consisting of processes $u$ such that $\pa_t u$, $\pa_\o u$, and $\pa^2_{\o\o} u$ are $\Pc-$q.s. continuous. \[thm-verification2\] Let Assumption \[assum-coef\] holds, $b, \si$ continuous in $a$, and assume further the Isaacs condition holds with saddle-point $\widehat \a_t(\o, z,\g)$ $$h_t(\o, z,\g, \widehat \a^0_t, a_1) \le h_t(\o, z,\g, \widehat\a^0_t, \widehat \a^1_t) = H_t(\o, z,\g)\le h_t(\o, z,\g, a_0, \widehat \a^1_t),\; \mbox{for all}\; a\in A,\; \cP- {\rm a.s.},$$ such that $\widehat \a$ is continuous in $(z,\g)$, and uniformly $\cP-$continuous in $(t,\o)$, i.e. $\widehat \a(\cd, z,\g)$ is $\cP-$continuous for all $(z,\g)$, with a common $\{\O^\eps_t\}_{0\le t\le T}$ for all $(z,\g)$. Let $u$ be a $W^{1,2}(\cP)-$solution of the [PPDE]{} with $\cP := \cup_{\a\in\cA} \cP(\a)$. Then ${\overline}V_0 = u_0 = {\underline}V_0$ and $\a^*_t(\o) := \widehat \a_t\big(\o, \pa_\o u(t,\o), \pa^2_{\o\o} u(t,\o)\big)$ is a saddle-point of the game. By our regularity assumptions on $u$ and $\widehat\alpha$, we see that $\a^*_t(\o) := \widehat \a_t\big(\o, \pa_\o u(t,\o), \pa^2_{\o\o} u(t,\o)\big)$ is $\cP-$q.s. continuous. Together with the continuity of $b$ and $\sigma$ in $a$, this implies that $\widehat b(t,\o) := b_t(\o, \a_t^*(\o))$ and $\widehat \si(t,\o) := \si_t(\o, \a_t^*(\o))$ are also $\cP-$q.s. continuous. Now it follows from Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\] that $\cP(\a^*) \neq \emptyset$. Therefore, we can apply Theorem \[thm-verification\] to conclude. Second order backward SDE characterisation {#sect-2BSDE} ------------------------------------------ For $\a^0\in \cA_0$ fixed, The stochastic control problem ${\overline}J_0(\a^0)$, defined in , can be characterized by the corresponding second order BSDEs, as introduced by Cheridito, Soner, Touzi and Victoir [@cheridito2007second], and further developed by Soner, Touzi and Zhang [@soner2012wellposedness] and Possamaï, Tan and Zhou [@possamai2015stochastic]. ### The general case We emphasise that in this subsection, we do not require Assumption \[assum-bsi\] to hold. \[assump:2bsde\] [(i)]{} $b= \si \l$ for some $\l: \Th \times A\to \dbR^d$ progressively measurable and bounded.\ [(ii)]{} For every $(t,\omega)\in\Th$ and $a=(a_0,a_1)\in A$, the following two sets are convex $$\big\{(b,\sigma,f)(t,\omega,a_0', a_1):~a_0' \in A_0\big\},\q \big\{(b,\sigma,f)(t,\omega,a_0, a_1'):~a_0' \in A_1\big\}.$$ Assumption \[assump:2bsde\] (i) is made in order to focus on the main arguments, and can be relaxed at the price of more technical developments highlight more our core ideas. Assumption \[assump:2bsde\] $(ii)$ is mainly technical, and will be explained in the proof of Lemma \[lem-weak\] below. Recall ${\overline}\cA$, $\cP(\a)$, and from Subsection \[sect:setting\]. We introduce the corresponding terms when $b=0$ $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber &\dis \Pc_0(\alpha):= \Big\{\dbP:~X_.=\int_0^.\sigma_s\big(X_\cdot,\a(X_\cdot)\big) \mathrm{d}W_s, ~\dbP-\mbox{a.s.} \Big\}, ~~ \dis \Pc_0^0(\a^1):=\bigcup_{\alpha^0\in {\overline}\Ac^0}\Pc_0(\alpha), ~~ \Pc_0^1(\a^0):=\bigcup_{\alpha^1\in {\overline}\Ac^1}\Pc_0(\alpha),&\\ &\dis \Ac_0^0=\big\{\a^0\in\overline\Ac^0: \Pc^1_0(\alpha^0)\neq\emptyset\big\},\; \Ac_0^1:=\big\{\a^1\in\overline\Ac^1: \Pc^0_0(\a^1)\neq\emptyset\big\},\; \cA_0 := \cA^0_0\times \cA^1_0.&\label{driftlessSDEsquare2}\end{aligned}$$ For every pair $(\alpha,\P)\in\Ac_0\times \Pc_0(\alpha)$, let $W^{\dbP, \a}$ be an $\P-$Brownian motion corresponding to the driftless SDE in the definition of $\Pc_0(\alpha)$. For $\lambda$ satisfying Assumption \[assump:2bsde\] $(i)$, we denote $\lambda^\alpha:=\lambda\big(X_\cdot,\a(X_\cdot)\big)$, and we introduce an equivalent measure $\P^{\a}$, together with the corresponding Brownian motion (by Girsanov theorem): $$\begin{aligned} \frac{ \mathrm{d}\P^{\a}}{ \mathrm{d}\P}:=\exp\Big(\int_0^T\lambda^\alpha_s\cdot \mathrm{d}W_s^{\P,\alpha}-\frac12\int_0^T\big|\lambda^\alpha_s\big|^2 \mathrm{d}s\Big), &\mbox{and}& W^{\P^{\a}}:= W^{\P,\alpha}-\int_0^.\lambda^\alpha_s \mathrm{d}s,\end{aligned}$$ so that the dynamics of the canonical process under $\dbP^\alpha$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{d}X_s &=& b_s\big(X_\cdot,\a_s(X_\cdot)\big) \mathrm{d}s+\sigma_s\big(X_\cdot,\a(X_\cdot)\big) \mathrm{d}W^{\P^{\a}}_s, ~~\P^\a-\mbox{a.s.} \end{aligned}$$ The upper and lower values of the game can then be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} &\dis {\overline}V_0^0 \;:=\; \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_0} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} {\overline}J_0(\alpha), ~~\mbox{and}~~ {\underline}V_0^0 := \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_0}{\underline}J_0(\alpha), &\\ &\dis \mbox{where}~~ {\overline}J_0(\alpha):=\sup_{\P\in {\color{black}\Pc_0(\a)}}\E^{\P^{\a}}\Big[\xi+\int_0^Tf_s(\a_s) \mathrm{d}s\Big], ~~ {\underline}J_0(\alpha):=\inf_{\P\in {\color{black}\Pc_0(\a)}}\E^{\P^{\a}}\Big[\xi+\int_0^Tf_s(\a_s) \mathrm{d}s\Big]. &\end{aligned}$$ We next introduce the nonlinear generators $$\begin{aligned} \label{2BSDEF} {\overline}F_t(\o,z,a_0) \;:=\; \sup_{a_1\in A_1(t,\omega,a_0)} F_t(\o, z, a_0, a_1), &\mbox{and}& {\underline}F_t(\o,z,a_1) \;:=\; \inf_{a_0\in A_0(t,\o,a_1)} F_t(\o, z, a_0, a_1),\end{aligned}$$ where, for the $\widehat\si$ defined in , $$\begin{aligned} F_t(\o, z, a):= b_t(\o,a)\cdot z+f_t(\o,a), &\mbox{and}& A_i(t,\omega,a_{1-i}) := \big\{a_i\in A_i: \big(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top\big)(\omega,a_0,a_1)=\widehat\si^2_t(\o) \big\}, ~~i=0,1. \end{aligned}$$ The second order backward SDEs (2BSDE, hereafter) which will serve to represent the upper and lower values is defined by the following representation of the r.v. $\xi$ [^7]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:2bsde4} {\underline}Y^{\a^1}_t &=& \xi+\int_t^T{\underline}F_s\big ( {\underline}Z_s^{\a^1},\a^1_s\big) \mathrm{d}s -\int_t^T{\underline}Z_s^{\a^1}\cdot \mathrm{d}X_s-\int_t^T \mathrm{d} {\underline}K^{\a^1}_s, ~\P-\mbox{a.s., for all}~\P\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1),\\ \label{eq:2bsde5} {\overline}Y_t^{\a^0} &=& \xi+\int_t^T{\overline}F_s\big({\overline}Z_s^{\a^0},\a^0_s\big) \mathrm{d}s -\int_t^T{\overline}Z_s^{\a^0}\cdot \mathrm{d}X_s+\int_t^T \mathrm{d} {\overline}K^{\a^0}_s, ~\P-\mbox{a.s., for all}~\P\in\Pc_0^1(\a^0). \end{aligned}$$ \[def:2BSDE\] We say that $({\underline}Y^{\a^1},{\underline}Z^{\a^1})$ is a solution of the [2BSDE]{} if, for some $p>1$, [(i)]{} ${\underline}Y^{\a^1}$ is a càdlàg and [$\F^{\Pc^0_0(\a^1)+}-$]{}optional process, with $\|{\underline}Y^{\a^1}\|^p_{\mathbb D^0_p}:=\sup_{\P\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1)}\E^{\P}\left[\sup_{t\le T}|{\underline}Y^{\a^1}_t|^p\right]<\infty$. [(ii)]{} ${\underline}Z^{\a^1}$ is an $\F^{\Pc^0_0(\a^1)}-$predictable process, with $\|{\underline}Z^{\a^1}\|^p_{\H^0_p}:=\sup_{\P\in{\Pc^0_0(\a^1)}}\E^{\P}\big[\big(\int_0^T(Z^{\a^1}_t)^\top\widehat\sigma_t^2Z^{\a^1}_t\mathrm{d}t\big)^{\frac p2}\big]<\infty$. [(iii)]{} For all $\dbP\in \Pc^0_0(\a^1)$, the process $$\label{KaP} {\underline}K^{\a^1, \dbP}_t := {\underline}Y^{\a^1}_t - {\underline}Y^{\a^1}_0+\int_0^t {\underline}F_s\big ( {\underline}Z_s^{\a^1}, \a^1_s\big) \mathrm{d}s -\int_0^t {\underline}Z_s^{\a^1}\cdot \mathrm{d}X_s,\; t\in[0,T],$$ is $\dbP-$optional, non–decreasing, and satisfies the minimality condition: $$\label{minimality2} {\underline}K^{\a^1,\P}_t = \underset{ \P' \in \Pc^0_0(\a^1; t,\P,\F^{+}) }{ {\rm essinf}^{\P} } \E^{\P'}\big[ {\underline}K^{\a^1,\P'}_T\big|\Fc_{t}^{\P+}\big], ~0\leq t\leq T,\; \P-{\rm a.s.},$$ where $\Pc^0_0(\a^1; t,\P,\F^{+}) := \left\{\P'\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1): \P[E]=\P'[E]~\mbox{for all}~E\in\Fc_t^{+}\right\},\; t\in[0,T].$\ The solution $({\overline}Y^{\a^0}, {\overline}Z^{\a^0})$ of the [2BSDE]{} is defined similarly. We are now ready for the main result of this subsection, the proof is postponed to Section \[sect:2BSDE\] below. \[thm:2bsde\] [(i)]{} Under Assumptions \[assum-coef\] and \[assump:2bsde\], the [2BSDEs]{} and have unique solutions, with $$\begin{aligned} {\overline}V_0 \;:=\; \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_0}\sup_{\P\in\Pc_0^1(\a^0)}\E^{\P^\a}\Big[{\overline}{Y}_0^{\a^0}\Big], &\mbox{and}& {\underline}V_0 \;:=\; \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \inf_{\P\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1)}\E^{\P^\a}\Big[{\underline}{Y}_0^{\a^1}\Big] ; \end{aligned}$$ [(ii)]{} If in addition, for some $\widehat\a =(\widehat \a^0, \widehat \a^1)\in \Ac_0$, and $\widehat{\mathbb P} \in\cP_0(\widehat\a)$, $$\label{K0} {\underline}F_s\big ( {\underline}Z_s^{\widehat\a^1}, \widehat\a^1_s\big)={\overline}F_s\big({\overline}Z_s^{\widehat \a^0},\widehat\a^0_s\big),\; \mathrm{d}s\otimes \mathrm{d}\widehat \P-{\rm a.e.}, \; \text{and}\; {\overline}K^{\widehat\a^0}_T = {\underline}K^{\widehat\a^1}_T=0,\; \widehat \P-\mbox{a.s.}$$ then the game value exists, i.e. $ {\overline}V_0 = {\underline}V_0$, and $\widehat \a$ is a saddle–point of the game. We notice that Theorem \[thm:2bsde\] does not require Assumption \[assum-bsi\]. Moreover, Theorem \[thm:2bsde\] (ii) does not require directly. However, the conditions in are rather strong, and essentially imply , see Remark \[rem-2BSDE3\] below for more details. ### A simpler case: volatility controlled by one player only In this subsection we improve Theorem \[thm:2bsde\] when only one player, say Player 0, controls the volatility, i.e. $\si_t(\o,a) = \si_t(\o, a_0)$.[^8] Then, reduces to $${\overline}H_t(z,\g) = \inf_{\Sigma\in{\bf\Sigma}_t}\Big\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma\g\big]+{\overline}G_t(z,\Sigma)\Big\}, ~~{\underline}H_t(z,\g) = \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \inf_{\Sigma\in{\bf\Sigma}_t}\Big\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma\g\big]+{\underline}g_t(z,\Sigma,a_1)\Big\},\q\mbox{where}$$ $$\label{eq:G} \Sigma_t(a_0):=\big(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top\big)(a_0),\; {\bf \Sigma}_t:=\big\{\Sigma_t(a_0),\; a_0\in A_0\big\}, ~~A_0(t, \Sigma):=\big\{a_0\in A_0: \big(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top\big)(a_0)=\Sigma\big\},$$ $${\overline}G_t(z,\Sigma):=\inf_{a_0\in A_0(t,\Sigma)}\sup_{a_1\in A_1} F_t(z, a_0, a_1), ~~ {\underline}g_t(z,\Sigma,a_1):=\inf_{a_0\in A_0(t,\Sigma)}F_t(z, a_0, a_1),\; {\underline}G_t(z,\Sigma):=\sup_{a_1\in A_1}{\underline}g_t(z,\Sigma,a_1).$$ Moreover, it is clear that $\cP_0(\a) = \cP^1_0(\a^0) =: \cP_0(\a^0)$ depends only on $\a^0$. Denote $\cP_0 := \cup_{\a^0\in {\overline}\cA^0} \cP_0(\a^0)$. We now introduce the following 2BSDEs with solutions defined similarly to Definition \[def:2BSDE\]. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:2bsde2} {\underline}Y_t & = \xi+\int_t^T{\underline}G_s\big ( {\underline}Z_s,\widehat{\sigma}^2_s\big)\mathrm{d}s -\int_t^T{\underline}Z_s\cdot \mathrm{d}X_s-\int_t^T\mathrm{d} {\underline}K_s, ~\P-\mbox{a.s., for all}~\P\in\Pc_0,\\ \label{eq:2bsde3} {\overline}Y_t & = \xi+\int_t^T{\overline}G_s\big({\overline}Z_s,\widehat{\sigma}^2_s\big)\mathrm{d}s -\int_t^T{\overline}Z_s\cdot \mathrm{d}X_s-\int_t^T\mathrm{d} {\overline}K_s, ~\P-\mbox{a.s., for all}~\P\in\Pc_0. \end{aligned}$$ \[thm:2bsde2\] Under Assumptions \[assum-coef\] and \[assump:2bsde\], the [2BSDEs]{} and have unique solutions with $$\begin{aligned} {\overline}V_0=\inf_{\P\in\Pc_0}\E^{\P}\big[{\overline}Y_0\big], &\mbox{and}& {\underline}V_0=\inf_{\P\in\Pc_0}\E^{\P}\big[{\underline}Y_0\big]. \end{aligned}$$ If moreover the Isaac’s–like condition ${\overline}G={\underline}G$ holds, then the game has a value. The conditions ${\overline}G={\underline}G$ and ${\underline}H={\overline}H$ are equivalent in the uncontrolled volatility setting of Section \[sect:hamadene1995zero\]. However they are not comparable in general. It can be readily checked that when a saddle–point exists, the condition ${\overline}G={\underline}G$ actually implies that ${\underline}H={\overline}H$ when evaluated at this saddle–point, which is exactly what is needed to conclude to the existence of a game value. Unlike the general case of Theorem \[thm:2bsde\] $(ii)$, we can conclude here the existence of a game value, without having to assume existence of a saddle–point. Dynamic programming principle and viscosity property {#sect-Vt} ==================================================== In this section we prove Theorem \[thm-gamevalue\] under the additional [ Assumption \[assum-bsi\]. As usual,]{} the main tool is the dynamic programming principle. We shall focus on the upper value, and the lower value can be analysed similarly. For any $t\in [0, T]$, denote $$\label{sit} b^t(s, a) := b((t+s)\wedge T, a),\; \si^t(s, a) := \si((t+s)\wedge T, a), \; (s,a)\in [0, T] \times A.$$ We define $\cP(t,\a)$, $\cA_t$,..., in an obvious way, by replacing $(b,\si)$ with $(b^t, \si^t)$. For each $\dbP\in \cP(t,\a)$, define $$\label{Vt} J_t(\o,\a,\dbP) := \dbE^\dbP\bigg[\xi^{t,\omega}+\int_0^{T-t} \!\!f^{t,\omega}_s(\alpha_s)ds\bigg], ~{\overline}J_t := \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t, \a)} J_t(.,\dbP), ~\mbox{and}~ {\overline}V_t(\o) := \inf_{\alpha^0\in\cA_t^{0}} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t} {\overline}J_t(\o, \a^0, \a^1).$$ As we will explain in Remark \[rem-DPP\] below, we are not able to establish the DPP for ${\overline}V$ directly. To get around of this difficulty, as an intermediate step we shall modify the upper value slightly. Following the idea of Pham and Zhang [@pham2014two], we restrict $\a^0$ to a class of appropriately defined simple processes. We note that in [@pham2014two] both players are restricted to such simple controls, while here we only need this restriction for the one playing first. Let $\cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t$ denote the subset of $\cA^0_t$ whose elements take the following form $$\label{pc} \a^0_s(\o) \;:=\; \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \sum_{j=1}^{m_i} a^0_{ij} \1_{E_{ij}}(\o) \1_{[t_i, t_{i+1})}(s), \; 0\le s\le T-t,\; \o\in \O,$$ where $0=t_0<\cds<t_n=T-t$, $\{E_{ij}\}_{1\le j\le m_i} \subset \cF_{t_i}$ is a partition of $\O$, and $a^0_{ij}\in A_0$ are constants. Define $$\label{Vpc} {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_t(\o) \;:=\; \inf_{\alpha^0\in\cA_t^{0,{\rm pc}}} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t} {\overline}J_t(\o, \a^0, \a^1).$$ It is clear that $$\label{VpcV} {\overline}V_t \;\le\; {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_t.$$ Moreover, the uniform continuity and the boundedness in Assumption \[assum-coef\], induce the following regularity immediately. \[lem-Vreg\] Under Assumptions \[assum-coef\] and \[assum-bsi\], $J$ is uniformly continuous in $\o$, uniformly in $(t,\a,\dbP)$. Consequently, ${\overline}V$ and ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ are uniformly continuous in $\o$, uniformly in $t$. We emphasise that the maps $b$ and $\si$, and hence the probability measure $\dbP$, do not depend on $\o$. When $b$ or $\si$ depends on $\o$, the class $\cP(t,\a)$ will depend on $\o$, and thus one cannot fix an arbitrary $\dbP$ to discuss the regularly of $J$ in terms of $\o$. Indeed, in this general case, the regularity of ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ is the major difficulty in our approach, and we shall investigate it further in Section \[sect-extension\] below. The following result is crucial for the dynamic programming principle which will be established next, and is an immediate consequence of [@karoui2013capacities2 Remark 3.8 and Theorem 3.4]. \[lem-cP\] [(i)]{} Let $\a= (\a^0, \a^1)\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_0 \times \cA^1_0$, $t\in [0, T]$, and $\dbP\in \cP(\a)$. Then $\a^{t,\o}\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t \times \cA^1_t$ and the regular conditional probability distribution $\dbP^{t,\o} \in \cP(t, \a^{t,\o})$ for $\dbP$-a.e. $\o\in \O$.\ [(ii)]{} Let $t\in [0, T]$, $n\in\dbN$, $\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_0$, $\a^0_i \in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t$, $1\le i\le n,$ $\{E_i\}_{1\le i\le n}\subset \cF_t$ a finite partition of $\O$, and define the control $\widetilde \a^0(\o\otimes_t \o') := \1_{[0, t)}\a^0(\o) +\1_{[t, T]} \sum_{i= 1}^n \a^0_i(\o')\1_{E_i}(\o).$ Then $\widetilde\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_0$. We now prove the dynamic programming principle (DPP) for ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$. \[thm-DPP\] Under Assumptions \[assum-coef\] and \[assum-bsi\], ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}\in{\rm UC}_b(\Theta)$, and $${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_t(\o) = \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t, \a)} \dbE^\dbP\bigg[\big({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}\big)^\th_\t+\int_0^\t f^\th_s(\alpha_s)\mathrm{d}s\bigg], ~\mbox{for any}~\th \in \Th,~\mbox{and $\dbF-$stopping time}~\t \le T-t.$$ We proceed in three steps. We first establish the DPP for deterministic $\t$. Without loss of generality we will just prove the following $$\label{DPP0} {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_0 = \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_0} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a)} \widetilde J_0(\a, \dbP), ~\mbox{where}~ \widetilde J_0(\a, \dbP) := \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}+\int_0^{t} f_s(\alpha_s)\mathrm{d}s\bigg] ~\mbox{for}~0<t\le T.$$ We first prove $\le$. By Lemma \[lem-Vreg\], $J$ is uniformly continuous in $\o$. Since $\O$ is separable, for any $\eps>0$, there exist a partition $\{E_i\}_{i\ge 1} \subset \cF_{t}$ and $\o^i\in E_i$ such that $|J_{t}(\o, \a, \dbP) - J_{t}(\o^i,\a,\dbP)| \le \eps$ for all $\o\in E_i$, $i\ge 1$, and all $\a\in \cA$ and $\dbP\in \cP(t, \a)$. For each $i$, let $\a^0_i\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_{t}$ be an $\eps-$optimiser for ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o^i)$, namely $$\label{S} S_{t}(\o^i,\a^0_i) \le {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o^i) + \eps,\;\mbox{where} \; S_t(\o, \a^0_i):= \sup_{\a^1 \in \cA^1_{t}} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t, \a^0_i, \a^1)} J_t(\o, \a^0_i, \a^1, \dbP).$$ Notice that $\a^0_i$ does not depend on $\o$. Then it is clear that $$\label{Sreg} |S_t(\o, \a^0_i)- S_t(\o^i, \a^0_i)|\le \eps, \;\mbox{and}\; |{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o) - {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o^i)|\le \eps,\;\mbox{for all}~ \o\in E_i,\; i\ge 1.$$ Now for any $\a=(\a^0,\a^1) \in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_0\times \cA^1_0$ and $\dbP\in \cP(\a)$, define $\widetilde \a^0\in \cA^0$ as in Lemma \[lem-cP\] (ii). Note that $(\widetilde \a^0)^{t, \o} = \a^0_i$ for $\o\in E_i$. By Lemma \[lem-cP\] (i), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\overline}J_0(\widetilde \a^0, \a^1, \dbP) &= \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[ \dbE^{\dbP^{t,\o}}\bigg[\xi^{t,\o} + \int_0^{T-t} f^{t,\o}_s\big(\big(\widetilde\a^0\big)^{t,\o}_s, \big(\a^1\big)^{t,\o}_s\big)\mathrm{d}s\bigg] + \int_0^{t} f_s(\a_s)\mathrm{d}s\Bigg]\\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ \sum_{i\ge 1} S_{t}(\o, \a^0_i) \1_{E_i}(\o) + \int_0^{t} f_s(\a_s)\mathrm{d}s \bigg]\\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ \sum_{i\ge 1} S_{t}(\o^i, \a^0_i) \1_{E_i}(\o) + \int_0^{t} f_s(\a_s)\mathrm{d}s\bigg] +\eps\\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ \sum_{i\ge 1} {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o^i) \1_{E_i}(\o) + \int_0^{t} f_s(\a_s)\mathrm{d}s\bigg] +2\eps\\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ \sum_{i\ge 1}{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o) \1_{E_i}(\o) + \int_0^{t} f_s(\a_s)\mathrm{d}s \bigg] +3\eps = \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t}(\o) + \int_0^{t} f_s(\a_s)ds \bigg] +3\eps = \widetilde J_0(\a, \dbP) + 3\eps.\end{aligned}$$ By the arbitrariness of $\a^0, \a^1, \dbP$ and $\eps$, we prove the “$\le$” part of . We next prove $\ge$. Fix $\a^0 = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \1_{[t_i, t_{i+1})} \sum_{j=1}^{m_i} a^0_{ij} \1_{E_{ij}} \in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_0$ as in . By otherwise adding the point $t$ in into the partition points in the definition of $\a^0$, we may assume without loss of generality that $t=t_i$ for a certain $i$. We claim that $$\label{DPP1} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)}\dbE^\dbP\big[{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}\big] \;\le\; \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)}\dbE^\dbP\big[{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}}\big],\; \mbox{for all} \; i=0,\cds, n-1,$$ so that, since ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_n} = \xi$ $$\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)}\dbE^\dbP[{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}] \le \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)}\dbE^\dbP[\xi],\; \mbox{for all}\; i=0,\cds, n-1,$$ thus implying the “$\ge$” part of by the arbitrariness of $\a^0$. To see that holds, fix $i$, $\a^1\in \cA^1_0$, and $\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)$. For any $\eps>0$, by Pham and Zhang [@pham2014two Lemma 4.3], one may choose the partition $\{E_k\}_{k \ge 1}\subset \cF_{t_i}$ such that $$\sup_{\a\in \cA} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a)} \dbP\bigg[\bigcup_{k> N}E_k\bigg] \le \eps,\; \text{for some $N$ large enough}.$$ Denote $\widetilde E_N := \cup_{k> N}E_k$, $E_{ijk} := E_{ij} \cap E_k$ for $j=1,\cds, m_i$, $k=1,\cds, N$, and $\widetilde E_{ij} := E_{ij} \cap \widetilde E_N$, for $j=1,\cds, m_i$. Fix an $\o^{ijk}\in E_{ijk}$ for each $j, k$, whenever $E_{ijk} \neq \emptyset$. Recalling that $\{E_{ij}\}_{1\le j\le m_i}$ is a partition of $\O$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \dbE^\dbP\big[{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}\big] = \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}(\o) \1_{E_{ij}}(\o)\Bigg] &\le \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i}\sum_{k=1}^N {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}(\o) \1_{E_{ijk}}(\o)\Bigg] + C\eps \\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i}\sum_{k=1}^N {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}(\o^{ijk}) \1_{E_{ijk}}(\o)\Bigg] +C\eps \\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} \sum_{k=1}^N\sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_{t_i} }\sup_{\widetilde \dbP \in \cP(t_i, a^0_{ij}, \widetilde \a^1)} \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP}\big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o^{ijk}}\big] \1_{E_{ijk}}(\o)\Bigg] +C\eps, \end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality is due to the boundedness of ${\overline}V^{\rm pc}$ and the last inequality used [*Step 1.1*]{}. For each $j, k$, there exist $\widetilde \a^1_{jk} \in \cA^1_{t_i}$ and $\widetilde \dbP_{jk} \in \cP(t_i, a^0_{ij}, \widetilde \a^1_{jk})$ such that $$\sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_{t_i} } \sup_{\widetilde \dbP \in \cP(t_i, a^0_{ij}, \widetilde \a^1)} \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP}\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o^{ijk}}\Big] \le \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP_j}\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o^{ijk}}\Big] + \eps.$$ Fix an arbitrary $a_1\in A_1$ and $\widetilde \dbP^{a^0_{ij}, a_1} \in \cP(t_i, a^0_{ij},a_1)$. Define $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde \a^1 &:= \1_{[0, t_i) } \a^1+ \1_{[t_i, T]} \Bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} \sum_{k=1}^N \widetilde \a^1_{jk} \1_{E_{ijk}} + a_1 \1_{\widetilde E_N}\Bigg),\; \widetilde \dbP := \dbP\otimes_{t_i} \sum_{j=1}^{m_i} \Bigg(\sum_{k=1}^N \widetilde \dbP_{jk} \1_{E_{ijk}} + \widetilde \dbP^{a^0_{ij}, a_1}\1_{\widetilde E_{ij}}\Bigg) \in \cP(\a^0, \hat \a^1).\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} \dbE^\dbP\Big[{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_i}\Big] & \le \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i}\sum_{k=1}^N \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP_{jk}}\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o^{ijk}}\Big] \1_{E_{ijk}}(\o) \Bigg] +C\eps \\ &\le \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} \sum_{k=1}^N \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP_{jk}}\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o}\Big] \1_{E_{ijk}}(\o) \Bigg] +C\eps = \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} \sum_{k=1}^N \dbE^{ \widetilde \dbP^{t_i, \o} }\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o}\Big] \1_{E_{ijk}}(\o) \Bigg] +C\eps \\ &= \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\dbE^{ \widetilde \dbP^{t_i, \o} }\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o}\Big] \1_{\widetilde E_N^c}\Bigg] +C\eps \le \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\dbE^{ \widetilde \dbP^{t_i, \o} }\Big[({\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}})^{t_i, \o}\Big] \Bigg] +C\eps = \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP}\Big[{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t_{i+1}} \Big] +C\eps.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to immediately. We next show that ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ is uniformly continuous in $(t,\o)$. Let $\rho$ denote the modulus of continuity function of ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ with respect to $\o$. For $t < t'$ and $\o\in \O$, denote $\delta := d_\infty((t,\o), (t',\o))$. By [**Step 1**]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned} \big|{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t} - {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t'} \big|(\o) &\le \sup_{\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t, \a^0,\a^1)} \bigg| \dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[ {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t'}(\o\otimes_t X)+\int_0^{t'-t} f^{t,\o}_s(\a^0_s, \a^1_s) \mathrm{d}s\bigg] - {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_{t'}(\o)\bigg| \\ &\le \sup_{\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t, \a^0,\a^1)} \dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[ \rho\big(\|(\o\otimes_t X)_{\cd\wedge t'} - \o_{\cd\wedge t'}\|_\infty\big)+ \int_0^\delta |f^{t,\o}_s(\a^0_s, \a^1_s)| \mathrm{d}s \bigg] \\ &\le \sup_{\a^0\in \cA^{0,{\rm pc}}_t} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t, \a^0,\a^1)} \dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[ \rho\big( \delta + \|X_{\cd\wedge\delta}\|_\infty\big)+ \int_0^\delta |f^{t,\o}_s(\a^0_s, \a^1_s)| \mathrm{d}s \bigg] \\ &\le \sup_{\dbP\in \cP_L} \dbE^\dbP\Big[\rho\big( \delta + \|X_{\cd\wedge\delta}\|_\infty\big)\Big] + C\delta,\end{aligned}$$ for some $L$ large enough. Under our conditions, this clearly implies the uniform continuity of ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ in $(t,\o)$. Following standard approximation arguments, we may extend Theorem \[thm-DPP\] to stopping times. \[rem-DPP\] $(i)$ Following similar arguments as in [*Step 1.1*]{} above, one may prove the partial [DPP]{} for ${\overline}V$: $${\overline}V_0 \le \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_0} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)} \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ {\overline}V_{t}+\int_0^{t} f_s(\alpha_s)\mathrm{d}s \bigg].$$ However, to prove the opposite inequality, we encountered some serious difficulties that we would like to highlight. Let $f=0$ for simplicity of presentation. Then we want to prove, for fixed $\a^0 \in \cA^0_0$, that $$\label{DPP2} \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)} \dbE^\dbP[ \xi] \ge \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)} \dbE^\dbP\Bigg[\sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_t} \sup_{\widetilde \dbP\in \cP(t, (\a^0)^{t,\o}, \widetilde \a^1)} \dbE^{\widetilde \dbP}[\xi^{t,\o}] \Bigg],$$ which is the partial [DPP]{} for a control problem $($instead of a game problem$)$. However, we insist on the fact that we are using weak formulation, which implies in particular that the control $\a^1$ depends on $X$, and the fixed control $\a^0$ has typically absolutely no regularity with respect to $X$. The [DPP]{} for this problem is not available in the literature, and there are indeed serious obstacles to overcome in order to establish it. Several authors managed to obtain such [DPP]{} but either in strong formulation $($see Nisio [[@nisio1988stochastic]]{}, Fleming and Souganidis [[@fleming1989existence]]{}, Świch [[@swikech1996another]]{}, Buckdahn and Li [[@buckdahn2008stochastic]]{}, Bouchard, Moreau and Nutz [[@bouchard2014stochastic]]{}, Bouchard and Nutz [[@bouchard2015stochastic]]{}, Krylov [[@krylov2013dynamic; @krylov2014dynamic]]{}$)$, or with the use of simple strategies for both players $($see Pham and Zhang [[@pham2014two]]{} or Sîrbu [[@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic]]{}$)$[^9]. $(ii)$ As we saw in Example \[eg-strong\], in the strong formulation setting of Subsection \[sect:strong\], the game value typically does not exist. The main reason is that in this setting the DPP fails for the dynamic upper $($and lower$)$ value of the game. In fact, in this case the dynamic version of ${\overline}V^S_0$ in is the following deterministic function $($assuming $b=f=0$ for simplicity$)$, $$\dis{\overline}u(t, x) := \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_S}\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0}\big[g(X^{t,x, \a}_{T-t}) \big],\; \mbox{where}\; X^{t,x,\a}_s = x + \int_0^s \si^t(r, X^{t,x,\a}_r, \a_r) \mathrm{d}W_r, ~0\le s\le T-t, ~\dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ Under mild conditions, one can easily show that ${\overline}u(t, \cd)$ is uniformly continuous in $x$. Following similar arguments as in Step 1.2 $($actually much easier because we have the desired regularity under the strong formulation$)$, one can prove the following partial [DPP]{} $($stated for $t_1=0, t_2 = t$ and $x=0$ for simplicity$)$, $${\overline}u(0,0) \ge \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_S}\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0}\big[{\overline}u(t, X^\a_t) \big].$$ However, the opposite direction of the [DPP]{} will not hold, since the game value does not exist. Let us explain why the arguments in Step 1.1 fail in this setting. By the uniform regularity of ${\overline}u$ in $x$, there exists a partition $\{O_i\}_{i\ge 1}$ of $\dbR^d$ such that $|{\overline}u(t, x) - {\overline}u(t, x_i)|\le \eps$ for all $x\in O_i$, where $x_i \in O_i$ is fixed. Now for each $i$, let $\a^0_i \in \cA^0_S$ be an $\eps-$optimiser of ${\overline}u(t, x_i)$. Then we will have, for any $\a\in \cA_S$ $$\dbE^{\dbP_0}\big[{\overline}u(t, X^\a_t) \big] \ge \dbE^{\dbP_0}\Bigg[ \sum_{i\ge 1} \sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0} \Big[g(X^{t, x, (\a^0_i, \widetilde \a^1)}_{T-t}\Big]\Big|_{x=X^\a_t} \1_{O_i}(X^\a_t)\Bigg] - \eps\ge\sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0} \Big[ g\big(\widetilde X_T\big)\Big] -\eps,$$ where, denoting $W^t_s := W_{t+s}-W_t$, $$\label{tildeX} \widetilde X_s = X^\a_t + \int_t^s \si\bigg(r, \widetilde X_r, \sum_{i\ge 1} \a^0_i(r-t, W^t_\cd) \1_{O_i}(X^\a_t), \widetilde \a^1(r-t, W^t)\bigg) \mathrm{d}r, \q\dbP_0-\mbox{a.s.}$$ In other words, to prove the opposite direction of the [DPP]{}, essentially we want to prove $$\label{DPpeng2015g2} \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_S}\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0}\big[g(X^\a_T) \big] \le \inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_S}\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_S} \sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0} \Big[ g\big(\widetilde X_T\big)\Big] .$$ Fix an $\a^0\in \cA^0_S$. Note that the right side above involves only $\a^0\big|_{[0, t]}$. The idea is to construct $\widetilde \a^0 \in \cA^0_S$ such that $$\sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0}\big[g(X^{\widetilde \a^0, \a^1}_T) \big] \le \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_S} \sup_{\widetilde \a^1 \in \cA^1_S} \dbE^{\dbP_0} \big[ g(\widetilde X_T)\big].$$ By , the most natural construction of $\widetilde \a^0$ is to set $\widetilde \a^0(s,W_\cd) := \1_{[0, t)}(s) \a^0(s,W_\cd) + \1_{[t, T]} \sum_{i\ge 1} \a^0_i(s-t, W^t_\cd) \1_{O_i}(X^\a_t)$. This construction does work well in weak formulation, as we saw in Lemma \[lem-cP\] $(ii)$. However, in the strong formulation considered here, the above construction relies on $X^\a_t$, thus in turn on $\a^1\big|_{[0, t]}$. In other words, the $\a^0$ in the left side of will depend on $\a^1$. This is exactly the idea of the notion of strategy against control introduced in Subsection \[sect:fleming1989existence\], which is however not allowed in the current setting of strong formulation with control against control. We now derive the viscosity property of ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$. Once the DPP and the regularity of ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ have been established, it is a rather straightforward verification. \[prop-viscosity\] Under Assumptions \[assum-coef\] and \[assum-bsi\], ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$ is a viscosity solution of the [PPDE]{} $$\label{PPDEol} -\pa_t {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}} - {\overline}H_t\big(\pa_\o {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}, \pa^2_{\o\o} {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}\big) = 0.$$ Without loss of generality, we shall only verify the $L-$viscosity property at $(0,0)$ for some $L$ large enough. We first verify the viscosity sub–solution property. Assume by contradiction that there exists $(\kappa, z, \g) \in {\underline}\cJ^L {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}(0,0)$ with corresponding hitting time $\ch_\eps$ such that $-c:= \kappa +{\overline}H_0(z, \g) < 0$. By the definition of ${\overline}H$, there exists $a_0^*\in A_0$ such that $\kappa +\sup_{a_1\in A_1} h_0(z, \g, a^*_0, a_1) \le -{\frac c2} < 0$. By choosing $\eps>0$ small enough, it follows from the uniform regularity of $b, \si$ and $f$ that $$\label{small1} \kappa +\sup_{a_1\in A_1} h_t(\o, z, \g, a^*_0, a_1) \le -{\frac c3} < 0,\; 0\le t \le \ch_\eps(\o).$$ Now fix the above $\eps>0$. For an arbitrary $\delta>0$, denote $\t := \ch_\eps \wedge \delta \le \ch_\eps$. By we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{small2} -{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_0 &\le& \inf_{\dbP\in \cP_L} \dbE^\dbP\bigg[\kappa \t + z\cd X_\t + {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[\g X_\t X^\top_\t\big] - {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_\t\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by setting $\a^0$ as the constant process $a^*_0$ in the right side of DPP , we have $$\begin{aligned} \overline{V}^{{\rm pc}}_0 &\le& \sup_{\alpha^1\in \Ac^1_0} \sup_{\mathbb P\in \Pc(a^*_0,\alpha^1)} \mathbb E^{\mathbb P}\bigg[ \overline{V}^{{\rm pc}}_\tau +\int_0^\tau f_s(a^*_0, \a^1_s) \mathrm{d}s \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Choose $\a^1\in \cA^1_0$ and $\dbP\in \cP(a^*_0,\a^1)$ such that $$\label{small3} \overline{V}^{{\rm pc}}_0 \leq \mathbb E^{\mathbb P}\Big[ \overline{V}^{{\rm pc}}_\tau +\int_0^\tau f_s(a^*_0, \a^1_s) \mathrm{d}s \Big]+ \delta^2.$$ Note that $\cup_{\a\in \cA} \cP(\a) \subset \cP_L$ for $L$ large enough, and in particular the above $\dbP$ is also in $\cP_L$. Then, we derive from and that $$\begin{aligned} -\delta^2 \le \dbE^{\dbP}\Big[\kappa \t + z\!\cd\! X_\t + {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[\g X_\t X^\top_\t\big] \!+\!\!\int_0^\t\!\!\! f_s(a^*_0, \a^1_s) \mathrm{d}s \Big] = \dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[\int_0^\t \!\!\!\big(\kappa + h_s(z,\g, a^*_0, \a^1_s) + {\rm Tr}\big[\g b(s, a^*_0, \a^1_s) X^\top_s\big] \big)\mathrm{d}s \bigg] . \end{aligned}$$ Now by we have $$\begin{aligned} -\delta^2 \;\le\; \mathbb E^{\mathbb P}\Big[ -{\frac c3} \tau + \int_0^\tau {\rm Tr}\big[ \gamma b(s, a^*_0, \alpha^1_s) X^\top_s \big]\mathrm{d}s \Big] \;\le\; -{\frac c3} \delta + C\mathbb P\big[\ch_\eps \leq \delta\big] + C \mathbb E^\mathbb P\big[ \|X_{\cdot\wedge\delta}\|_\infty \big] \delta . \end{aligned}$$ Clearly $\dbE^\dbP\big[ \|X_{\wedge\delta}\|_\infty \big] \le C_L\sqrt{\delta}$. Moroever, for $\delta \le {\frac\eps2}$, $$\mathbb P\big[\ch_\eps \leq \delta\big] \;\le\; \mathbb P\big[\delta +\|X_{\cdot\wedge\delta}\|_\infty \geq \eps\big] \;\le\; \mathbb P\big[\|X_{\wedge\delta}\|_\infty \geq {\frac\eps2}\big] \leq {\frac C{\eps^4}} \mathbb E^\mathbb P\big[\|X_{\wedge\delta}\|_\infty^4\big] \le C_{\eps,L}\delta^2.$$ Then $0 \le -{\frac c 3} \delta + CC_{\eps,L} \delta^2+CC_L\delta^{3/2}+\delta^2$, which leads to the desired contradiction for small $\delta>0$. [*Step 2.*]{} We next verify the viscosity super–solution property. Assume by contradiction that there exists $(\kappa, z, \g) \in {\overline}\cJ^L u(0,0)$ with corresponding hitting time $\ch_\eps$ such that $c := \kappa +{\overline}H_0(z, \g) > 0.$ Then $$\kappa + \sup_{a_1\in \cA_1} h_0(z, \g, a_0, a_1) \ge c > 0,\; \mbox{for all}\; a_0 \in A_0,$$ and there exists a mapping $\psi: A_0 \longrightarrow A_1$ such that $\kappa + h_0(z, \g, a_0, \psi(a_0)) \ge {\frac c2} > 0,$ for all $a_0 \in A_0$. By choosing $\eps>0$ small enough, it follows from the uniform regularity of $b, \si$ and $f$ that $$\label{small4} \kappa +h_t(\o, z, \g, a_0, \psi(a_0)) \ge {\frac c3} > 0, \mbox{ for all } a_0 \in A_0, ~ 0\le t \le \ch_\eps(\o).$$ Now fix the above $\eps>0$. For an arbitrary $\delta>0$, denote $\tau := \ch_\eps \wedge \delta \le \ch_\eps$. By we have $$\label{small5} -{\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_0 \;\ge\; \sup_{\dbP\in \cP_L} \dbE^\dbP\bigg[\kappa \t + z\cd X_\t + {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[\g X_\t X^\top_\t \big]- {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_\t\bigg].$$ On the other hand, by the DPP , there exists $\a^0\in \cA^0$ such that $$\overline{V}^{{\rm pc}}_0 \geq \sup_{\a^1\in \Ac^1_0} \sup_{\mathbb P\in \Pc(\a^0,\a^1)} \mathbb E^{\mathbb P}\bigg[ \overline{V}^{{\rm pc}}_\tau +\int_0^\tau f_s(\a^0_s, \a^1_s)\mathrm{d}s \bigg] -\delta^2.$$ Since $\cup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \cP(\a^0,\a^1) \subset \cP_L$, the above estimate together with implies $$\begin{aligned} \delta^2 &\ge& \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\mathbb P\in \Pc(\a^0,\a^1)} \mathbb E^{\mathbb P}\bigg[ \kappa \tau + z\cd X_\tau + {\frac1 2}{\rm Tr}\big[ \gamma X_\tau X^\top_\tau\big] +\int_0^\tau f_s(\a^0_s, \a^1_s)\mathrm{d}s \bigg] \\ &=& \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_0} \sup_{\mathbb P\in \Pc(\a^0,\a^1)} \mathbb E^{\mathbb P}\bigg[\int_0^\t \big(\kappa + h_s(z,\gamma, \a^0_s, \a^1_s) + {\rm Tr}\big[ \gamma b(s, \a^0_s, \a^1_s) X^\top_s\big] \big)\mathrm{d}s \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Choose $\a^1 := \psi(\a^0)$. By the structure of $\a^0$, we see $\a^1$ is also piecewise constant and thus $\cP(\a^0, \a^1)\neq \emptyset$. Set $\dbP\in \cP(\a^0,\a^1)\subset \cP_L$. Then $$\delta^2 \ge \dbE^{\dbP}\Big[\int_0^\t\!\!\! \big(\kappa + h_s(z,\g, \a^0_s, \psi(\a^0_s)) + {\rm Tr}\big[\g b(s, \a^0_s, \psi(\a^0_s)) X^\top_s\big] \big)\mathrm{d}s \Big] \ge \dbE^{\dbP}\Big[\int_0^\t \!\!\!\Big({\frac c3} + {\rm Tr}\big[\g b(s, \a^0_s, \psi(\a^0_s)) X^\top_s\big] \Big)\mathrm{d}s \Big],$$ thanks to . Now following the same arguments as in [*Step 1*]{}, we obtain $0\ge {\frac c3} \delta - C_{\eps,L}\delta^2-C\delta^{3/2}$, which leads to the desired contradiction by choosing $\delta>0$ small enough. Finally, we can prove our main result of this section. Following similar arguments, one may define ${\underline}V^{{\rm pc}}_t$ by restricting $\a^1$ to piecewise constant processes in the problem ${\underline}V_t$, and show that ${\underline}V^{{\rm pc}}\in {\rm UC}_b(\Th, \dbR)$ is a viscosity solution of the [PPDE]{} $$\label{PPDEul} -\pa_t {\underline}V^{{\rm pc}} - {\underline}H_t(\pa_\o {\underline}V^{{\rm pc}}, \pa^2_{\o\o} {\underline}V^{{\rm pc}}) =0.$$ Clearly ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_T = \xi = {\underline}V^{{\rm pc}}_T$. Then it follows from Isaacs’s condition and the uniqueness assumption for viscosity solutions of the PPDEs, that ${\overline}V^{{\rm pc}} = {\underline}V^{{\rm pc}}$. Moreover, recalling , we deduce ${\underline}V^{{\rm pc}} \le {\underline}V \le {\overline}V\le {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}$, and therefore ${\overline}V= {\underline}V$. An extension {#sect-extension} ============ In this section we shall relax Assumption \[assum-bsi\], and replace the expectation $J_0(\a, \dbP)$ in with the solution to a nonlinear BSDE, as in the seminal paper of Buckdahn and Li [@buckdahn2008stochastic]. For $\a\in \cA$ and $\dbP\in \cP(\a)$, consider the solution $(Y^{\a,\dbP}, Z^{\a,\dbP}, N^{\a,\dbP})$ of the BSDE $$\label{BSDE} Y^{\a,\dbP}_t = \xi(X) + \int_t^T f_s\big(X_\cd, Y^{\a,\dbP}_s, \si_s(X_\cd, \a_s)Z^{\a,\dbP}_s, \a_s\big) \mathrm{d}s - Z_s^{\a,\dbP}\cdot \mathrm{d}M^\a_s + \mathrm{d}N^{\a,\dbP}_s,\; \dbP-\mbox{a.s.}$$ where $M^\a$ is defined in , and $N^{\a,\dbP}$ is an $\dbP-$martingale orthogonal to $X$ (or equivalently to $M^\a$) under $\dbP$, namely $ {\langle}N^{\a,\dbP}, X{\rangle}=0$, $\dbP-\mbox{a.s.}$ Recall , so that BSDE can be rewritten, $\P-$a.s. $$\begin{aligned} \label{BSDEX} Y^{\a,\dbP}_t = \xi(X) + \int_t^T \Big[f_s\big(X_\cd, Y^{\a,\dbP}_s, \si_s(X_\cd, \a_s)Z_s^{\a,\dbP}, \a_s\big) + Z^{\a,\dbP}_s b_s(X_\cd, \a_s)\Big]\mathrm{d}s - Z_s^{\a,\dbP}\mathrm{d}X_s + \mathrm{d}N^{\a,\dbP}_s. \end{aligned}$$ In this section we shall assume \[assum-f\] [ $(i)$]{} $b, \si$ and $\xi$ satisfy the conditions in Assumption \[assum-coef\]. $f$ is $\dbF-$progressively measurable in all variables, and the function $f_t(\o, 0,0,a)$ is bounded. $f$ is locally uniformly continuous in $(t,\o, a)$, locally uniformly in $(y,z)$. That is, for any $R>0$, there exists a modulus of continuity function $\rho_R$ such that $$|f_t(\o, y, z, a)-f_{t'}(\o', y,z,a)| \le \rho_R\big(d_\infty(\th, \th')\big)~\mbox{for all}~ \th, \th'\in \Th, |y|, |z|\le R, a\in A.$$ [$(iv)$]{} $f$ is uniformly Lipschitz continuous in $(y,z)$. Under Assumption \[assum-f\], the BSDE is well–posed with $\dbF-$progressively measurable solutions. By abusing the notations, we redefine as $$\label{BJ} J_0(\a, \dbP) := Y^{\a,\dbP}_0,$$ and still define ${\overline}J_0(\a), {\underline}J_0(\a)$ by , the upper and lower values $({\overline}V_0, {\underline}V_0)$ by , and a saddle–point $\hat \a$ of the game by , but using the newly defined $J_0(\a, \dbP)$. It is quite straightforward to extend the results in Subsection \[sect-verification\] to this setting. In this section, we shall focus on extending Theorem \[thm-gamevalue\] to this general case. We remark that the nonlinear extension to BSDE does not cause significant difficulty, and as we explained, the main difficulty is the regularity of the value functions due to the dependence of $b$ and $\si$ on $\o$. As mentioned in Subsection \[sect:CRpham2014two\], in the Markovian case this difficulty can be circumvented by using the idea of Sîrbu [@sirbu2014stochastic; @sirbu2015asymptotic]. In this section we shall provide a sufficient condition, in addition to Assumption \[assum-f\], under which we are able to extend Theorem \[thm-gamevalue\] for path–dependent games. We first notice that in this case the Hamiltonians become (again abusing notations) $$\label{BHamiltonian} \left.\begin{array}{c} \dis h_t(\o,y, z,\g, a) := {\frac 12}{\rm Tr}\big[ \si\si^\top_t(\o, a) \g\big] + b_t(\o, a) \cd z+ f_t(\o, y, z\si_t(\o, a), a),\\[0.8em] \dis {\overline}H_t(\o, y,z,\g) := \inf_{a_0\in A_0}\sup_{a_1\in A_1} h_t(\o,y, z,\g, a),~ {\underline}H_t(\o, y,z,\g) :=\sup_{a_1\in A_1} \inf_{a_0\in A_0} h_t(\o,y, z,\g, a). \end{array}\right.$$ Drift reduction by Girsanov transformation ------------------------------------------ In this subsection we illustrate that there is flexibility on the drift $b$, through the Girsanov [transformation. For any]{} $\l: \Th \times A \longrightarrow \dbR^d$, denote $$\begin{aligned} \label{Girsanov} \left.\begin{array}{c} \dis \si' := \si, \; b' := b - \si \l,\; f' := f + z\cdot \l,\; \xi' := \xi,\\[0.3em] \dis h'_t(\o,y, z,\g, a) := {\frac12} {\rm Tr}\big[(\si')^2_t(\o, a) \g\big] + b'_t(\o, a) \cd z+ f'_t(\o, y, z\si_t(\o, a), a), \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and define $\cP'(\a),$ $Y^{'\a,\dbP},$ ${\overline}J_0'(\a)$,..., in an obvious manner. It is clear that $h' = h$, and thus the corresponding Isaacs equation will remain the same. We show that the game values are invariant under this transformation. \[prop-Girsanov\] Let $b,\; \si,\; f,\; \xi$ satisfy Assumption \[assum-f\]. Assume $\l$ is bounded, $\dbF-$progressively measurable in all variables, uniformly continuous in $(t, \o)$ under $d_\infty$, uniformly in $a \in A$, and is locally uniformly continuous in $a$, in the sense of Assumption \[assum-f\]$(iii)$. Then ${\overline}J_0'(\a) = {\overline}J_0(\a)$ and ${\underline}J_0'(\a) = {\underline}J_0(\a)$ for any $\a\in \cA$. First, it is clear that $b', \si', f', \xi'$ also satisfy Assumption \[assum-f\]. We proceed in two steps. Let ${\overline}\O := \O \times \O$ with canonical process $(X, W)$. For any $\a\in \cA$, denote by ${\overline}\cP(\a)$ the set of probability measures ${\overline}\dbP$ on ${\overline}\O$ such that $W$ is a ${\overline}\dbP-$Brownian motion and holds ${\overline}\dbP-$a.s. Then clearly $\cP(\a) = \{\dbP := {\overline}\dbP\circ X^{-1}: {\overline}\dbP\in {\overline}\cP(\a)\}$. Now for each ${\overline}\dbP\in {\overline}\cP(\a)$, define $$\mathrm{d}W^\a_t = \mathrm{d}W_t + \l_t(X_\cd, \a_t(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}t,~ \frac{\mathrm{d} {\overline}\dbP'}{\mathrm{d}{\overline}\dbP} := \exp\bigg(-\int_0^T\l_t(X_\cd, \a_t(X_\cd)) \cdot \mathrm{d}W_t - {\frac12}\int_0^T |\l_t(X_\cd, \a_t(X_\cd))|^2 \mathrm{d}t\bigg).$$ Then $W^\a$ is an ${\overline}\dbP'-$Brownian motion and $$\mathrm{d}X_t = b'_t(X_\cd, \a_t(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}t + \si'_t(X_\cd, \a_t(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}W^\a_t,\;{\overline}\dbP'-\mbox{a.s.},$$ that is to say ${\overline}\dbP' \in {\overline}\cP'(\a)$. Similarly one may construct ${\overline}\dbP\in {\overline}\cP(\a)$ from ${\overline}\dbP'\in {\overline}\cP'(\a)$, which implies that there is a one–to–one correspondence between ${\overline}\cP(\a)$ and ${\overline}\cP'(\a)$ through Girsanov transformations. We now turn to the backward problem. Since the solution of is $\dbF^X-$measurable, then, by embedding them into the enlarged canonical space ${\overline}\O$, we have $$Y^{\a,\dbP}_t = \xi(X) + \int_t^T f_s(X_\cd, Y^{\a,\dbP}_s, {\overline}Z^{\a,\dbP}_s, \a_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}s - \int_t^T {\overline}Z_s^{\a,\dbP}\cdot \mathrm{d}W_s + N^{\a,\dbP}_T - N^{\a,\dbP}_t,\; {\overline}\dbP-\mbox{a.s.}$$ where ${\overline}Z^{\a,\dbP}_t = \si_t(X_\cd, \a_t(X_\cd))Z^{\a,\dbP}_t$. This implies $$Y^{\a,\dbP}_t = \xi'(X) + \int_t^T f'_s(X_\cd, Y^{\a,\dbP}_s, {\overline}Z^{\a,\dbP}_s, \a_s(X_\cd)) \mathrm{d}s - \int_t^T {\overline}Z_s^{\a,\dbP}\cdot \mathrm{d}W^\a_s + N^{\a,\dbP}_T - N^{\a,\dbP}_t,\; {\overline}\dbP-\mbox{a.s.}$$ Notice that ${\overline}\dbP'$ is equivalent to ${\overline}\dbP$, so that the last decomposition also holds ${\overline}\dbP'$-a.s. Denote $\dbP' := {\overline}\dbP'\circ X^{-1}$. By the uniqueness of the solution to the BSDE, we see that $Y^{\a,\dbP} = Y^{\a,\dbP'}$. Since $\cP'(\a) = \{\dbP' := {\overline}\dbP'\circ X^{-1}: {\overline}\dbP' \in {\overline}\cP'(\a)\}$ and recalling from Step 1 that ${\overline}\cP(\a)$ and ${\overline}\cP'(\a)$ are in a one–to–one correspondence, we see that ${\overline}J'_0(\a) = {\overline}J_0(\a)$ and ${\underline}J_0'(\a) = {\underline}J_0(\a)$. \[rem-Girsanov\] [(i)]{} While very natural, the above result relies heavily on our formulation that $\a$ $($and $\l)$ depends on $X$ only. When $\a$ $($or $\l)$ depends on $W$, the one to one correspondence in Step 1 above fails, and $\a(W) \neq \a(W^\a)$, thus the game values may not be equal under the Girsanov transformation, even though the Hamiltonians remain the same. See Subsection \[sect:strong\] where the upper and lower values of the corresponding game are not related to the solutions to the corresponding Isaacs equations. [(ii)]{} Notice that the transformation in changes the map $f$ as well. Given Assumption \[assump:2bsde\] [(i)]{}, if we apply the above transformation, then the convex sets in Assumption \[assump:2bsde\] [(ii)]{} reduces to $$\big\{\big(\sigma_t(x,a_0,a), f_t(x, a_0, a)+ z \cd \l_t(x, a_0, a)\big):a\in A_1\big\},\; \big\{\big(\sigma_t(x,a,a_1), f_t(x,a,a_1)+ z \cd \l_t(x, a, a_1)\big):a\in A_0\big\}.$$ Hence, Proposition \[prop-Girsanov\] does not help simplifying Assumption \[assump:2bsde\] [(ii)]{}. State independent range of controls ----------------------------------- In this subsection, we relax Assumption \[assum-bsi\], and assume the following. \[assum-stateindependent\] [(i)]{} $b = b_0(t, \o, a) + \si(t,\o, a) \l(t,\o,a)$, where $\l$ is bounded, $\dbF-$progressively measurable, uniformly continuous in $(t, \o)$ under $d_\infty$, uniformly in $a \in A$, in the sense of Assumption \[assum-f\] [(iii)]{}.\ [(ii)]{} Player $1$ has state independent range of controls with respect to $(b_0, \si)$ in the sense that for any $t\in [0, T], a_0\in A_0$, the range ${\color{black}\mathbf{R}}_t(a_0):=\{(b_0, \si)(t,\o, a_0, a_1): a_1\in A_1\}$ is independent of $\o$.\ [(iii)]{} Player $0$ has state independent range of controls with respect to $(b_0, \si)$ in a similar sense. Notice that Assumption \[assum-bsi\] obviously implies Assumption \[assum-stateindependent\]. We next provide a non–trivial example satisfying Assumption \[assum-stateindependent\]. For simplicity, we shall only focus on $\si$ and verify $(ii)$. \[eg-stateindependent\] Let $d=1$, $A_0=A_1=\dbR$, $\eta \in {\rm UC}(\Th)$, [and ${\underline}\si, {\overline}\si: \dbR\to (0, 1)$ satisfy ${\underline}\si < {\overline}\si$, $\lim_{x\to -\infty} {\underline}\si(x) = \lim_{x\to -\infty} {\overline}\si(x) = 0$, $\lim_{x\to \infty} {\underline}\si(x) = \lim_{x\to \infty} {\overline}\si(x) = 1$ $($for instance, we could take ${\underline}\si$ to be the cdf of the standard normal distribution, and ${\overline}\si(x) := {\underline}\si(x+1))$. ]{} Define $$\begin{aligned} \label{si} &\si_t(\o, a) := \big({\underline}\si(a_0) + {\underline}\si(a_1)\big) \vee \big( \eta_t(\o)+ a_0+a_1\big) \wedge \big({\overline}\si(a_0) + {\overline}\si(a_1)\big).\end{aligned}$$ For any $t, \o, a_0$, one may check straightforwardly that $$\begin{aligned} \inf_{a_1\in A_1} \si_t(\o, a_0, a_1) = {\underline}\si(a_0),\; \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \si_t(\o, a_0, a_1) = {\overline}\si(a_0)+1.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $\mathbf{R}_t(a_0) = ({\underline}\si(a_0), {\overline}\si(a_0)+1)$ $($the $\si$ part only$)$ is independent of $\o$. Moreover, we verify that $$\inf_{a_0\in A_0} \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \si_t(\o, a) = \inf_{a_0\in A_0} [{\overline}\si(a_0)+1] = 1,\; \sup_{a_1\in A_1}\inf_{a_0\in A_0} \si_t(\o, a)= \sup_{a_1\in A_1} {\underline}\si(a_1) = 1.$$ Then the Isaacs’s condition $\inf_{a_0\in A_0} \sup_{a_1\in A_1} \si^2_t(\o, a) \g = \sup_{a_1\in A_1}\inf_{a_0\in A_0} \si^2_t(\o, a) \g$ is immediately checked for $\g\ge 0$. One can similarly verify the Isaacs’s condition for $\g<0$. Our main result which generalises Theorem \[thm-gamevalue\] is given below. \[thm-gamevalue2\] Let Assumptions \[assum-coef\], \[assum-stateindependent\], and Isaacs condition hold. Then The following path–dependent Isaacs equation has a viscosity solution $u\in \mbox{\rm UC}_b(\Theta,\dbR)$ $$\label{PPDE1} -\pa_t u - H_t(\o, u, \pa_\o u, \pa^2_{\o\o} u) =0,\; t<T, \; u_T = \xi.$$ [$(ii)$]{} Assume further that uniqueness of viscosity solution for the above [PPDE]{} holds in the class $ \mbox{\rm UC}_b(\Theta,\dbR)$. Then ${\overline}V_0={\underline}V_0=u_0(0)$. First, by Proposition \[prop-Girsanov\], it suffices to prove the theorem in the case $\l = 0$. Thus in this proof we assume the two players have state independent range of controls with respect to $(b, \si)$. We shall focus on the upper value process ${\overline}V_t(\o)$ and follow the arguments in Section \[sect-Vt\]. Fix $(t,\o)\in \Th$. In this case becomes: $$\label{sito} b^{t,\o}(s, \tilde \o, a) := b((t+s)\wedge T, \o\otimes _t \tilde \o, a),\; \si^{t, \o}(s, a) := \si((t+s)\wedge T, \o\otimes _t \tilde \o, a), \; (s,\tilde \o, a)\in \Th \times A.$$ For $\a\in {\overline}\cA$, let $\cP(t,\o,\a)$ denote the set of weak solutions to the SDE $$X_s = \int_0^s b^{t,\o}(r, X_\cd, \a_r(X_\cd)) dr + \int_0^s \si^{t,\o}(r, X_\cd, \a_r(X_\cd)) dW_r.$$ We emphasise that in this case $\cP$ depends on $\o$. Define $\cA_t(\o)$ in an obvious way. Then becomes $$\label{Vt2} {\overline}V_t(\o) := \inf_{\alpha^0\in\cA_t^{0}(\o)}S_t(\o, \a^0),\q S_t(\o, \a^0):= \sup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t(\o)} \sup_{\dbP\in \cP(t,\o, \a^0, \a^1)}Y^{t,\o, \a^0,\a^1, \dbP}_0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} Y^{t,\o, \a,\dbP}_s =&\ \xi^{t,\o} + \int_s^{T-t} \Big(f^{t,\o}_r\big(X_\cd, Y^{t,\o,\a,\dbP}_r, \si^{t,\o}_r(X_\cd, \a_r)Z_r^{t,\o,\a,\dbP}, \a_r\big) + Z^{t,\o,\a,\dbP}_r b^{t,\o}_r(X_\cd, \a_r)\Big)\mathrm{d}r \\ &-\int_s^{T-t} Z_s^{t,\o,\a,\dbP}\mathrm{d}X_r- \int_s^{T-t} \mathrm{d}N^{t,\o,\a,\dbP}_s,\; \dbP-\mbox{a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that, for fixed $(\a, \dbP)$, by BSDE arguments one can easily show that $\o\longmapsto Y^{t,\o, \a,\dbP}_0$ is uniformly continuous. However, the sets $\cP(t,\o, \a)$ and $\cA_t(\o)$ may depend on $\o$, and thus in general we cannot fix $(\a,\dbP)$ for different $\o$. This causes the main difficulty for obtaining the desired regularity of ${\overline}V$ and $S$. We shall use Assumption \[assum-stateindependent\] (ii) to get around this difficulty. As in Section \[sect-Vt\], we restrict $\a^0$ to $\cA^{0, {\rm pc}}_t$. We emphasise that $\cA^{0, {\rm pc}}_t$ does not depend on $\o$ and $\cA^{0, {\rm pc}}_t \subset \cA^0_t(\o)$ for all $\o$. We then modify as $$\label{Vpc2} {\overline}V^{{\rm pc}}_t(\o) \;:=\; \inf_{\alpha^0\in\cA_t^{0,{\rm pc}}} S_t(\o, \a^0).$$ Fix $\a^0\in\Ac^{0, {\rm pc}}_t$, define $$\Ac^1_t\big(\a^0\big):=\big\{\big(\tilde b,\tilde\sigma\big)\in\mathbb L^0(\Theta)\times\mathbb L^0(\Theta):\big(\tilde b_s(\tilde\omega),\tilde\sigma_s(\tilde\omega)\big)\in\mathbf{R}_{t+s}\big(\a_s^0(\tilde\omega)\big),\; (s, \tilde\o)\in\Theta \big\}.$$ We emphasise that, by Assumption \[assum-stateindependent\] (ii), $\Ac^1_t\big(\a^0\big)$ does not depend on $\o$. For each $(\tilde b, \tilde \si)\in \Ac^1_t(\a^0)$, let $\Pc(\tilde b,\tilde\sigma)$ denote the set of weak solutions of the SDE $$\widetilde X_s=\int_0^s\tilde b_r\big(\widetilde X_\cdot\big)\mathrm{d}r+\int_0^s\tilde \sigma_r\big(\widetilde X_\cdot\big)\mathrm{d}W_r.$$ One can check straightforwardly that $\cup_{(\tilde b, \tilde \si)\in \Ac^1_t(\a^0)} \tilde \cP(\tilde b, \tilde \si) = \cup_{\a^1\in \cA^1_t(\o)} \cP(t,\o, \a^0, \a^1)$ for all $\o\in\O$. Moreover, denote $A_1(s,\tilde b,\tilde\sigma,a_0) := \{a_1\in A_1: (\tilde b, \tilde \si) \in \mathbf{R}_s(a_0,a_1)\}$, and $$\tilde f_s^{t,\omega, \tilde b, \tilde \si}(\tilde\o,y,z,a_0):=\underset{a_1\in A_1(t+s,\tilde b_s(\tilde\o),\tilde\sigma_s(\tilde\o),a_0)}{\sup}\; f_s^{t,\omega}(\tilde\o,y,z,a_0,a_1).$$ Then, by the comparison principle for BSDEs, it is immediate to verify that $$\label{Spc} S_t(\o, \a^0):= \sup_{(\tilde b, \tilde \si)\in \Ac^1_t(\a^0)}\sup_{\dbP\in \tilde \cP(\tilde b, \tilde \si)} \tilde Y^{t,\o, \tilde b, \tilde \si, \dbP}_0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \tilde Y^{t,\o, \tilde b, \tilde \si, \dbP}_s =&\ \xi^{t,\o} + \int_s^{T-t} \Big(\tilde f^{t,\o}_r\big(X_\cd, Y^{t,\o,\tilde b, \tilde \si,\dbP}_r, \tilde \si_r(X_\cd)Z_r^{t,\o,\tilde b, \tilde\si,\dbP}, \a^0_r(X_\cd)\big) + Z^{t,\o,\tilde b, \tilde\si,\dbP}_r \tilde b_r(X_\cd)\Big)\mathrm{d}r\\ & - \int_s^{T-t}Z_s^{t,\o,\tilde b, \tilde\si,\dbP}\mathrm{d}X_r- \int_s^{T-t} \mathrm{d}N^{t,\o,\tilde b, \tilde\si,\dbP}_s,\; \dbP-\mbox{a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ Now for each $(\tilde b, \tilde \si)\in \Ac^1_t(\a^0)$ and $\dbP\in \tilde \cP(\tilde b, \tilde \si)$, which do not depend on $\o$, by standard BSDE arguments one can show that $\o\longmapsto \tilde Y^{t,\o, \tilde b, \tilde \si, \dbP}_0$ is uniformly continuous. Then as in Lemma \[lem-Vreg\] we see that $S$ and ${\overline}V^{\rm pc}$ are uniformly continuous in $\o$. The rest of the proof follows then from the arguments in Section \[sect-Vt\], combined with standard BSDE arguments. We leave the details to interested readers. As mentioned in Remark \[rem-gamevalue\] $(iii)$, the approach in Ekren and Zhang [@ekren2016pseudo] can be used in this context to identify sufficient conditions for $(ii)$ to hold in Theorem \[thm-gamevalue2\]. However, we note that the definition of viscosity solution is slightly different in [@ekren2016pseudo]. Rigorously speaking, if we want to apply the results of [@ekren2016pseudo] to conclude the existence of game value in Theorem 5.6, we need to verify that ${\underline}V^{\rm pc}$ and ${\overline}V^{\rm pc}$ are viscosity solutions in the sense of [@ekren2016pseudo]. This is done in [@ekren2016pseudo], but using the formulation of strategy against control as in Subsection \[sect:fleming1989existence\], exactly due to the regularity issue. As we saw, Assumption \[assum-stateindependent\] enables us to overcome the regularity difficulty, and thus we can apply the arguments in [@ekren2016pseudo] to our context. We leave the details to interested readers. Proof of Theorems \[thm:2bsde\] and \[thm:2bsde2\] {#sect:2BSDE} ================================================== Throughout this section Assumptions \[assum-coef\] and \[assump:2bsde\] are in force. A relaxed formulation --------------------- To establish the wellposedness of 2BSDEs, we shall apply the results of Possamaï, Tan and Zhou [@possamai2015stochastic], which relie on the dynamic programming principle in El Karoui and Tan [@karoui2013capacities; @karoui2013capacities2] (see also Nutz and van Handel [@nutz2013constructing]). However, we shall note that the weak formulation considered in [@karoui2013capacities; @karoui2013capacities2] is different from the feedback controls in this paper. So our first goal is to establish the equivalence between these two formulations.[^10] The weak formulation in [@karoui2013capacities2 Section 1.2, pages 7–9] consists in working on a fixed canonical space for both the controlled process and the associated controls. Let $\mathcal C([0,T],\mathbb R^d)$ be the canonical space of continuous functions on $[0,T]$ with values in $\mathbb R^d$, and let $\mathbb A$ be the collection of all finite and positive Borel measures on $[0,T]\times A_1$, whose projection on $[0,T]$ is the Lebesgue measure. In other words, every $q\in\mathbb A$ can be disintegrated as $q(ds,da)=q_s(da)ds$, for an appropriate kernel $q_s$. The weak formulation requires to consider a subset of $\mathbb A$, namely the set $\mathbb A_0$ of all $q\in\mathbb A$ such that the kernel $q_s$ is of the form $\delta_{\phi_s}(da)$ for some Borel function $\phi$. We then define the canonical space $\Omega:= \mathcal C([0,T],\mathbb R^d)\times\mathbb A$, with canonical process $(X,\Lambda)$, where $$X_t(\omega,q):=\omega(t),\; \Lambda(\omega,q):=q,\; (t,\omega,q)\in[0,T]\times\Omega.$$ The associated canonical filtration is defined by $\mathbb F:=(\mathcal F_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ where $$\mathcal F_t:=\sigma\Big((X_s,\Delta_s(\varphi)),\; (s,\varphi)\in[0,t]\times C_b([0,T]\times A_1)\Big),\; t\in [0,T],$$ where $C_b([0,T]\times A_1)$ is the set of bounded continuous functions on $[0,T]\times A_1$, and $\Delta_s(\varphi):=\int_0^s\int_A\varphi(r,a)\Lambda(\mathrm{d}r,\mathrm{d}a)$, for all $(s,\varphi)\in[0,T]\times C_b([0,T]\times A_1)$. We next define the following set of measures on $(\Omega,\Fc_T)$: $$\mathcal P:=\Big\{\P:M(\varphi)\text{ is an $(\P,\mathbb F)-$martingale for all $\varphi\in C^2_b(\mathbb R^d)$, and $\mathbb P[X_0=x_0,\Lambda\in\mathbb A_0]=1$}\Big\},$$ where $C^2_b(\mathbb R^d)$ is the set of bounded twice continuously differentiable functions with bounded derivatives, and $$M_s(\varphi):=\varphi(X_s)-\int_0^s\int_{A_1}\bigg({\overline}b_r(X_\cdot,a)\cdot D\varphi(X_r)+\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[({\overline}\sigma{\overline}\sigma^\top)_r(X_\cdot,a)D^2\varphi(X_r)\big]\bigg)\Lambda(\mathrm{d}r,\mathrm{d}a).$$ The associated weak formulation of the control problem is then defined by $$V_{\rm w}:=\sup_{\P\in\Pc} J_w (\dbP)\q \mbox{where}\q J_w(\dbP) := \mathbb E^\mathbb P\bigg[g(X_\cdot) + \int_0^T \int_{A_1} {\overline}f_t(X_\cd, a) \Lambda(\mathrm{d}t, \mathrm{d}a)\bigg].$$ \[lem-weak\] $\cP = \cP^0_0(\a^0)$ and $V_{\rm w} = \sup_{\P\in\Pc_0^1(\a^0)}\E^{\P^\a}\Big[{\overline}{Y}_0^{\a^0}\Big]$. By the requirement $\Lambda \in \mathbb A_0$, $\dbP\in \cP$ amounts to say there exist a process $\phi^\dbP$, possibly in an enlarged space, and a Brownian motion $W^\dbP$, such that $$X_t= x_0+\int_0^t {\overline}b_s\big(X_\cdot,\phi_s^\P\big)\mathrm{d}s+\int_0^t{\overline}\sigma_s\big(X_\cdot,\phi_s^\P\big)\mathrm{d}W_s^\P,\; \P-{\rm a.s.},\; \text{and}\; J_w(\dbP) := \mathbb E^\mathbb P\Big[g(X_\cdot) + \int_0^T {\overline}f_t(X_\cd, \phi^\dbP_t) \mathrm{d}t\Big].$$ On the other hand, the set $ \cP^0_0(\a^0)$ corresponds to those $\dbP$ such that $\phi^\dbP$ is $\dbF^X-$progressively measurable. Then clearly $\cP^0_0(\a^0) \subset \cP$. Now fix $\dbP\in \cP$. Apply the classical results of Wong [@wong1971representation Theorem 4.2], we obtain the existence of another $\P-$Brownian motion $\widetilde W^\P$ such that $$X_t= x_0+\int_0^t\widetilde b_s^\P \mathrm{d}s+\int_0^t\widetilde\sigma_s^\P \mathrm{d}\widetilde W_s^\P,\; \P-{\rm a.s.},\; \text{and}\; J_w(\dbP) := \mathbb E^\mathbb P\Big[g(X_\cdot) + \int_0^T \widetilde f_t^\P \mathrm{d}t\Big]$$ where $\widetilde b_s^\P:=\mathbb E^\P\big[{\overline}b_s\big(X_\cdot,\phi_s^\P\big)\big|\Fc_s^X\big]$, $\widetilde\sigma_s^\P:=\mathbb E^\P\big[{\overline}\sigma_s\big(X_\cdot,\phi_s^\P\big)\big|\Fc_s^X\big]$, and $\widetilde f_s^\P:=\mathbb E^\P\big[ {\overline}f_s\big(X_\cdot,\phi_s^\P\big)\big|\Fc_s^X\big]$. Using the fact that range of $({\overline}b, {\overline}\si, {\overline}f)$ is assumed to be convex, there exists an $\F^X-$progressively measurable process $\widetilde\alpha^\P$ such that $\widetilde b_s^\P={\overline}b_s\big(X_\cdot, \tilde \a_s^\P\big)$, $\widetilde \sigma_s^\P={\overline}\sigma_s\big(X_\cdot, \tilde \a_s^\P\big)$, and $\widetilde f_s^\P={\overline}f_s\big(X_\cdot, \tilde \a_s^\P\big)$. This implies that $\dbP\in \Pc^0_0(\a^0)$ and $J_w(\dbP) = J(\a^0, \tilde \a^\dbP)$, thus inducing the required result. Proof of Theorem \[thm:2bsde\] ------------------------------ We will only prove the result for the 2BSDE , the remaining proof is similar. We first address the well–posedness by verifying the conditions of Possamaï, Tan and Zhou [@possamai2015stochastic]. We introduce the dynamic version $\Pc^0_0(\a^1)(t,\omega)$ of the set $\Pc^0_0(\a^1)$, by considering the same [SDE]{} on $[t,T]$ starting at time $t$ from the path $\omega\in\Omega$. We first verify that the family $\{\Pc^0_0(\a^1)(t,\omega),\; (t,\omega)\in[0,T]\times\Omega\}$ is saturated, in the terminology of [@possamai2015stochastic Definition 5.1], [*i.e.*]{} for all $\P^1\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1)(t,\omega)$, and $\P^2\sim\P^1$ under which $X$ is an $\P^2-$martingale, we must have $\P^2\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1)(t,\omega)$. To see this, notice that the equivalence between $\P^1$ and $\P^2$ implies that the quadratic variation of $X$ is not changed by passing from $\P^1$ to $\P^2$. Hence the required result. Since $\sigma$ and $b$ are bounded, it follows from the definition of admissible controls that ${\underline}F$ satisfies the integrability and Lipschitz continuity assumptions required in [@possamai2015stochastic]. We also directly check from the fact that $f$ is bounded, together with [@soner2011martingale Lemma 6.2] that $\sup_{\P\in\Pc^0_0(\a^1)} \E^{\P}\Big[{\rm essup}^{\P}_{0\leq t\leq T} \big(\E^{\P}\big[\int_0^T\big|{\underline}F(0,\widehat\sigma_s^2)\big|^\kappa \mathrm{d}s \big| \Fc_{t}^+ \big] \big)^{p/\kappa} \Big] < \infty$, for some $p>\kappa\ge1$. Then, the dynamic programming requirements of [@possamai2015stochastic Assumption 2.1] follow from the more general results given in El Karoui and Tan [@karoui2013capacities; @karoui2013capacities2] (see also Nutz and van Handel [@nutz2013constructing]), thanks to Lemma \[lem-weak\]. Finally, since $\xi$ is bounded, the required well–posedness result is a direct consequence of [@soner2011martingale Lemma 6.2] together with [@possamai2015stochastic Theorems 4.1 and 5.1]. Now, the representation for ${\underline}V_0$ is immediate, see for instance the similar proof in [@cvitanic2015dynamic Proposition 4.6]. \[rem-2BSDE3\] Let us investigate the [2BSDEs]{} further under additional regularity of the solution. In particular, this will provide a formal justification of the fact that implies . For this purpose, we extend and abuse slightly our earlier notations. Omitting $\o$ as usual, we define $$\begin{aligned} \label{Aaextend} &\Sigma_t(a):=\big(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top\big)(a),\; {\bf \Sigma}^1_t(a_0):=\big\{\Sigma_t(a_0,a_1),\; a_1\in A_1\big\},\; {\bf \Sigma}^0_t(a_1):=\big\{\Sigma_t(a_0,a_1),\; a_0\in A_0\big\},&\nonumber\\[0.3em] &A_0(t,\Sigma,a_1):=\big\{a_0\in A_0: \big(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top\big)(a_0,a_1)=\Sigma\big\},\; A_1(t,\Sigma,a_0):=\big\{a_1\in A_1: \big(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top\big)(a_0,a_1)=\Sigma\big\},&\\[0.3em] &{\overline}F_t(z,\Sigma,a_0):=\sup_{a_1\in A_1(t,\Sigma,a_0)} F_t(z, a_0,a_1),\; {\underline}F_t(z,\Sigma,a_1):=\inf_{a_0\in A_0(t,\Sigma,a_1)}F_t(z, a_0,a_1).&\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then one can check straightforwardly that $$\label{eq:hamil} {\overline}H_t(z,\gamma)=\inf_{a_0\in A_0}\sup_{\Sigma\in\mathbf{\Sigma}^1_t(a_0)}\Big\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma\gamma\big]+{\overline}F_t(z,\Sigma,a_0)\Big\},\; {\underline}H_t(z,\gamma)=\sup_{a_1\in A_1}\inf_{\Sigma\in\mathbf{\Sigma}^0_t(a_1)}\Big\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma\gamma\big]+{\underline}F_t(z,\Sigma,a_1)\Big\}.$$ Assume that the processes $K$ in the definition of the [2BSDEs]{} is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure (see the formal discussion in [[@possamai2015stochastic pp. 21-22]]{}, as well as rigorous arguments in the simpler setting of $G-$expectations in [[@peng2014complete]]{}), and can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\mathrm{d}{\underline}K^{\a^1}_t}{\mathrm{d}t}&= \frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\widehat{\sigma}_t^2{\underline}\Gamma_t^{\a^1}\big]+{\underline}F_t\big({\underline}Z_t^{ \a^1},\widehat{\sigma}_t^2,\a^1_t\big)-\inf_{\Sigma \in {\mathbf{\Sigma}^0_t}(\a^1)}\bigg\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma{\underline}\Gamma_t^{ \a^1}\big]+{\underline}F_t\big({\underline}Z_t^{ \a^1},\Sigma,\a^1_t\big)\bigg\},\\ \frac{\mathrm{d}{\overline}K^{\a^0}_t}{\mathrm{d}t}&= \sup_{\Sigma \in {\mathbf{\Sigma}^1_t}(\a^0)}\bigg\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma{\overline}\Gamma_t^{ \a^0}\big]+{\overline}F_t\big({\overline}Z_t^{\a^0},\Sigma,\a^0_t\big)\bigg\}-\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\widehat{\sigma}_t^2{\overline}\Gamma_t^{\a^0}\big]-{\overline}F_t\big({\overline}Z_t^{ \a^0},\widehat{\sigma}_t^2, \a^0_t\big),\end{aligned}$$ for some predictable processes ${\underline}\Gamma^{\a^1}$ and ${\overline}\Gamma^{\a^0}$. Now given , and reduce to the same [BSDE]{} under $\widehat \dbP$. Then ${\underline}Y^{\widehat \a^1} = {\overline}Y^{\widehat \a^0} =: \widehat Y$, ${\underline}Z^{\widehat \a^1} = {\overline}Z^{\widehat \a^0} =: \hat Z$, $\widehat\dbP-$[a.s.]{} This would imply further that ${\underline}\Gamma^{\widehat \a^1} = {\overline}\Gamma^{\widehat \a^0} =: \widehat \Gamma$. Then by again we have $$\begin{aligned} {\underline}H_t({\widehat Z}_t, {\widehat \Gamma}_t) &\ge \inf_{\Sigma \in {\mathbf{\Sigma}^0_t}(\widehat\a^1)}\bigg\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma{\underline}{\widehat \Gamma}_t\big]+{\underline}F_t\big({\widehat Z}_t,\Sigma,{\widehat \a^1}_t\big)\bigg\}= \frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\widehat{\sigma}_t^2{\widehat \Gamma}_t\big]+{\underline}F_t\big({\widehat Z}_t,\widehat{\sigma}_t^2,{\widehat \a^1}_t\big)\\ &= \frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\widehat{\sigma}_t^2{\widehat \Gamma}_t\big]+{\overline}F_t\big({\widehat Z}_t,\widehat{\sigma}_t^2,{\widehat \a^1}_t\big) = \sup_{\Sigma \in {\mathbf{\Sigma}^1_t}(\widehat\a^0)}\bigg\{\frac12{\rm Tr}\big[\Sigma{\widehat \Gamma}_t\big]+{\overline}F_t\big({\widehat Z}_t,\Sigma,\widehat\a^0_t\big)\bigg\} \ge {\overline}H_t({\widehat Z}_t, {\widehat \Gamma}_t).\end{aligned}$$ This implies at $({\widehat Z}_t, {\widehat \Gamma}_t)$, and we see that $(\widehat \a^0, \widehat \a^1)$ is a saddle point of the Hamiltonian. \[rem-mixed\] In the spirit of relaxed controls, we may reformulate our game problem by using the notion of mixed strategies, exactly as in Sîrbu [[@sirbu2014martingale]]{}. For $i=0, 1$, let $\cP(A_i)$ denote the set of probability measures on $A_i$, and $m_i: \Th \longrightarrow \cP(A_i)$ be $\dbF-$measurable, $i=0,1$. Let $\dbP$ be a weak solution of the [SDE]{} $$\label{Xm} X_t =\dis \int_0^t [mb]_s(X_\cd) \mathrm{d}s + \int_0^t [m(\si\si^\top)]^{1/2}_s(X_\cd) \mathrm{d}W_s.$$ where $[m \f]_t(\o,\l) := \int_A \f_t(\o, \l, a) m_0(t, \o, da_0) m_1(t, \o, \mathrm{d}a_1)$, for any function $\f_t(\o, \l, a)$ with $\l\in\R^d$. Denote $$J_0(m, \dbP) := \dbE^\dbP\bigg[ \xi(X_\cd)+ \int_0^T [m f]_t(X_\cd) \mathrm{d}t\bigg].$$ Then we can introduce the zero–sum game in the setting in an obvious manner. The advantage of this formulation is that Isaacs’s condition always holds ${\overline}H'_t(\o, z, \g) = {\underline}H'_t(\o, z, \g)$, where $$\dis {\overline}H'_t(\o, z, \g) := \inf_{m_0\in \cP(A_0)} \sup_{m_1\in \cP(A_1)} [m h]_t(\o, z, \g),~ \dis {\underline}H'_t(\o, z, \g) := \sup_{m_1\in \cP(A_1)}\inf_{m_0\in \cP(A_0)} [m h]_t(\o, z, \g),$$ are the randomised versions of the upper and lower Hamiltonians. It would be interesting to extend our results to this formulation which does not require Isaacs’s condition to hold. See also the contribution of Buckdahn, Li and Quincampoix [[@buckdahn2014value]]{}, who considered a setting similar to Buckdahn and Li [[@buckdahn2008stochastic]]{}, but where the players see each other’s actions with a delay relative to a fixed time grid, and both play mixed delayed strategies. Notice that we always have ${\underline}H \le {\underline}H' = {\overline}H' \le {\overline}H$, so that when the standard Isaacs’s condition holds, they are all equal. Proof of Theorem \[thm:2bsde2\] ------------------------------- The wellposedness and the representation for ${\overline}V_0$ are proved as in the previous section. For $\a^1\in{\overline}\Ac^1$, the 2BSDE $${\underline}Y^{\a^1}_t = \xi+\int_t^T{\underline}g_s\big({\underline}Z_s^{\a^1},\widehat{\sigma}^2_s,\a^1_s\big)\mathrm{d}s -\int_t^T{\underline}Z^{\a^1}_s\cdot \mathrm{d}X_s-\int_t^T\mathrm{d} {\underline}K^{\a^1}_s, ~\P-\mbox{a.s. for all}~\P\in\Pc.$$ induces the following representation $$\inf_{\P\in\Pc}\E^{\P}\Big[{\underline}Y_0^{\a^1}\Big]=\inf_{\a^0\in \cA^0_0}{\underline}J_0(\alpha).$$ Then, the comparison theorem for 2BSDEs, see [@possamai2015stochastic Theorem 4.3] implies that ${\underline}Y_t^{\a_1}\leq Y_t$. By an obvious extension of the argument of El Karoui, Peng and Quenez [@el1997backward Corollary 3.1] to 2BSDEs, we deduce the desired result. Finally, the existence of a value is now immediate when ${\underline}G={\overline}G$. Appendix: proof of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\] {#sect:Appendix} ======================================== We start with the continuous coefficients setting, where the result looks standard. We nevertheless provide a detailed proof for completeness. \[lem-contSDE\] Assume $b:\Th \longrightarrow \dbR^d$ and $\si: \Th\longrightarrow \dbS^d$ are bounded, $\dbF-$measurable, and for each $t$, $b(t,\cd)$ and $\si(t,\cd)$ are continuous. Then the [SDE]{} of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\] has a weak solution Assume $W$ is an $\dbP_0-$Brownian motion. For $n\ge 1$, denote $t_i:= {\frac in}T$, $i=0,\cds, n$, and define $$X^n_{t_0}:= 0,\; X^n_t := X^n_{t_i} + \int_{t_i}^t b(s, X^n_{\cd\wedge t_i}) \mathrm{d}s + \int_{t_i}^t \si(s, X^n_{\cd\wedge t_i}) \mathrm{d}W_s, \; t\in [t_i, t_{i+1}],\; i=0,\cds, n-1.$$ Define $\dbP_n:= \dbP_0 \circ (X^n)^{-1}$. Then $\dbP_n \subset \cP_L$ for $L$ large enough, and $\dbP_n$ is a weak solution to the SDE of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\] with the coefficients $b_n(t,\o) := b(t, \o_{t^n_i\wedge \cd}),$ and $\si_n(t,\o) := \si(t, \o_{t^n_i\wedge \cd})$, $t\in [t_i, t_{i+1}]$, $i=0,\cds, n-1$. Note that $b_n,\; \si_n$ are uniformly bounded. By Zheng [@zheng1985tightness], $\{\dbP_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ has a weakly convergent subsequence, and for notational simplicity we assume $\dbP_n \longrightarrow \dbP$ weakly. Now it suffices to verify that $\dbP$ is a weak solution to the SDE of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\]. For this purpose, we first recall that by Zhang [@zhang2017backward Lemmata 9.2.4 (i) and (9.2.18)] $$\label{compact} \left.\begin{array}{c} \dis \mbox{there exist $\{E_m\}_{m\ge 1} \subset \cF_T$ such that each $E_m$ is compact and $\sup_{\dbP\in \cP_L} \dbE[E_m^c] \le 2^{-m}$,}\\[0.6em] \dis \mbox{and for each $m$ and each $\o\in E_m$, we have $\o_{t\wedge \cd}\in E_m$ for all $t\in [0, T]$.} \end{array}\right.$$ Denote $$\label{MN} M_t := X_t - \int_0^t b(s, X_\cd) \mathrm{d}s,\; N_t := M_t M_t^\top - \int_0^t \si^2(s, X_\cd) \mathrm{d}s,$$ and define $M^n, N^n$ by replacing $(b, \si)$ above with $(b_n, \si_n)$. Then it is equivalent to prove that $\P$ is a weak solution to the SDE of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\], and that $M$ and $N$ are $\dbP-$martingales. First, for any $s<t$ and any $\eta\in C^0_b(\cF_s)$, by the definition of $\dbP_n$, we have $\dbE^{\dbP_n}[ (M^n_t-M^n_s)\eta_s] = 0$. Note that $M_t-M_s = X_t - X_s - \int_s^t b(r, X_\cd) \mathrm{d}r$. Since $b(r, \cd)$ is continuous for each $r$, by the weak convergence of $\dbP_n$, together with the bounded convergence theorem (under the Lebesgue measure), we have $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_n}\bigg[\eta_s \int_s^t b(r, X_\cd) \mathrm{d}r\bigg] = \dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[\eta_s\int_s^t b(r, X_\cd)\mathrm{d}r\bigg].$$ Moreover, for any $R >0$, denote by $I_R(x)$ the truncation of $x$ by $R$ and $X_{s,t}:=X_t-X_s$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &\lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[ I_R(X_{s,t}) \eta_s\Big] = \dbE^{\dbP}\Big[ I_R(X_{s,t}) \eta_s\Big], \sup_{\dbP'\in \cP_L} \dbE^{\dbP'} \Big[|(X_{s,t}) - I_R(X_{s,t})|^2\Big] \le {\frac1R} \sup_{\dbP'\in \cP_L} \dbE^{\dbP'} \Big[|X_{s,t}|^3\Big] \le {\frac CR}. \end{aligned}$$ Denoting similarly $M_{s,t}:=M_t-M_s$ and $M^n_{s,t}:=M^n_t-M^n_s$, wee see that $$\begin{aligned} \label{EPM} \dbE^{\dbP}\big[ M_{s,t}\eta_s\big] & = \lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_n}\big[ M_{s,t}\eta_s\big] = \lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_n}\big[ \big(M_{s,t}-M^n_{s,t}\big)\eta_s\big] \nonumber\\ & =\lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[ \eta_s \int_s^t [b(r, X_\cd) - b_n(r, X_\cd)]\mathrm{d}r\Big] = \lim_{n\to \infty} \int_s^t \dbE^{\dbP_n}\big[ \eta_s \big(b(r, X_\cd) - b_n(r, X_\cd)\big)\big]\mathrm{d}r .\end{aligned}$$ Now for each $r\in [s, t]$ and $m\ge 1$, since $b(r,\cd)$ is continuous and $E_m$ is compact, $b(r,\cd)$ is uniformly continuous on $E_m$ with a certain modulus of continuity function $\rho_{r,m}$. Then, by the definition of $b_n$ and $$\begin{aligned} &\Big|\dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[ \eta_s \big(b(r, X_\cd) - b_n(r, X_\cd)\big)\Big]\Big| \le C\dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[ |b(r, X_\cd) - b_n(r, X_\cd)|\1_{E_m}\Big] + C\dbP_n[E_m^c]\\ &\le C\dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[\rho_{r,m}\big(\mbox{OSC}_{2^{-n}}(X)\big)\Big] + C2^{-m} \le C\dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[\rho_{r,m}\big(\mbox{OSC}_{2^{-k}}(X)\big)\Big] + C2^{-m},\end{aligned}$$ for any $k \le n$, where $\mbox{OSC}_\delta (X) := \sup_{t_1, t_2: |t_1-t_2|\le \delta} |X_{t_1}-X_{t_2}|$. Fix $m, k$ and send $n\longrightarrow \infty$, we deduce $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\Big|\dbE^{\dbP_n}\Big[ \eta_s \big(b(r, X_\cd) - b_n(r, X_\cd)\big)\Big]\Big|\le C\dbE^{\dbP}\Big[\rho_{r,m}\big(\mbox{OSC}_{2^{-k}}(X)\big)\Big] + C2^{-m}.$$ By first sending $k\longrightarrow\infty$ and then $m\longrightarrow \infty$, we have $\lim_{n\to\infty}\dbE^{\dbP_n}\big[ \eta_s \big(b(r, X_\cd) - b_n(r, X_\cd)\big)\big] =0$, and by the bounded convergence theorem, it follows from that $\dbE^{\dbP}[ M_{s,t}\eta_s]=0$, i.e. $M$ is an $\dbP-$martingale. Similarly one can show that $N$ is an $\dbP-$martingale. Therefore, $\dbP$ is a weak solution to the SDE of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\]. For $\eps>0$, let $\O^\eps_t$ be a common set for $(b, \si)$ as in Definition \[qscont\]. By Zhang [@zhang2017backward Problem 10.5.3], there exists $(b_\eps, \si_\eps)$ such that $(b_\eps, \si_\eps)(t,\cd)$ agree with $(b, \si)(t, \cd)$ on $\O^\eps_t$ and are continuous for each $t$. Moreover, by the construction in [@zhang2017backward Problem 10.5.3], it follows from the progressive measurability in Definition \[qscont\] $(i)$, that $b_\eps,$ $\si_\eps$ are $\dbF-$progressively measurable. By Lemma \[lem-contSDE\], let $\dbP_\eps$ be a weak solution to the SDE of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\] with coefficients $(b_\eps, \si_\eps)$. Similarly to Lemma \[lem-contSDE\], there exists $\eps_n \longrightarrow 0$ such that $\dbP_{\eps_n}$ converges to some $\dbP\in \cP$ weakly. Recall and define $M^{\eps}$ and $N^{\eps}$ by replacing $(b, \si)$ above with $(b_\eps, \si_\eps)$. Then, for any $s<t$ and $\eta_s \in C^0_b(\cF_s)$, following similar arguments as in Lemma \[lem-contSDE\] we have, for any $m\ge 1$, $$\dbE^{\dbP}\big[M^{\eps_m}_{s,t}\eta_s\big] = \lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_{\eps_n}}\big[M^{\eps_m}_{s,t}\eta_s\big] = \lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_{\eps_n}}\big[\big(M^{\eps_m}_{s,t} -M^{\eps_n}_{s,t}\big) \eta_s\big] = \lim_{n\to \infty} \dbE^{\dbP_{\eps_n}}\Big[\eta_s \int_s^t [b_{\eps_m} - b_{\eps_n}](r, X_\cd)dr\Big].$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned} \big| \dbE^{\dbP}\big[M_{s,t}\eta_s\big]\big| &\le \big| \dbE^{\dbP}\big[M^{\eps_m}_{s,t}\eta_s\big]\big| + \big| \dbE^{\dbP}\big[\eta_s\big(M_{s,t}- M^{\eps_m}_{s,t}\big)\big]\big|\\ &\le C\liminf_{n\to\infty} \dbE^{\dbP_{\eps_n}}\bigg[\int_s^t |[b_{\eps_m} - b_{\eps_n}](r, X_\cd)|\mathrm{d}r\bigg] + C\dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[\int_s^t |[b_{\eps_m} - b](r, X_\cd)|\mathrm{d}r\bigg] \\ &\le C\liminf_{n\to\infty} \dbE^{\dbP_{\eps_n}}\bigg[\int_s^t [\1_{(\O^{\eps_n}_r)^c}+\1_{(\O^{\eps_m}_r)^c}]\mathrm{d}r\bigg] + C\dbE^{\dbP}\bigg[\int_s^t \1_{(\O^{\eps_m}_r)^c}\mathrm{d}r\bigg] \;\le\; C\eps_m.\end{aligned}$$ Since $m$ is arbitrary, we have $\dbE^{\dbP}\big[M_{s,t}\eta_s\big]=0$ for all $\eta_s\in C^0_b(\cF_s)$. That is, $M$ is an $\dbP-$martingale. Similarly, $N$ is an $\dbP-$martingale, so that $\dbP$ is a weak solution to the SDE of Theorem \[thm-qsSDE\]. [^1]: Columbia University, IEOR, 500W 120th St., 10027 New York, NY, dp2917@columbia.edu. Research supported by the ANR project PACMAN ANR-16-CE05-0027. [^2]: CMAP, Ecole Polytechnique Paris, nizar.touzi@polytechnique.edu. Research supported by ANR the Chair [*Financial Risks*]{} of the [*Risk Foundation*]{} sponsored by Société Générale, and the Chair [*Finance and Sustainable Development*]{} sponsored by EDF and Calyon. [^3]: University of Southern California, Department of Mathematics, jianfenz@usc.edu. Research supported in part by NSF grant DMS 1413717. [^4]: Notice that value functions in Friedman’s and Fleming’s definitions were also proved to be related to the HJI PDE by Souganidis [@souganidis1983approximation] and Barron, Evans and Jensen [@barron1984viscosity]. [^5]: The $\P-$augmentation is defined for any $t\in[0,T]$ by $\Gc^\P_t:=\sigma\big(\Gc_t\cup \mathcal N^\P\big)$, where $\mathcal N^\P:=\big\{A\subset\Omega,\; A\subset B,\; \text{with}\; B\in\Fc_T,\; \P[B]=0\big\}.$ [^6]: The idea here is that if there existed $\a^{0,\star}\in\overline{\Ac}^0$ such that $\Pc(\alpha^{0,\star},\alpha^1)=\emptyset$ for any $\alpha^1\in\overline{\Ac}^1$, then obviously in the upper value Player $0$ will play $\alpha^{0,\star}$, since then whatever the choice of Player $1$ afterwards will lead to a value of $-\infty$. Similarly, if there existed $\a^{1,\star}\in\overline{\Ac}^1$ such that $\Pc(\alpha^{0},\alpha^{1,\star})=\emptyset$ for any $\alpha^0\in\overline{\Ac}^0$, in the lower value Player $1$ will play $\alpha^{1,\star}$, since then whatever the choice of Player $0$ afterwards will lead to a value of $+\infty$. Our restriction is here merely to prevent this obvious degeneracy. [^7]: We remark that 2BSDEs and do not include an orthogonal martingale term, even though the involved probabilities $\dbP$ may not satisfy the predictable martingale representation property. Here we will use the so called optional decomposition rather than the Doob-Meyer one to obtain the processes ${\underline}K^{\a^1}$ and ${\overline}K^{\a^0}$, see the notion of “saturated” solutions of 2BSDEs in Possamaï, Tan and Zhou [@possamai2015stochastic]. [^8]: See Mastrolia and Possamaï [[@mastrolia2015moral]]{}, Hernández Santibáñez and Mastrolia [[@hernandez2018moral]]{}, and Sung [[@sung2015optimal]]{} for a similar setting in the context of moral hazard problems under uncertainty. [^9]: A slight exception would be Kovats [@kovats2009value], which considers games written somehow in a weak formulation, but with strategies against control, and relies on approximation techniques similar to [@fleming1989existence]. [^10]: Most of the arguments here are from discussions with Xiaolu Tan, who we thank warmly.

--- abstract: 'The $\eta \pi^+ \pi^-$ final state in two-photon collisions is studied with the L3 detector at LEP, at centre-of-mass energies from 183 to 209  with an integrated luminosity of 664.6 pb$^{-1}$. The meson is observed and the $Q^2$ dependence of its production is compared to different form factor models. The -coupling parameter is found to be $3.5\pm0.6\stat\pm0.5\sys\keV$. The branching fraction $\Gamma\bigl(\fa\ra\a0\pi\bigr) / \Gamma\bigl(\fa\ra\eta\pi\pi\bigr)$ is also measured.' author: - L3 Collaboration date: 'October 26, 2001.' title: ' Formation in Two-Photon Collisions at LEP ' --- Introduction {#intro .unnumbered} ============ Resonance formation in two-photon interactions offers a clean environment to study the spectrum of mesonic states. In this paper we study the reaction $\epem\ra\epem\gg\ra\epem\fa\ra\epem\,\etapipi$ in untagged two-photon collisions where the outgoing electron and positron carry almost the full beam energy and are not detected. The data used for this analysis were collected with the L3 detector [@l3_000] at LEP at centre-of-mass energies, $\sqrt{s}$, between 183  and 209 , corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 664.6 . The TPC/Two-Gamma and Mark II Collaborations observed the axial vector meson ($J^{PC}=1^{++}$) in single-tag events [@TPC; @MRK2]. We previously reported an indication of the formation of in untagged events at LEP [@L3]. The decay into $\eta\,\pi\pi$ is dominated by the two-body decay $\fa\ra\a0(980)\pi$ [@PDG]. The world average for the fraction $\Gamma\bigl(\fa\ra\a0\pi\bigr) / \Gamma\bigl(\fa\ra\eta\pi\pi\bigr)$ is $0.69\pm 0.13$ [@PDG], although some experiments observed only the $\a0\pi$ channel [@WA76; @WA102]. In the present analysis, the formation of is studied as a function of the transverse momentum squared of the system, . To a good approximation, $\spt=\q2$ where 2 is the maximum virtuality of the two photons. Production of a spin-one resonance is suppressed for real photons, according to the Landau-Yang theorem [@Landau]. An axial vector state can be produced in collisions of transverse-scalar virtual photons as well as of transverse-transverse photons, when one of them is highly virtual [@Schuler]. The -coupling parameter is defined as [@TPC]: $$\Gggp=\lim_{\q2 \to 0} \frac{M^2}{\q2}\Gamma_{\gg^*}^{\rm TS}\>,$$ where $M$ is mass of the resonance and $\Gamma_{\gg^*}^{\rm TS}$ is the partial width for the transverse-scalar photon-photon interaction. The cross section for the formation of an axial vector meson in two-photon collisions is described [@Schuler] by: $$\sigma_{\gg\ra{\rm R}} = 24\pi\frac{\Gggp\Gamma}{(W^2-M^2)^2+\Gamma^2M^2}\Bigl(1+\frac{\q2}{M^2}\Bigr) \tilde F^2(\q2) \>, \label{eq:ggsig}$$ where $W$ is the two-photon effective mass and $\tilde F$ is an effective form factor. The 2 dependence of the resonance formation can be derived [@Schuler] using a hard scattering approach [@Brodsky] and the form factor written as: $$\tilde F^2(\q2) = \frac{\q2}{M^2} \Bigl(1+\frac{\q2}{2M^2}\Bigr)\frac{2}{(1+\q2/\Lambda^2)^4} \>, \label{eq:ffschuler}$$ where $\Lambda$ is a parameter whose value is expected to be close to the resonance mass [@Schuler]. Previous analyses [@MRK2; @TPC] used the form [@Cahn] $$\tilde F^2(\q2) = \frac{\q2}{M^2} \Bigl(1+\frac{\q2}{2M^2}\Bigr)\frac{2}{(1+\q2/M_\rho^2)^2} \>, \label{eq:ffcahn}$$ where $M_\rho$ is the mass of the $\rho$-meson. The last factor is the $\rho$ pole in the vector dominance model (VDM). The second factor of Equations (\[eq:ffschuler\]) and (\[eq:ffcahn\]) includes the contributions from transverse-scalar and transverse-transverse photons respectively. Both models are compared to our data. Monte Carlo Generators {#monte-carlo-generators .unnumbered} ====================== Two Monte Carlo generators are used to describe two-photon resonance formation: EGPC [@Linde] and GaGaRes [@Gulik]. The EGPC Monte Carlo describes the two-photon process as the product of the luminosity function for transverse photons [@Budnev] and the resonance production cross section. The decay of the resonance is generated according to Lorentz invariant phase-space. A Monte Carlo sample of the meson is generated with $M=1.282\GeV$ and full width $\Gamma=0.024\GeV$ [@PDG], for $\sqrt{s} = 189\GeV$. The events are passed through the L3 detector simulation based on the GEANT [@GEANT] and GEISHA [@GEISHA] programs. Time dependent detector inefficiencies, as monitored during the data taking period, are also simulated. This sample is used to obtain the selection efficiency. The GaGaRes generator uses the exact matrix element for resonance production, $\ee \ra \ee \fa$ [@Schuler]. It describes the 2 dependence of axial vector meson production, according to the form factor (\[eq:ffschuler\]), and is used for comparison with the experimental cross section. The 2 distribution does not depend on $\sqrt{s}$ for the energy range investigated. Event Selection {#event-selection .unnumbered} =============== Events from the process $\epem\ra\epem\,\etapipi$, where only the decay $\eta \ra \gamma \gamma$ is considered, are selected by requiring two particles of opposite charge and two photons, since the scattered electrons go undetected at very small polar angles. A charged particle is defined as a track in the central detector with at least 12 hits, coming from the interaction vertex within three standard deviations both in the transverse plane and along the beam axis. The pions are identified by the $dE/dx$ measurement, requiring a confidence level greater than 1%. A photon is defined as a cluster in the electromagnetic calorimeter of energy greater than 0.1  and with no track around 0.2 rad from its direction. Photons in the polar angular range $0.21 < \theta < 2.93\,{\rm rad}$ are considered. The most energetic of the two photons must have energy greater than 0.24 . A clear $\eta\ra\gg$ signal is seen in the two-photon effective mass spectrum, Figure \[fig:etamass\], where $\eta$ candidates are defined by the cut (0.47$-$0.62) . The asymmetry of the two limits relative to the $\eta$ mass, $0.547\GeV$ [@PDG], is due to a low energy tail of photon energy deposition in the electromagnetic calorimeter. To improve the mass resolution, a kinematic fit, constrained to the $\eta$ mass, is then applied. The selection results in 11254 events with a mass below 2 . The $\etapipi$ mass spectrum is shown in Figure \[fig:e2pi\] and presents a clear peak of the $\eta '(958)$ resonance near threshold and a peak between 1.25  and 1.35 , which we associate with the meson. Results {#results .unnumbered} ======= Formation {#sect:spectra .unnumbered} ---------- To study the formation of the $\fa$ meson, the data are subdivided into four intervals, as shown in Figure \[fig:f1bins\] and listed in Table \[tab:ptbins\]. Each spectrum is fitted with a resonance plus a background function. The resonance is described by the convolution of a Breit-Wigner of width $\Gamma=0.024\GeV$ [@PDG], with a Gaussian resolution function of width 0.018 , estimated with Monte Carlo. The background is a second order polynomial. The fit results are listed in Table \[tab:ptbins\], the mass values obtained in the four intervals are compatible within statistics with the mass of , $1.2819\pm 0.0006\GeV$ [@PDG]. Besides the peak, Figures \[fig:f1bins\]b$-$d present a structure at masses between 1.4  and 1.5 . This structure has variable mass and shape in these intervals and almost disappears in the total spectrum for $\spt>0.1\GeV^2$, shown in Figure \[fig:a0f1\]a. Previously, the was observed in this mass region, but only in the final state, decaying dominantly into  [@PDG]. A similar fluctuation in the final state in the $(1^{++})$ wave was also reported [@WA102] and interpreted as an interference effect with , decaying to $\a0\pi$. This structure is not considered further in this letter. The partial cross sections $\Delta\sigma$ for each range are calculated according to: $$\Delta\sigma = \frac{N}{\epsilon\, {\cal L}_{ee} \BR}\>,$$ where $N$ is the number of events corresponding to the peak, the overall efficiency, $\epsilon$, is the product of the selection efficiency, obtained from Monte Carlo, and the trigger efficiency, evaluated using data. ${\cal L}_{ee}$ is the total integrated luminosity. The trigger efficiency varies from 46% to 40% in the range from 0.02 to $6.0\GeV^2$. The branching ratio $\BR=0.1396$ includes $\BR\bigl(\fa\ra\eta\pi\pi\bigr)=0.528\pm 0.045$ [@WA102], $\BR(\eta\ra\gg)=0.3933$ [@PDG] and the isospin factor $(\pip\pim)/(\pi\pi)=2/3$. Table \[tab:ptbins\] lists the values of $\epsilon$ and $\Delta\sigma$. The overall efficiency is found to be independent of $\sqrt{s}$. Systematic uncertainties on $\Delta\sigma$ are presented in Table \[tab:syst\]. They include the uncertainty due to Monte Carlo statistics and trigger behaviour, the uncertainty due to background subtraction, estimated with variation of the fit ranges and the uncertainty from event selection. The last is estimated by varying the $\eta$ mass range and the energy threshold for the most energetic photon. Dependence {#sect:q2 .unnumbered} ----------- The experimental differential cross section of production as a function of 2 is presented in Figure \[fig:gagarf1\] and compared to the GaGaRes Monte Carlo prediction. First, the mass parameter $\Lambda$ in the form factor of Equation (\[eq:ffschuler\]) is fixed to the resonance mass, $M=1.282\GeV$. Normalising the Monte Carlo histogram to the experimental cross section in the measured interval $0.02 \le \spt \le 6.0\GeV^2$, a confidence level of 2% is found. A fit of the GaGaRes prediction is then performed, where $\Lambda$ and are free parameters. It gives: $$\Lambda=1.04\pm 0.06\pm 0.05\GeV\>,$$ $$\Gggp=3.5\pm 0.6\pm 0.5\keV\>,$$ with a confidence level of 91% and correlation coefficient $-$0.89. The first uncertainty quoted is statistical and the second is systematic. The uncertainty on includes the uncertainty on $\BR\bigr(\fa\ra\eta\pi\pi\bigl)$. By using the fitted values of $\Lambda$ and , we extrapolate the measured cross section to the full range with GaGaRes, obtaining the value: $$\sigma\bigl(\epem\ra \epem\fa\bigr)=155\pm 14\pm 16\>{\rm pb}\>,$$ where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. This value refers to a luminosity averaged $\sqrt{s}$ of $196.6\GeV$. We also compare the experimental results to the predictions, obtained with the formalism of Reference , using the form factor defined in Equation (\[eq:ffcahn\]). Normalising the prediction to the experimental cross section, a confidence level below $10^{-9}$ is found. The incompatibility of the differential cross section shapes is evident in Figure \[fig:gagarf1\]. Branching Fraction {#branching-fraction .unnumbered} ------------------- To search for the decay $\fa\ra\a0(980)\pi$ we select only data with $\spt > 0.1\GeV^2$. The corresponding mass spectrum is shown in Figure \[fig:a0f1\]a. In Figure \[fig:a0f1\]b, both $\eta\pi^{\pm}$ mass combinations are plotted versus the mass. An accumulation of events with $\eta\pi^{\pm}$ mass around 0.98  is observed correlated with the . The $\a0(980)$ signal is evident in Figure \[fig:a0f1\]c, where the mass region is selected, $1.22<M(\etapipi)<1.34\GeV$. No signal is observed in the sideband regions $1.12<M(\etapipi)<1.22\GeV$ and $1.34<M(\etapipi)<1.41\GeV$, Figure \[fig:a0f1\]d. In order to evaluate the $\a0\pi$ contribution to the signal, the $\eta\pi^{\pm}$ spectrum is fitted with a resonance plus a background function as shown in Figure \[fig:a0f1\]c. The resonance is the convolution of a Breit-Wigner with a Gaussian resolution with width 0.014 , estimated from Monte Carlo. The background function is obtained from the sidebands of Figure \[fig:a0f1\]d. The fit gives $M=0.985\pm 0.004\stat\pm 0.006\sys\GeV$, $\Gamma = 0.050\pm 0.013\stat\pm 0.004\sys\GeV$ and $318\pm 47\stat\pm 29\sys$ events. The fitted mass is in good agreement with the world average $M=0.9852\pm 0.0015\GeV$ [@PDG]. The systematic uncertainties are obtained from the variation of the and sideband mass limits and from variation of the cut. A fit to the corresponding mass spectrum of Figure \[fig:a0f1\]a gives $313\pm 29\stat\pm 6\sys$ events in the peak, where the systematic uncertainty is due to background subtraction. Thus the observed number of events is compatible with 100% decay into $\a0\pi$. Taking into account the statistical and systematic uncertainties, the measured branching fraction $\Gamma\bigl(\fa\ra\a0\pi\bigr) / \Gamma\bigl(\fa\ra\eta\pi\pi\bigr)$ is found to be greater than 0.69 at 95% confidence level. Author List {#author-list .unnumbered} =========== =0 \#1[by 1 \#1]{} \#1[$^{#1}$]{} [**The L3 Collaboration:**]{} =10.8pt =10000 =5000 =162truemm P.Achard  O.Adriani  M.Aguilar-Benitez  J.Alcaraz  G.AlemanniJ.AllabyA.Aloisio  M.G.AlviggiH.Anderhub  V.P.AndreevF.AnselmoA.Arefiev  T.Azemoon  T.Aziz  P.BagnaiaA.Bajo  G.BaksayL.BaksayS.V.Baldew  S.Banerjee  Sw.Banerjee  A.Barczyk  R.Barillère  P.Bartalini  M.BasileN.BatalovaR.BattistonA.Bay  F.BecattiniU.BeckerF.BehnerL.Bellucci  R.Berbeco  J.Berdugo  P.Berges  B.BertucciB.L.BetevM.BiasiniM.BigliettiA.Biland  J.J.Blaising  S.C.Blyth  G.J.Bobbink  A.BöhmL.BoldizsarB.Borgia  S.BottaiD.BourilkovM.BourquinS.BracciniJ.G.BransonF.Brochu  A.BuijsJ.D.BurgerW.J.BurgerX.D.Cai  M.CapellG.Cara RomeoG.CarlinoA.Cartacci  J.CasausF.CavallariN.Cavallo  C.Cecchi  M.CerradaM.ChamizoY.H.Chang  M.ChemarinA.Chen  G.Chen  G.M.Chen  H.F.Chen  H.S.ChenG.Chiefari  L.CifarelliF.CindoloI.ClareR.Clare  G.Coignet  N.Colino  S.Costantini  B.de la CruzS.Cucciarelli  J.A.van Dalen  R.de AsmundisP.Déglon  J.DebreczeniA.Degré  K.Deiters  D.della Volpe  E.Delmeire  P.Denes  F.DeNotaristefaniA.De Salvo  M.Diemoz  M.Dierckxsens  D.van DierendonckC.Dionisi  M.DittmarA.DoriaM.T.DovaD.Duchesneau  P.Duinker  B.EchenardA.ElineH.El MamouniA.Engler  F.J.Eppling  A.EwersP.Extermann  M.A.FalaganS.FalcianoA.FavaraJ.Fay  O.FedinM.FelciniT.Ferguson  H.Fesefeldt  E.FiandriniJ.H.Field  F.FilthautP.H.FisherW.FisherI.FiskG.Forconi  K.FreudenreichC.FurettaYu.GalaktionovS.N.Ganguli  P.Garcia-AbiaM.GataullinS.GentileS.GiaguZ.F.GongG.Grenier  O.Grimm  M.W.Gruenewald  M.Guida  R.van GulikV.K.Gupta  A.GurtuL.J.GutayD.HaasD.HatzifotiadouT.HebbekerA.Hervé  J.HirschfelderH.Hofer  M.HohlmannG.Holzner  S.R.HouY.Hu  B.N.Jin  L.W.JonesP.de JongI.Josa-Mutuberr[í]{}aD.KäferM.KaurM.N.Kienzle-FocacciJ.K.KimJ.KirkbyW.KittelA.Klimentov  A.C.K[ö]{}nigM.KopalV.Koutsenko  M.Kr[ä]{}ber  R.W.KraemerW.Krenz  A.Kr[ü]{}ger  A.Kunin  P.Ladron de GuevaraI.LaktinehG.LandiM.LebeauA.LebedevP.LebrunP.Lecomte  P.Lecoq  P.Le Coultre  J.M.Le GoffR.Leiste  P.LevtchenkoC.Li  S.Likhoded  C.H.LinW.T.LinF.L.LindeL.ListaZ.A.LiuW.LohmannE.Longo  Y.S.Lu  K.LübelsmeyerC.Luci  L.LuminariW.LustermannW.G.Ma  L.MalgeriA.Malinin  C.MañaD.MangeolJ.Mans  J.P.Martin  F.Marzano  K.MazumdarR.R.McNeil  S.MeleL.Merola  M.Meschini  W.J.MetzgerA.MihulH.MilcentG.Mirabelli  J.MnichG.B.Mohanty  G.S.MuanzaA.J.M.MuijsB.Musicar  M.Musy  S.NagyS.NataleM.NapolitanoF.Nessi-TedaldiH.Newman  T.NiessenA.NisatiH.Nowak  R.Ofierzynski  G.OrgantiniC.PalomaresD.Pandoulas  P.PaolucciR.Paramatti  G.PassalevaS.Patricelli  T.PaulM.PauluzziC.PausF.PaussM.PedaceS.PensottiD.Perret-Gallix  B.PetersenD.Piccolo  F.Pierella  M.PioppiP.A.Piroué  E.PistolesiV.Plyaskin  M.Pohl  V.PojidaevJ.PothierD.O.Prokofiev  D.Prokofiev  J.QuartieriG.Rahal-CallotM.A.Rahaman  P.Raics  N.RajaR.Ramelli  P.G.RancoitaR.Ranieri  A.Raspereza  P.RazisD.Ren  M.RescignoS.ReucroftS.RiemannK.RilesB.P.RoeL.Romero  A.Rosca  S.Rosier-LeesS.RothC.RosenbleckB.RouxJ.A.Rubio  G.Ruggiero  H.Rykaczewski  A.SakharovS.Saremi  S.SarkarJ.Salicio  E.SanchezM.P.SandersC.Sch[ä]{}ferV.SchegelskyS.Schmidt-KaerstD.Schmitz  H.SchopperD.J.SchotanusG.Schwering  C.SciaccaL.ServoliS.ShevchenkoN.ShivarovV.Shoutko  E.Shumilov  A.ShvorobT.SiedenburgD.SonP.Spillantini  M.SteuerD.P.Stickland  B.StoyanovA.StraessnerK.SudhakarG.SultanovL.Z.SunS.SushkovH.Suter  J.D.SwainZ.SzillasiX.W.TangP.TarjanL.TauscherL.TaylorB.Tellili  D.Teyssier  C.TimmermansSamuel C.C.Ting  S.M.Ting  S.C.Tonwar J.Tóth  C.TullyK.L.TungJ.Ulbricht  E.Valente  R.T.Van de WalleV.VeszpremiG.VesztergombiI.Vetlitsky  D.Vicinanza  G.Viertel  S.VillaM.Vivargent  S.VlachosI.Vodopianov  H.VogelH.Vogt  I.Vorobiev  A.A.Vorobyov  M.WadhwaW.Wallraff  X.L.Wang  Z.M.WangM.WeberP.WienemannH.WilkensS.Wynhoff  L.Xia  Z.Z.Xu  J.Yamamoto  B.Z.Yang  C.G.Yang  H.J.YangM.YangS.C.Yeh  An.ZaliteYu.ZaliteZ.P.Zhang  J.ZhaoG.Y.ZhuR.Y.ZhuH.L.ZhuangA.ZichichiG.ZiliziB.Zimmermann  M.Z[ö]{}ller. [A]{}[ plus 0pt minus 0pt plus 0pt minus 0pt plus 0pt minus 0pt]{} I. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH, D-52056 Aachen, FRG$^{\S}$\ III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH, D-52056 Aachen, FRG$^{\S}$ National Institute for High Energy Physics, NIKHEF, and University of Amsterdam, NL-1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, LAPP,IN2P3-CNRS, BP 110, F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux CEDEX, France Institute of Physics, University of Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Institute of High Energy Physics, IHEP, 100039 Beijing, China$^{\triangle}$ Humboldt University, D-10099 Berlin, FRG$^{\S}$ University of Bologna and INFN-Sezione di Bologna, I-40126 Bologna, Italy Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai (Bombay) 400 005, India Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA Institute of Atomic Physics and University of Bucharest, R-76900 Bucharest, Romania Central Research Institute for Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1525 Budapest 114, Hungary$^{\ddag}$ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Panjab University, Chandigarh 160 014, India. KLTE-ATOMKI, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary$^\P$ INFN Sezione di Firenze and University of Florence, I-50125 Florence, Italy European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland World Laboratory, FBLJA Project, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland Chinese University of Science and Technology, USTC, Hefei, Anhui 230 029, China$^{\triangle}$ University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, IN2P3-CNRS,Université Claude Bernard, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France Centro de Investigaciones Energ[é]{}ticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, CIEMAT, E-28040 Madrid, Spain${\flat}$ Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901, USA INFN-Sezione di Milano, I-20133 Milan, Italy Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, ITEP, Moscow, Russia INFN-Sezione di Napoli and University of Naples, I-80125 Naples, Italy Department of Physics, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus University of Nijmegen and NIKHEF, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA INFN-Sezione di Perugia and Università Degli Studi di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA INFN-Sezione di Napoli and University of Potenza, I-85100 Potenza, Italy Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA University of Californa, Riverside, CA 92521, USA INFN-Sezione di Roma and University of Rome, “La Sapienza", I-00185 Rome, Italy University and INFN, Salerno, I-84100 Salerno, Italy University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Central Lab. of Mechatronics and Instrumentation, BU-1113 Sofia, Bulgaria The Center for High Energy Physics, Kyungpook National University, 702-701 Taegu, Republic of Korea Utrecht University and NIKHEF, NL-3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA Paul Scherrer Institut, PSI, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland DESY, D-15738 Zeuthen, FRG Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH Zürich, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland University of Hamburg, D-22761 Hamburg, FRG National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, China Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, China Supported by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie Supported by the Hungarian OTKA fund under contract numbers T019181, F023259 and T024011. Also supported by the Hungarian OTKA fund under contract number T026178. Supported also by the Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnolog[í]{}a. Also supported by CONICET and Universidad Nacional de La Plata, CC 67, 1900 La Plata, Argentina. Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. [9]{} L3 Collaboration., B. Adeva , (1990) 35; M. Acciarri , (1994) 300; M. Chemarin , (1994) 345; A. Adam , (1996) 342; I. C. Brock , (1996) 236. TPC-2$\gamma$ Collaboration, H. Aihara , (1988) 107; Phys. Rev. [**D 38**]{} (1988) 1. Mark II Collaboration, G. Gidal , (1987) 2012; (1987) 2016. L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri , (2001) 1. D. E. Groom , (2000) 1. WA76 Collaboration, T. A. Armstrong , Z. Phys. [**C 52**]{} (1991) 389; S. Fukui , (1991) 293. WA102 Collaboration, D. Barberis , (1998) 225. L. D. Landau, [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk. USSR*]{} [**60**]{} (1948) 207; C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**77**]{} (1950) 242. G. A. Schuler, F. A. Berends, R. van Gulik, (1998) 423. This paper fixed the parameter $\Lambda$ of Equation (\[eq:ffschuler\]) to the resonance mass, however, relativistic effect makes this bound less stringent. S. J. Brodsky and G. P. Lepage, (1980) 2157; (1981) 1808. R. N. Cahn, (1987) 3342; (1988) 833. A factor 2 is used in Equation (\[eq:ffcahn\]) [@TPC; @PDG], instead of the 1 of these references. F. L. Linde, [*“Charm Production in two-photon Collisions”*]{}, Ph. D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, (1988). R. van Gulik, (Proc. Suppl.) (2000) 311; F. A. Berends and R. van Gulik, preprint hep-ph/0109195 (2001). V. M. Budnev , (1975) 181. R. Brun , GEANT 3.15 preprint CERN DD/EE/84-1 (1984), revised 1987. H. Fesefeldt, RWTH Aachen report PITHA 85/2 (1985). ------------------------ ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ \[-2.5ex\] ($^2$) Events $M$ () $\epsilon$ (%) $\Delta\sigma$ (pb) \[0.2ex\] $0.02-0.1$   $ \ \,79\pm 22$ $1.277\pm 0.007$ $3.97\pm0.17\pm0.15$ $28.9\pm\> 8.0\pm 2.7$ $0.1\phantom{0}-0.4$   $166\pm 22$ $1.283\pm 0.004$ $3.13\pm0.20\pm0.16$ $57.7\pm\> 7.6\pm 5.3$ $0.4\phantom{0}-0.9$   $ \ \,91\pm 15$ $1.287\pm 0.004$ $3.35\pm0.29\pm0.25$ $29.8\pm\> 4.7\pm 3.8$ $0.9\phantom{0}-6.0$   $ \ \,84\pm 11$ $1.272\pm 0.004$ $3.40\pm0.41\pm0.38$ $28.2\pm\> 3.8\pm 4.3$ ------------------------ ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ : Results of fits performed on the mass spectra of Figure \[fig:f1bins\]. For each $\spt$ range the number of events in the peak, the mass $M$, the overall efficiency $\epsilon$ and the partial cross section $\Delta\sigma$ are presented. The uncertainties on the number of events and on the mass are statistical. The uncertainties on the efficiency are respectively due to Monte Carlo statistics and trigger behaviour. Statistical and systematic uncertainties on $\Delta\sigma$ are also presented.[]{data-label="tab:ptbins"} ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------ ------------------ \[-2.5ex\] ($^2$) Efficiency Background $\eta$ selection Photon selection \[0.2ex\] $0.02-0.1$    7.7 3.9 3.4 0.4 $0.1\phantom{0}-0.4$    8.1 3.4 2.6 0.5 $0.4\phantom{0}-0.9$   11.5 4.9 1.2 1.1 $0.9\phantom{0}-6.0$   14.8 2.7 1.2 0.2 ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------ ------------------ : Breakdown of the $\Delta\sigma$ systematic uncertainties, in %, for each $\spt$ range, as described in the text.[]{data-label="tab:syst"} ![The $\gg$ effective mass spectrum for events with a $\gg\pip\pim$ effective mass less than 2 . []{data-label="fig:etamass"}](etamass.eps){width="\figwidth"} ![The $\etapipi$ effective mass spectrum for the selected $\epem\ra \epem\etapipi$ events. []{data-label="fig:e2pi"}](e2pi.eps){width="\figwidth"} ![The effective $\etapipi$ mass spectra for different $\spt$ bins. Fits of a resonance on a second order polynomial background are superimposed to the data. []{data-label="fig:f1bins"}](f1bins.eps){width="\figwidth"} ![Search for the $\fa\ra\a0(980)\pi$ decay mode. a) $\etapipi$ mass spectrum, b) masses of both $\eta \pi^{\pm}$ combinations versus the $\etapipi$ mass, c) the $\eta \pi^{\pm}$ mass projection of the $\fa$ region and d) of its sidebands. []{data-label="fig:a0f1"}](a0f1m5.eps){width="\figwidth"} ![Experimental differential cross section $d\sigma / d\q2$ compared to calculations of the GaGaRes Monte Carlo (dashed line) and to the calculations of Cahn [@Cahn] (dotted line). The full line is a fit of the data with the GaGaRes model, with $\Lambda$ and $\Gggp$ as free parameters. []{data-label="fig:gagarf1"}](gagarcahnfitf1.eps){width="\figwidth"}

--- abstract: 'We present numerical simulations of the runaway fractions expected amongst O and Wolf-Rayet star populations resulting from stars ejected from binaries by the supernova of the companion. Observationally the runaway fraction for both types of star is similar, prompting the explanation that close dynamical interactions are the main cause of these high-velocity stars. We show that, provided that the initial binary fraction is high, a scenario in which two-thirds of massive runaways are from supernovae is consistent with these observations. Our models also predict a low frequency of runaways with neutron star companions and a very low fraction of observable Wolf-Rayet–compact companion systems.' author: - | L.M.  Dray[^1], J.E.  Dale, M.E. Beer, R.  Napiwotzki, A.R. King\ Theoretical Astrophysics Group, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK\ date: 'Accepted ??. Received ??; in original form ' title: 'Wolf-Rayet and O Star Runaway Populations from Supernovae' --- \[firstpage\] binaries: close – stars: early-type – stars: kinematics – stars: Wolf-Rayet – supernovae: general Introduction ============ OB runaway stars are massive, early-type stars which have high peculiar velocities relative to the local standard of rest. These may reach values as large as $200 \, {\rm kms}^{-1}$, though most are below $100 \, {\rm kms}^{-1}$. The lower velocity limit for a star to be considered a runaway varies between studies but is generally between $20$ – $40 \,{\rm kms}^{-1}$. There are also a number of early-type stars at high Galactic latitudes which require high velocities if they were formed in the plane in order to reach their current locations within their lifetimes (Conlon et al. 1992, Allen & Kinman 2004). In this paper we take the threshold velocity for a star to be deemed runaway to be $30 \, {\rm kms}^{-1}$. Despite their high masses, 10 – 30 % of O stars and 5 – 10 % of B stars have runaway status (Gies 1987). There are two likely ways in which such relatively massive stars can acquire high velocities. First, they may have been members of close binary systems which were disrupted by the supernova explosion of the companion (the Binary Supernova Scenario (BSS), Blaauw 1961). In this case the runaway velocity must be similar to the star’s orbital velocity before the supernova. Second, runaway velocities can arise because the star interacted dynamically with members of its natal star cluster (the Dynamical Ejection Scenario (DES), Poveda, Ruiz & Allen 1967). As early–type runaway stars are fairly massive, this suggests that the interaction was with a binary system of two massive stars, and the most likely process is binary–binary scattering, in which the eventual runaway was a member of a binary which was disrupted by a more massive one. Clear examples of both types of of runaway (supernova disruption and dynamical interaction) are known (Hoogerwerf, de Bruijne & de Zeeuw 2000). The fraction of runaways originating from either route is less clear; significant numbers of runaways do show signs of interaction with a close companion, suggesting that supernovae must be implicated for a substantial fraction. However, high-latitude early-type stars have normal rotational velocities for their stellar type (Lynn et al. 2004) as opposed to the fast rotation which might be expected for the secondary from an interacting binary. Hoogerwerf, de Bruijne & de Zeeuw (2001) trace the paths of runaway stars back to their parent clusters, and find perhaps two thirds are the result of supernova ejection. Blaauw (1993) finds that over 50% of massive runaways have enhanced surface He abundances and high rotational velocities, suggesting that their parent systems experienced mass transfer and therefore are good candidates for supernova separation. It should be noted that rapid rotation and enhanced abundances are not in themselves unambiguous signs of accretion having taken place, since if a star is formed with rapid rotation then this will affect the surface abundances over its lifetime (e.g. Fliegner, Langer & Venn 1996); however the high proportion of runaways displaying these properties suggests that they are related in these cases to the circumstances which make a runaway. This favours the BSS, which is expected to make such stars. Whilst theoretically dynamical ejection could occur in an interacting system after it has undergone mass transfer, producing a DES runaway with BSS-expected abundances, it it is more likely to have occurred on the main sequence before mass transfer; furthermore, as tighter systems, those with early interaction present a smaller cross-section to collision and are harder to unbind. On the other hand, population synthesis suggests that only a relatively small fraction of O star runaways can have come about via the BSS (e.g. Portegies Zwart 2000). The two pictures sketched above predict in principle what kinds of stars become runaways. However the O and/or B phases are only the early stages of the life of a massive star; in particular, many massive stars at solar metallicity go on to become Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars (Chiosi & Maeder 1986). WR stars are characterised by small or absent H envelopes as a result of high mass loss; therefore they generally arise from the most massive stars, which have higher mass-loss rates throughout their lives. In a binary this process may be affected by Roche Lobe Overflow (RLOF), both as the donor (where the mass loss strips the envelope) and the gainer (which may become massive enough, via accretion, to later undergo a WR phase). Some proportion of WR stars would therefore also be expected to be runaway, with the exact numbers depending on the dominant method of runaway production. Recently evidence has emerged that the fraction of runaways among Wolf-Rayet stars is similar to that amongst O stars (Mason et al. 1998, Moffat et al. 1998, Foellmi et al. 2003) at around 10 per cent. This has been interpreted as evidence in favour of dynamical ejection being the primary route for making massive runaway stars. In this paper we consider whether the SN route may also produce similar runaway fractions for O and WR stars, and examine the implications of this. Runaways via the Dynamical ejection scenario ============================================ The dynamical ejection scenario was first proposed by Poveda et al. (1967). It involves binary encounters in the cores of the most massive OB associations. These encounters extract energy from the binary orbit through tightening of the orbit and generate runaway stars. One system is known in which there is strong evidence for an origin through the dynamical ejection scenario. AEAur and $\mu$Col are both O9.5V stars with similar ages which are running away in opposite directions with velocities relative to the local standard of rest of 113.3 and 107.8kms$^{-1}$ respectively (Hoogerwerf et al. 2001). Because of their similar but oppositely directed space velocities Blaauw & Morgan (1954) first proposed a common origin for these runaway stars in the Orion nebula. Gies & Bolton (1986) proposed a binary-binary interaction formed both of these runaway stars and the binary $\iota$Ori. Supporting this hypothesis Hoogerwerf et al. (2001) have shown that these three objects occupied a very small region of space 2.5Myr ago in the Trapezium cluster. Gualandris, Portegies Zwart & Eggleton (2004) have performed N-body simulations of the binary-binary encounter and have shown how a binary-binary encounter with an exchange occurring between the two binaries could produce the currently observed configuration. Hoogerwerf et al. (2001) investigated the origin of twenty-two nearby runaway stars. Parent associations were proposed for sixteen of these stars. Of these sixteen eleven were proposed to have been produced via the binary supernova scenario as opposed to five through the dynamical ejection scenario. Two of the remaining runaways had more than one possible parent associations but were consistent with an origin via the binary supernova scenario. This implies a fraction of runaways formed through the dynamical ejection scenario as less than one third. Leonard (1991) has performed a number of binary-binary encounters and finds that runaway velocities are greatest when the initial binaries are circular and the stars have similar masses. For the most-massive runaways in these binary-binary encounters Leonard (1991) finds that the maximum runaway velocity is half the surface escape velocity of that star - so escape velocities of 100s of kms$^{-1}$ are possible. There are a number of competing effects which will determine the relative sizes of the O and WR star runaway fraction in the case that all runaways are created by dynamical interaction. First, in a binary-single star interaction, the star which is most likely to be ejected as a runaway is the least massive of the three. It is thought that runaway O stars arise from binary-binary (Clarke & Pringle 1992) or higher-order multiple interactions, but even here it is the less massive stars which will be ejected with the greatest velocities. Selecting for lower-mass stars selects for O stars (the initial mass limit above which a star goes through an O phase being lower than the initial mass limit above which a star goes through a WR phase) and for evolved WR stars (if the interaction happens late in the lifetime of the WR star when it has lost much of its mass via a wind). Once a star is a runaway it is likely to remain that way, which selects for the later stages in a star’s lifetime, i.e. against O stars. Between these considerations it is difficult to form a clear picture of the population occurring from dynamical interactions without large-scale numerical simulations. If the runaway fractions of such WR and O stars are equal, it may be only because of the balance of competing effects. Runaways via Supernovae ======================= Even if it is completely symmetric, a supernova in a binary system still occurs away from the centre of mass of the system and hence imparts a net velocity to the system as a whole. Whether the system is unbound by this and whether the resulting velocity of the companion is great enough for it to be observed as a runaway depends on its pre-SN parameters. In particular, a binary will remain bound despite a SN explosion if less than half its total mass is lost. For most binaries which have undergone mass transfer, it is the primary – initially the most massive star – which explodes first, but by the time of its SN its mass is less than that of its companion. Therefore for perfectly symmetric SNe all of these systems would remain bound. In these circumstances it is hard to explain the very low binary fraction amongst runaway O stars (Mason et al. 1998). Studies of single pulsar velocities (Lyne & Lorimer 1994) find that an additional ‘kick’ velocity of some $450\,{\rm kms}^{-1}$ (imparted by asymmetric mass loss or neutrino emission) is required to account for the extremely high velocity of some neutron stars. Brandt & Podsiadlowski (1995) suggest that kicks of this magnitude will unbind the binary in over 70 % of cases. In this case it is quite easy to make massive runaways via the BSS. However, whilst the populations which go on to form runaway O and runaway WR stars are similar, they are not identical and in particular they are affected differently by the time at which the SN occurs and the size of the kick. The simplest scenario in which O and WR runaway stars both arise from supernovae is when all kicks are equal. The properties of the runaway are determined by any binary interaction it may have undergone and its state of evolution at the time of the SN of its companion. The fraction of WR stars which are runaways should in this case always be significantly greater than the fraction of O stars which are runaways. This arises from the relative positions of the O and WR phases in the star’s lifetime. Stars either begin their lives as O stars or become O stars after undergoing accretion from RLOF. However, the O phase is always earlier than the WR phase. In a binary it is reasonable to assume that both stars are formed at the same time. By the time one of the stars has evolved to the point that it undergoes a supernova, the other (which will become the runaway) has already gone through some or all of its O star phase, but is unlikely to have become a WR star yet. The statistics of observed WR binaries back this up: of 20 Galactic WR binaries with measured masses (van der Hucht 2001), at least 14 have as companions O stars which are massive enough to subsequently go through a WR phase, but only one (WR20a, which, as a system of an $83 \, \msun$ and an $82 \, \msun$ star (Bonanos et al. 2004), is highly unusual) contains two WR stars. One potential way of getting around this is to invoke a population with very uneven mass ratios, such that the less massive star still has most of its O star lifetime left after the SN of its companion. However, in order to be an O star on the main sequence at solar metallicity a mass of at least $17 \msun$ is required. This then requires the other star to be extremely massive, and so is unlikely to be a common situation. Furthermore, the masses of the components in massive binaries are correlated (Garmany, Conti & Massey 1980), with very few unevolved systems having mass ratios $q = M_{2}/M_{1}$ below 0.3. However, the above assumes that all supernovae are equal – that is, that the distribution of parameters which produce WR evolution in the secondary[^2] and the distribution of parameters which produce an asymmetric SN explosion which unbinds the system are completely unrelated. In reality this is unlikely to be the case. The likelihood of a system producing a runaway WR star depends on a number of factors. First, the star which survives beyond the SN of its companion must be, or become, massive enough to undergo a WR phase. In the case that mass transfer occurs, the mass limit for a star to go through a WR phase is lowered somewhat (Dray & Tout 2005) due to accretion of He-enhanced matter and subsequent thermohaline mixing. Mass transfer also promotes the likelihood of the secondary undergoing a WR phase by raising its mass, although the amount of mass transfer which can occur before the secondary is spun up to rotational break-up velocity is a matter of debate (Packet 1981, Dewi 2005). Second, this star must then be given a large enough velocity by the SN of the other that it is observable as a runaway. Here we use $30 {\rm kms}^{-1}$ as the velocity threshold above which a star is classified as runaway. Recent work by Pfahl et al. (2001) suggests that the velocity distribution of observed X-ray binary systems is indicative of a bimodal distribution of SN kicks, with smaller kicks originating from systems which underwent mass transfer earlier in their evolution. Early mass transfer (i.e. short initial period) has also been linked with more nearly conservative mass transfer (Langer 2005). In addition, simulations of WR production in these systems (Dray & Tout 2005) suggest that early mass transfer increases the likelihood of the secondary undergoing a WR phase. A further notable effect is that, since masses of stars in massive binaries are correlated, primaries of high mass tend to have relatively massive secondaries. Therefore, in the population as a whole, as the primary mass increases, so does the likelihood of the secondary being massive enough to undergo a WR phase. Above a primary mass of $40 \, \msun$ or so, nearly all solar metallicity systems which interact and avoid merging will have secondaries which can go through a WR phase. Therefore the initial primary mass distribution of systems which can make WR runaways is strongly skewed towards high initial primary mass. However, $40 \, \msun$ is also the threshold above which the remaining cores of stars after losing mass in RLOF and winds at solar metallicity are above $8 \, \msun$ – i.e. massive enough to collapse to a black hole rather than a neutron star (Fryer 1999, van den Heuvel et al. 2000). The level of wind mass loss for WR stars is a matter of debate, particularly when rotation is considered (e.g. Maeder & Meynet 2000). However it is notable that, in all five of the Galactic WC+O systems with measured masses, the WC star (which is a stripped core nearing the very end of its lifetime) is more massive than $8 \, \msun$. These systems also have massive O star companions ($23$ – $34\, \msun$, van der Hucht 2001) which will quite probably still be O stars at the SNe of their companions and later undergo a WR phase, making them prime examples of potential contributors to both the (BSS scenario) O and WR runaway populations. If a neutron star (NS) is formed in the SN explosion, the rest of the mass of the pre-explosion star is lost. However, when a black hole (BH) is formed the amount of matter which falls back is not limited by the maximum NS mass. There is a peak in the system SN mass loss for pre-SN primary core masses somewhere around the boundary between NS and BH formation (Fig. 1). The most massive stars form BHs at the end of their lifetimes. These are also the stars which lose most or all of their envelopes in winds or RLOF before they explode. This again limits the mass loss in the explosion, since the matter external to the core has already been lost. Consequently, BH-forming explosions involve smaller mass loss, relative to the remaining system mass, than do most NS-forming explosions. If kicks are basically related to anisotropic mass loss in the SN explosion, as opposed to anisotropic neutrino emission, then a smaller amount of mass lost relative to the system mass should also correspond to a smaller average kick velocity. Even if the kick velocity is unchanged, the amount of mass lost affects the final velocities imparted to the stars as the source of the mass loss is not at the centre of mass of the system (see e.g. Tauris & Takens 1998). to80mm \[fig1\] If the BH-forming explosion mechanism is basically similar to that forming a NS the imparted velocity to the companion to a BH-forming star, therefore, is still on average lower. Is this effect, combined with the greater likelihood of BH-forming stars to have companions which will become WR stars, enough to reduce the proportion of WR runaways? To test this proposition we use the analytic formulae provided by Tauris & Takens (1998) for the effect of a given kick magnitude and direction on the companion’s velocity. To quantify the effects of kicks we also need to know (or guess) a suitable distribution of parameters for systems immediately before the first SN. This in turn depends on the nature of mass transfer. Whilst there are initial parameter distributions for binaries which are widely used, the masses and periods immediately before the SN depend critically on a number of rather less well-known evolution-based quantities, including the amount of matter which may be accreted during RLOF and the efficiency of common envelope mass loss. Fig. 2 shows Monte Carlo simulations of sets of 50000 systems with varying assumptions about input systems and kicks. In all cases we assume an isotropic distribution of kick directions and a Maxwellian distribution of kick velocities with mean $450 \,{\rm kms}^{-1}$ (Lyne & Lorimer 1994; Lorimer, Bailes & Harrison 1997), and that the initial binary population has mass ratio $q$ and period $P$ distributed according to $P(q) \propto 1$, $P(P) \propto 1/P$ with primary masses appropriate to a Salpeter IMF. Observations of massive stars suggest that the initial binary fraction is high, quite possibly close to 100 % (Mason et al. 1998), though the binary fraction amongst runaways is much lower. Therefore we consider an initial population composed solely of binaries. Initially-single stars are highly unlikely to become runaways by either method, so the effect of their inclusion would be to lower the runaway fractions of both O and WR stars. A further consideration is the appropriate metallicity. With the recent work of Apslund et al. (2005), it now seems apparent that the true solar metallicity is similar to that of the solar neighborhood, i.e. closer to $0.01$ that $0.02$, the usually assumed ’solar’ value when models are calculated. It is likely that runaway O stars originate from systems with a range of metallicities, of which $0.02$ is towards the higher end (Daflon et al. 2001). Many of the regions in which WR stars are common have metallicities which are close to the old value of solar metallicity (Najarro et al. 2004), due to the greater likelihood of forming such stars at higher Z. In order to allow comparison with previous studies, we run our initial calculations assuming Z $= 0.02$. However, we consider in addition the lower value of metallicity, which is also close to the metallicity of the LMC, and it should be borne in mind that the true Galactic value most likely results from a range between the two. For panel [**a**]{} of Fig. 2 we assume a simple model of binary interaction without stellar wind mass loss in which all systems with initial periods below 3000 days interact, systems with initial $q$ less than 0.6 or period greater than 200 days come into contact (Pols 1994) and others have stable mass transfer. For stable mass transfer we assume RLOF is conservative, the primary’s initial mass $M_{\rm 1,i}$ and post-RLOF mass $M_{\rm 1,p}$ are related by $$M_{\rm 1,p} = 0.058\,M_{\rm 1,i}^{1.57}$$ and the post-RLOF period related to the initial period by $$\frac{P_{\rm p}}{P_{\rm i}} = \left( \frac{M_{\rm 1,i}M_{\rm 2,i}}{M_{\rm 1,p}M_{\rm 2,p}} \right)^{3}$$ (van den Heuvel et al. 2000). For contact systems we assume the primary is stripped to its core as before, the secondary’s mass remains constant and the period is determined by the energy argument of Webbink (1984), $$\left( \frac{P_{\rm p}}{P_{\rm i}} \right)^{2} = \frac{M_{\rm 1,p} + M_{\rm 2}}{M_{\rm 1,i} + M_{\rm 2}} \left( \frac{M_{\rm 1,p}M_{2}}{M_{\rm 1,i}}\right)^{3} \left( M_{2} + \frac{2(M_{\rm 1,i} - M_{\rm 1,p})}{\eta_{\rm CE} \lambda r_{\rm L1}} \right)^{-3} ,$$ where we take $\eta_{\rm CE}$ to be 1.0 and $\lambda$ to be 0.5 (Pfahl et al. 2002). The ratio of the Roche lobe radius of the primary to the separation, $r_{\rm L1}$, is taken to be $$r_{\rm L1} = \frac{0.49}{0.6 + q^{2/3}\ln{(1 + q^{-1/3})}}$$ (Eggleton 1983). Systems are considered to merge during common envelope evolution if the secondary would overflow its Roche Lobe at the post-CE separation and masses given above. In order to calculate the relative observed populations of WR and O stars we also need to have an idea of the time each star spends in these phases, both when it is runaway and when it is not. For the toy model we assume that post-RLOF, pre-SN primaries spend $10^{6}$ years in a WR-like phase, and, for other stars, those above $17 \, \msun$ have an O phase of $4 {\rm x} 10^{6} \,$ years and above $28 \, \msun$ have a WR phase of $10^{6} \,$ years. If they have accreted significantly, these mass limits are likely lowered somewhat (Dray & Tout 2005). The mass lost in the SN explosion is calculated from the pre-SN core mass-remnant mass fit of Portinari, Chiosi & Bressan (1998) to the SN models of Woosley & Weaver (1995) at Z $= 0.02$. For cores of over $15 \, \msun$ we assume direct collapse to a BH with no SN (Fryer 1999) and hence no kick. to140mm \[fig2\] In panels [**b**]{} to [**d**]{} we take pre-SN parameters from the evolutionary models of Dray & Tout (2005) for binaries at Z = $0.02$. We use the non-conservative RLOF set of models for which an accreting star can only accept ten percent of its own mass in accretion during an episode of RLOF. These models do not follow post-contact systems, so for those we assume that the primary is stripped down to its core mass, the secondary stays roughly the same mass as at the start of contact, and the period is governed by equation 3 as for the previous models. The pre-SN radius and post-SN lifetime of post-contact secondaries are then estimated from single stars of the corresponding mass, since in the majority of cases it has accreted only a small amount. Parameters of noninteracting systems are also taken from single star models (Dray & Tout 2003). Under the assumptions used here, mergers are a frequent result of common envelope evolution. Unless the merger process itself involves significant asymmetric mass loss, the stars thus formed will not be runaway. Their subsequent evolution is likely also to differ from that of a normally-formed single star at their new mass. One might expect them to be rapidly-rotating and have non-ZAMS abundance profiles. However it is notable that many Blue Straggler stars have low rates of rotation, even though most scenarios for their creation involve mergers or significant amounts of accretion (Leonard & Livio 1995, Sch[ö]{}nberner & Napiwotzki 1994). Probably merger products evolve more similarly to secondaries which have undergone accretion than to ZAMS stars. We calculate the O and WR lifetimes of these stars, therefore, by reference to post-accretion secondary models of the corresponding mass. It should be noted that these may not have exactly the same composition, so this comparison is relatively approximate; however, it is probably closer than assuming lifetimes appropriate to a ZAMS star of the new mass. Systems for which the SN explosion prompts a merger of the new NS and its companion (mainly via the kick direction being such that the binary is significantly hardened to the point that the new periastron distance is less than the radius of the companion, rather than by direct collision) are fairly uncommon, happening to around 1 % of systems which reach the SN stage. In this case a Thorne-[. Z]{}ytkow object is formed (e.g. Podsiadlowski, Cannon & Rees 1995). For systems which remain bound and close after the SN but do not merge immediately there is the possibility of unstable RLOF later to reach this same end. Whilst there has been some speculation that the unusual WN8 class of WR stars, which are runaways, may be Thorne-[. Z]{}ytkow objects, we assume here that they will be short-lived and appear as red supergiants, thereby not affecting either the O or the WR statistics. In panels [**c**]{} and [**d**]{} of Fig. 2 we consider a couple of other possible constraints on the kick distribution. Whether or not supernovae which form BHs have strong kicks is a matter of debate (Jonker & Nelemans 2004, Nelemans, Tauris & van den Heuvel 1999) but it is quite possible that their kick distribution is different from that of NS-forming explosions. Probably BHs formed by direct collapse do not have kicks, and it is possible that BHs formed by fallback have small kicks. A prototype for such a system may be Cygnus X-1 (Mirabel & Rodrigues 2003), which contains a BH of around 10 solar masses with an 18 solar mass O supergiant companion, but seems not to have received any excess velocity from the supernova which formed the BH. This implies a SN with very little or no mass loss and no kick at a mass which is slightly lower than that generally assumed for direct collapse. Alternatively the kick may have been fortuitously directed so as to cancel out the velocity effect of mass loss. In general, those studies which do indicate a difference in NS and BH kicks find lower or no kicks in BH-forming explosions. In panel [**c**]{} we assume that explosions which produce BHs (i.e. those of cores more massive than about $8 \, \msun$, Fryer 1999) have no kick at all. Even without kicks, some mass is still lost in these supernovae and hence some of them still become runaways. However the effect on the WR runaway population is fairly drastic, since WR secondaries are preferentially found with more massive primaries. For panel [**d**]{} we assume that systems with initial periods below ten days have small kicks (on the order of $30 \, {\rm km\,s}^{-1}$). This scenario is similar to that suggested to explain the apparently bimodal distribution of pulsar velocities (Pfahl et al. 2001, Podsiadlowski et al. 2004). Systems with initially smaller periods will undergo RLOF earlier on in their evolution, revealing the core of the primary whilst it is still rotating rapidly, which may affect the kick magnitude. The fractions of O and WR stars which will be observed as being runaway of course depends on the lifetimes those stars spend as runaways and the initial binary fraction. Therefore also given in Fig. 2 are a number of properties of the resulting WR and O populations, including the observable runaway fractions ${\rm O_{r}}$ and ${\rm WR_{r}}$ (assuming an initially 100 per cent binary fraction), the fraction of systems which are unbound by the SN $f_{\rm unbound}$, the fraction of O or WR runaways which should have a NS or BH companion $f_{\rm r,binary}$ and the number ratio of WR stars to O stars. Observationally in the Milky Way WR/O is between $0.1$ and $0.2$ (Maeder & Meynet 1994). As noted before, the parent population of BSS WR runaways is those binaries which are initially the most massive; even large SN kicks as used here frequently do not suffice to push them over the velocity limit to become runaway stars. Therefore the fraction of systems which experience a SN but remain bound may by very different to the fraction of runaways which remain bound. Comparison with observed values ------------------------------- Whilst one may obtain similar runaway fractions for O and WR stars by restricting kicks as in panels [**c**]{} and [**d**]{} of Fig. 1, it is notable that such fractions are rather lower than the observed value. Without kick restrictions, similar O and WR runaway fractions are also obtained but they are somewhat larger. In quantifying the observed runaway fractions, of course, it is important to be cautious about the completeness of runaway surveys. In the simplest case, that in which radial velocities alone are used to select for high velocity stars, as many as half of an isotropically-distributed sample of runaways will be missed (Cruz-Gonzalez et al. 1974). The study of Mason et al. (1998) accounts a star a runaway if it has absolute peculiar radial or space velocity greater than $30 {\rm kms}^{-1}$, or is further than 500 pc from the Galactic plane. That of Moffat et al. (1998) uses a threshold of $42 {\rm kms}^{-1}$ in transverse velocity, which is equivalent to a threshold of $30 {\rm kms}^{-1}$ in radial velocity alone. For WR stars in particular these values may also be affected by small number statistics. Nevertheless, since the Mason et al. study finds an O star runaway fraction of 8 percent and the Moffat et al. study finds a WR star runaway fraction of 9 percent, it is probably safe to say that the true fractions of stars with space velocity greater than $30 {\rm kms}^{-1}$ within these populations are similar, and that they are likely to be at the lower end of the 10 – 20 percent range. The runaway fractions we find without kick restrictions ([**b**]{}) are then half or less of what is expected. These values are slightly higher than but broadly in agreement with those found for O stars by Portegies Zwart (2000). If kicks for these systems are restricted, the runaway fractions of O and WR stars become similar, but are a factor of 5 – 10 too low. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case. First, in real life, some runaways will arise from dynamical ejection. Following Hoogerwerf et al. (2001) we expect the number of these to be lower than those arising from the BSS, but they may be enough to make up some of the difference between the observed and theoretical values. As discussed above, it is difficult to predict whether the DES will produce differing runaway fractions for O and WR stars, but it is likely to be at least slightly more weighted towards making O star runaways than the BSS. Therefore one potential scenario is that there are no restrictions on SN kicks and the remainder of the runaways in both cases are made up by dynamical ejection. A further possibility is that the input parameters are incorrect. However additional simulations with a wide range of input distributions failed to produce a high enough runaway fraction for any reasonable set of parameters. We have also not considered triple and higher-order multiple systems. If nearly all O stars are born with companions, as seems likely, hierarchical triple systems may play an important – and complex – r[ô]{}le in evolution and the production of runaway systems. In particular, there are three stars among the WR sample of runaways detected by Moffat et al. (1998) which must either be given their velocity by the DES or evolution in a multiple system, since they have O or B star companions. One of these is WR22, which, with a combined system mass of nearly eighty solar masses, probably requires dynamical interaction between a number of very massive stars to give it its velocity. to140mm \[fig3\] A pertinent question here is that of observability. Whilst we have calculated populations based on theoretical definitions of what constitutes an O star or a WR star, this does not take into account whether they can be detected as such or not. O stars are, on formation, hidden in dense molecular cloud cores (Heydari-Malayeri et al. 1999). If the fraction of the early (non-runaway) O star lifetime during which they are not visible is large, this increases the observed O star runaway fraction significantly. Portegies Zwart (2000) estimates the average reduction in visible O star lifetime due to obscuration by their birth clouds as $10^{6}\,$years, which would only have a small effect. Removing non-runaway O stars also increases the WR/O ratio, taking it further away from its observed value. It is also true that not all of the stars which we have labelled as WR stars may be visible as such. Observationally, the WR phenomenon is strictly an atmospheric one, defined by low H and/or He abundances and broad emission lines. Stars which fit the theoretical definition of a WR star – mainly, that its surface hydrogen abundance by mass be less than 0.4 – may not display WR phenomena in their atmosphere if they are too cool or do not have a high enough mass-loss rate. Many of the quantities affecting the wind are related to the mass of the star, so it is convenient to take a mass limit below which a star with WR-like abundances will simply be observed as a helium star – for example, studies such as that of Vanbeveren, Van Bever & De Donder (1997) take this minimum mass to be $5\, \msun$. In the catalogue of van der Hucht (2001) the WR star listed as having the lowest determined mass is WR97, at $2.3\, \msun$. However the source paper for these values (Niemela, Cabanne & Bassino 1995) quotes them as lower limits only, with the values corrected for inclination potentially being ten times greater. The lowest confirmed WR mass is then $3.9\, \msun$ for WR31 (Lamontagne et al. 1996). The most evolved WC stars may also be shrouded by dust, appearing as faint red objects, although we do not consider that here since the lifetimes involved are short. There are also a small number of stars in our models with WR-like abundances which become essentially cool He giants. These will be unable to maintain a WR atmosphere. We therefore rerun our simulations with the assumption that stars with WR-like composition are not observable if they have masses below $ 3.9 \,\msun$ or ${\log \rm T_{eff}}$ below 4.0, and that massive stars younger than $10^{6}$ years are obscured. These are shown in Fig. 3; panel [**a**]{} shows full evolutionary models with conservative mass transfer and these assumptions, and [**b**]{} models with non-conservative mass transfer as above. These changes have a relatively small but positive effect. In the case that the runaway fraction amongst O stars is close to the Mason et al. (1998) value of 8 percent, the resulting O star runaway fraction is consistent with the conclusion of Hoogerwerf et al. (2000) that two-thirds of massive runaways are from the BSS and the remaining third from dynamical interaction. The WR star runaway fraction is similarly consistent with that of Moffat et al. (1998) – in fact, an extra component from the DES is not needed at all in the case of conservative mass transfer. Amongst the observed WR stars marked as runaways there is a higher incidence of non-compact companion stars than amongst runaway O stars, however, so it is likely that there is a significant DES component in the WR runaway population. Variation with metallicity -------------------------- A further variable which has the potential to have a strong effect, as noted above, is metallicity. Foellmi et al. (2003) find that eight of their sample of 61 LMC WR stars have unusual radial velocities (i.e. significantly different from the mean value). This suggests a similar or slightly higher runaway fraction to the Milky Way. However, whereas several of the MW runaway sample have OB companions, all the suspected LMC runaways appear to be single. This could indicate a higher proportion of BSS runaways, but is most likely just a consequence of small number statistics. Lower-metallicity stars of similar mass and evolutionary status usually have smaller radii than comparable solar-metallicity stars. This leads to fewer contact systems, fewer mergers and more systems surviving until the first SN; and wind mass-loss rates are lower, which raises the mass limit above which a single star will go through a WR phase. WR secondaries are less affected by the lower mass-loss rates if their effective metallicity is raised by accretion. Lower mass loss in the wind of the primary also leads to a more massive primary at the time of explosion, which may result in a lower kick velocity. Therefore theoretically one would expect WR stars to have a higher runaway fraction at lower metallicity if the secondary accretes significantly (i.e. the conservative models) but otherwise to be relatively similar. Decreasing the metallicity also shifts the main sequence bluewards, increasing non-runaway O star lifetimes. This is likely to reduce the fraction of the O star population which is runaway. These speculations are confirmed in Fig. 4, for which the same simulations as in Fig. 3 are carried out, but at Z = $0.01$. These general trends also held true when we ran the same simulations at Z = $0.004$. to140mm \[fig4\] From the above analysis it seems likely that the systems which have the potential to produce BSS WR runaways are those which have initially the most massive primary stars, and that because these primaries are still relatively massive when they explode, the velocities imparted to their companions are, on average, smaller, so that observed WR runaways represent the higher-velocity end of this spectrum. This in turn increases the likelihood that such systems in fact remain bound and moving with relatively low velocity – i.e. not enough to be registered as runaways. In the kick restriction scenarios above over fifty percent of secondaries which go on to become WR stars retain their companions, the vast majority of which do not attain runaway velocities. Even without kick restrictions, the fraction of the total observed WR population which might be expected to have a compact companion, assuming no further interaction after the first SN, is around 8 percent. The question which then arises is, where are the WR-BH and WR-NS post-explosion binaries which are predicted by this scenario? Wolf–Rayet Binaries =================== In the previous section we demonstrated that one consequence of a massive star population which is able to produce the expected numbers of runaways via supernovae in binary systems is that there is a non-negligible proportion of WR stars with compact companions. For the observed Galactic WR population of around 237, we would expect around 20 WR-compact object binaries, of which all but one or two will have BH companions. However, the observed Galactic WR + compact object population in fact has only one known member, Cygnus X-3. It is a matter of debate as to whether the compact object in this system is a BH or NS (e.g. Schmutz et al. 1996). Cyg X-3 has a very tight orbit, with a period of only 4.8 hours. There is also a potential WR-BH binary in the metal-poor galaxy IC 10 (Bauer & Brandt 2003), and one pulsar with no optical counterpart, X1908+075, which displays signatures of orbiting in the wind of an unseen WR companion (Levine et al. 2004). However, the typical WR–BH binary produced by our simulations is long-period (100 – 1000 days) and has a relatively small eccentricity. Whilst there are some close systems, it seems unlikely that in the wide systems, which significantly outnumber them, there will be sufficient accretion to power X-ray emission. In addition, the dearth of obvious WR + BH binaries in the Galaxy is not surprising if we examine how most stellar–mass black holes are found. By far the most usual way (15 out of 18 known cases: McClintock & Remillard, 2003) is to measure the mass function of the companion star in a quiescent transient and show that this exceeds the maximum neutron–star mass $\simeq 3\msun$. If the system is not transient and thus has no quiescent phase this is impossible, as the optically bright accreting component prevents one obtaining a clean spectral line radial–velocity curve for the companion. But WR + BH binaries are extremely unlikely to be transient. To power an X–ray source (thus signalling the presence of a compact component) by Roche lobe overflow or even by wind accretion requires a short orbital period. The presence of a hot WR companion close to the accretion disc guarantees that its temperature can never fall below the hydrogen ionization value $\sim 6000$ K. This is for example why none of the HMXBs is a conventional transient. The other method of finding black holes relies on rather indirect arguments for HMXBs: one combines an absorption–line mass function with a no–eclipse constraint, and gets a minimum value for the unseen mass when all inclinations are allowed. There is in general no guarantee that the resulting lower bound on the mass is tight enough to require a black hole even if the required observations are made. Thus it is unsurprising again that no second WR + BH binary has been found. The endpoints of the binary evolution are straightforward to predict. If the secondary WR star leaves a neutron–star remnant in a tight enough orbit (periods less than about 15 hr) this may coalesce via gravitational radiation and possibly produce a gamma–ray burst as well as a gravitational wave signal. If the binary was a runaway the gamma–ray burst would presumably be rather distant from star–forming regions, and so probably atypical. If the WR star leaves a black hole, a similarly short orbital period would allow a BH + BH coalescence, and a consequent gravitational wave source. O Star – Compact Object Binaries ================================ One further consequence of evolutionary paths in which the binary is not separated by the SN is systems of O or B stars with compact companions. In particular, these systems may become visible as high mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) if material from the wind or from RLOF is accreted onto the compact component. to140mm \[fig5\] Most HMXBs have small peculiar velocities. Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998) find for the Be X-ray binary systems an average transverse peculiar velocity $<v_{t}> = 11.3 \pm 6.7\,$kms$^{-1}$, i.e. not substantially different from that expected for non-runaway O stars. Be X-ray binaries make up some 75 % of the known HMXBs but, since they have transient emission, the real proportion is likely to be higher. The remaining HMXBs are persistently-emitting OB supergiant systems. These have larger velocities, probably related to a different evolutionary path: $<v_{t}> = 42 \pm 14\,$kms$^{-1}$ (van den Heuvel et al. 2000). Other runaway O stars have indications of binarity and small mass functions which suggest they may have NS companions (e.g. Boyajian at al. 2005; McSwain et al. 2004). However in general searches for neutron star companions to runaway stars have suggested that the vast majority are single (Philp et al. 1996). From our simulations we find that around 5 – 10 percent of O stars should have a compact companion of some sort, including direct collapse BHs. Many of these systems, like the WR systems mentioned above, will not support sufficient accretion to be X-ray bright. Of these binaries with compact companions, up to one percent have transverse peculiar velocities over $30 {\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. This small fraction is unsurprising given that it is the systems with small kicks which are more likely to remain bound. According to van Oijen (1989), there are around 960 – 1850 O stars, 50 Be X-ray binaries and 3 OB supergiant X-ray binaries within a distance of 2.5 kpc of the Sun. For this number of O stars, we would expect roughly 400 binaries consisting of a compact object plus any sort of companion, of which 4 or fewer will be runaway. Whilst the runaway compact object binaries we produce are close systems which might all be expected to be persistently X-ray bright, this number does seem rather small given that it is an upper limit. In figure 5 we plot the observed period–transverse velocity distribution against that of systems which remain bound from our models. The smaller number ratio of observed to predicted low-velocity systems is consistent with these being transient Be X-ray binaries for which not all are visible at one time. The high-velocity X-ray binaries are notably easier to produce in the case of non-conservative mass transfer, for which there is a greater incidence of short-period binaries at the time of the first SN. We intend to explore this HMXB progenitor population further in a future paper. Discussion ========== As we have shown, the fraction of O stars and that of WR stars which are runaway may still be similar even if many of them come from supernova-separated binaries. This scenario is also consistent with the rarity of observed WR–NS binaries, provided that there is a population of WR–BH binaries which are not visible. If we assume that, following the work of Hoogerwerf et al. (2001), both the DES and BSS operate in nature but that there is observational evidence that the BSS is responsible for about two-thirds of massive runaways, then there are a number of other conclusions which follow from this. First, in order to be able to make enough runaways by this method, the vast majority of kick velocities must be large. This does not exclude X-ray binaries with low velocities since if kicks are randomly oriented in space then some will leave the system both bound and travelling with a relatively small velocity. Therefore the existence of some non-runaway HMXBs is unsurprising and expected in this scenario. However, if runaway O and WR stars are to be produced by the BSS in large enough numbers it is essential that at least some SNe in close binaries have large kicks, since these systems produce a significant fraction of the WR secondaries. Similarly our work supports the conclusions of Jonker & Nelemans (2004) that BHs have kicks of similar magnitude to NSs, at least in the cases where they are formed by fallback. This is more consistent with a scenario where kicks are the result of anisotropic neutrino emission rather than anisotropic mass loss, since the amount of mass lost varies widely between BH-forming SN explosions. This work also has some bearing on the mass limits above which stars collapse to BHs. If the core mass limit for direct collapse is much below $15 \, \msun$ then it is extremely hard to make enough runaway WR stars via the BSS. Another scenario in which the number of BSS O and WR runaway stars becomes small is if the initial binary fraction amongst massive stars is significantly less than the here-assumed 100 percent, since initially-single stars are very unlikely to become runaway in either scenario. This suggests in turn that many observed single O and WR stars have been ejected from binaries either by the BSS or DES but have not attained enough velocity to count as runaways. From our models we note that the population of post-SN systems which do not have enough velocity to be accounted runaways has a larger binary fraction than the runaways but a smaller one than the parent population. This may be the origin of some of the observed field O stars which have not been designated runaways, but which have a binary fraction notably lower than for cluster O stars and higher than for O star runaways (Mason et al. 1998). If the mass limit dividing cores which collapse to NSs and cores which collapse to BHs is much above $8 \, \msun$ then we would expect to see WR-NS binaries in our Galaxy. Since these are not observed, this argues that the mass limit cannot be any bigger than $8 \, \msun$. However, if it were much smaller, too many O–BH binaries and not enough O–NS binaries would be produced. A proper understanding of the ejection of stars from star clusters is also crucial to understanding the evolution of stellar systems. This applies *a fortiori* to massive stars, since their feedback effects are thought to be responsible for unbinding and dispersing young bound star clusters (e.g. Hills 1980) and for regulating the rate and efficiency of star formation in such systems (e.g. McKee 1989).\ As noted previously, some $10\%-30\%$ of all O-type stars are runaways. De Wit et al. (2004, 2005) and references therein estimate that an additional $20\%$ of O-type stars are not associated with any stellar cluster, but either have space velocities too small to be considered runaways, or have proper motions too small to allow their velocities to be reliably determined. This result, together with the fraction of O-stars which are defined as runaways implies that as many as half of all O-type stars have been expelled from their parent clusters. For the calculations carried out here, up to 20 % of O stars have been given a kick by binary interaction, although many of them have velocities too low to register officially as runaways. These, together with an extra 10 % from the DES, could account for the homeless O stars.\ Feedback from O-type stars takes several forms, the most important of which on the typical lengthscales of star clusters ($\sim$pc) are photoionising radiation, stellar winds and supernovae. Ionising radiation and winds operate continuously for the duration of a star’s lifetime, whereas a supernova is a single event occuring at the end of a star’s main-sequence phase. The energy inputs from all three forms of feedback integrated over the stellar lifetime are approximately the same for massive stars ($\sim10^{51}$ erg for each feedback mechanism for a $30 \msun$ star - see Mac Low and Klessen (2004) for a discussion of the energy inputs from the three feedback mechanisms).\ If a star cluster is losing some of its complement of O-stars, the decrement in the total energy input to the cluster from stellar feedback is sensitive to the stage in the lifetime of each runaway O-star at which the star is expelled. Stars ejected by the DES are lost early in their lives and are thus unable to influence the evolution of their natal cluster by any means, whereas stars ejected by the BSS are usually at an advanced stage of their lives and will have already injected considerable quanitities of energy into the cluster by their winds and ionising radiation, although their supernovae will of course occur outside the cluster. If the results of this paper can be extended to *all* homeless O-stars, $\sim10\%$ of massive stars are dynamically ejected from their parent clusters early in their main–sequence lifetimes, while $\sim20\%$ are ejected later in their lives by the supernova explosion of a binary partner. On the assumption that $10\%$ of O-stars are ejected near birth and a further $20\%$ just before exploding as supernovae and taking the time-integrated energy inputs from ionising radiation, winds and supernovae to be equal, a typical cluster may receive $17\%$ less energy from O-star feedback than if it retained all of its O-stars. This figure may often be an understimate since, as Hoogerwerf et al. (2001) point out, the interaction between AE Aurigae, $\mu$ Columbae and the binary $\iota$ Orionis removed $\sim70 \msun$ from the neighbourhood of the Trapezium cluster, comparable to the total mass of the Trapezium cluster itself. It is possible for dynamical interactions in a small-N system to expel N-2 objects and to leave only a tight binary (e.g. Kiseleva et al. 1998). A star cluster born with a rich population of O-stars could in principle be left with only two.\ Decreasing the energy input from feedback into a stellar cluster has the obvious consequence that the cluster is less likely to become unbound (if it was bound at formation). The efficiency of star formation will also be affected, although it is not clear whether it will be increased or decreased since feedback from massive stars can be both positive, in that it can induce or accelerate star formation locally, and negative, in that accretion onto existing stars can be halted and potentially-star-forming gas can be expelled from embedded stellar systems (e.g. Dale et al. 2005).\ Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ LMD and JED are supported by the Leicester PPARC rolling grant for theoretical astrophysics, and RN by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship. MEB acknowledges the support of a UKAFF fellowship. ARK gratefully acknowledges a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. Allen, C., Kinman, T. D., 2004, RevMexAA, 21, 121 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J. 2005, in F. N. Bash, T. G. Barnes, eds, Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, (San Francisco: ASP), in press (astro-ph/0410214) Bauer, F. E., Brandt, W. N., 2003, ApJL, 601, 67 Blaauw A., 1993, in J. P. Cassinelli, E. B. Churchill, eds., Massive Stars: Their Lives in the Interstellar Medium, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 35, p. 207 Blaauw, A., 1961, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 15, 265 Blaauw A., Morgan W.W., 1954, ApJ, 119, 625 Brandt, N., Podsiadlowski, P., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461 Bonanos, A. Z., Stanek, K. Z., Udalski, A., Wyrzykowski, L., Zebrun, K., Kubiak, M.,Szymanski, M. K., Szewczyk, O., Pietrzynski, G., Soszynski, I., 2004, ApJ, 611, L33 Boyajian, T. S., Beaulieu, T. D., Gies, D. R., Grundstrom, E., Huang, W., McSwain, M. V., Riddle, R. L., Wingert, D. W., 2005, ApJ, 621, 978 Chevalier, C., Ilovaisky, S. A., 1998, A&A, 330, 201 Chiosi, C., Maeder, A., 1986, ARA&A, 24, 329 Clarke, C. J., Pringle, J. E., 1992, MNRAS, 255, 423 Conlon, E. S., Dufton, P. L., Keenan, F. P., McCausland, R. J. H., Holmgren, D., 1992, ApJ, 400, 273 Cruz-Gonz[á]{}lez, C., Recillas-Cruz, E., Costero, R., Peimbert, M., Torres-Peimbert, S., 1974, RevMexAA, 1, 211 de Wit, W. J., Testi, L., Palla, F., Vanzi, L., Zinnecker, H., 2004, A&A, 425, 937 de Wit, W. J., Testi, L., Palla, F., Zinnecker, H., 2005, A&A, 437, 247 Dale, J. E., Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., Bate, M. R., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 291 Daflon, S., Cunha, K., Becker, S. R., Smith, V. V., 2001, ApJ, 552, 309 Dewi, J., 2005, in A. F. J. Moffat, N. St.-Louis, eds., Massive Stars in Interacting Binaries, ASP Conf. Ser., in press Dray, L. M., Tout, C. A., 2005, in A. F. J. Moffat, N. St.-Louis, eds., Massive Stars in Interacting Binaries, ASP Conf. Ser., in press Dray, L. M., & Tout, C. A., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 299 Eggleton, P. P., 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 Fliegner, J., Langer, N., Venn, K. A., 1996, A&A, 308, L13 Foellmi, C., Moffat, A. F. J., Guerrero, M. A., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 1025 Fryer, C. L., 1999, AJ, 522, 413 Garmany, C. D., Conti, P. S., Massey, P., 1980, ApJ, 242, 1063 Gies, D. R., 1987, ApJS, 64, 545 Gies D.R., Bolton C.T., 1986, ApJS, 61, 419 Gualandris A., Portegies Zwart S., Eggleton P.P., 2004, MNRAS, 350, 615 Heydari-Malayeri, M., Rosa, M. R., Zinnecker, H., Deharveng, L., Charmandaris, V., 1999, A&A, 344, 848 Hills, J. G., 1980, ApJ, 235, 986 Hoogerwerf R., de Bruijne J.H.J., de Zeeuw P.T., 2001, ApJ, 365, 49 Hoogerwerf R., de Bruijne J.H.J., de Zeeuw P.T., 2000, ApJ, 544, L133 Jonker, P. G., Nelemans, G., 2004, MNRAS, 354, 355 Kiseleva, L. G., Colin, J., Dauphole, B., Eggleton, P., 1998, MNRAS, 301, 759 Lamontagne, R., Moffat, A. F. J., Drissen, L., Robert, C., Matthews, J. M., 1996, AJ, 112, 2227. Langer, N., 2005, in L. A. Antonelli et al., eds., Interacting Binaries: Accretion, Evolution & Outcomes, AIP Conf. Ser., in press Leonard P.J.T., 1991, AJ, 101, 562 Leonard P.J.T., Livio, M., 1995, ApJ, 447, L121 Levine, A. M., Rappaport, S. Remillard, R., Savcheva, A., 2004, ApJ, 617, 1284 Liu, Q. Z., van Paradijs, J., van den Heuvel, E. P. J., 2000, A&AS, 147, 25 Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., Harrison, P. A., 1997, MNRAS, 289, 592 Lyne, A. G., Lorimer, D. R., 1994, Nature, 369, 127 Lynn, B. B., Keenan, F. P., Dufton, P. L., Saffer, R. A., Rolleston, W. R. J., Smoker, J. V., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 821 Mason, B. D., Gies, D. R., Hartkopf, W. I., Bagnuolo, W. G. Jr., ten Brummelaar, T., McAlister, H. A. 1998, AJ, 115, 821 Maeder, A., Meynet, G., 2000, AR&A, 361, 159 Maeder, A., Meynet, G., 1994, A&A, 287, 803 Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125 McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., 2003, astro–ph/0306213, to appear as Chapter 4 in “Compact Stellar X-ray Sources,” eds. W. H. G. Lewin and M. van der Klis, Cambridge University Press. McKee, C. F., 1989, ApJ, 345, 782 McSwain, M. V., Gies, D. R., Huang, W., Wiita, P. J., Wingert, D. W., 2004, ApJ, 600, 927 Mirabal, I. F., Rodrigues, I., 2003, Science, 300, 1119 Moffat, A. F. J., Marchenko, S. V., Seggewiss, W., van der Hucht, K. A., Schrijver, H., Stenholm, B., Lundstrom, I., Gunawan, D. Y. A. Setia, Sutantyo, W., van den Heuvel, E. P. J., de Cuyper, J.-P., Gomez, A. E., 1998, A&A, 331, 949 Najarro, F., Figer, D. F., Hillier, D. J., Kudritzki, R. P., 2004, ApJ, 611, L105 Niemela, V. S., Cabanne, M. L., Bassino, L. P., 1995, Rev. Mex. A&A, 31, 45 Nelemans, G., Tauris, T. M., van den Heuvel, E. P. J., 1999, A&A, 352, L87 Packet, W., 1981, A&A, 102, 17 Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., Spruit, H., 2001, AAS, 33, p. 1446 Phelp, C. J., Evans, C. R., Leonard, P. J. T., Frail, D. A., 1996, AJ, 111, 1220 Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., Rappaport, S., Heger, A., Pfahl, E., 2004, ApJ, 612, 1044 Podsiadlowski, P., Cannon, R. C., Rees, M. J., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 485 Pols, O. R., 1994, A&A, 290, 119 Portegies Zwart, S. F., 2000, ApJ, 544, 437 Portinari, L., Chiosi, C., Bressan, A., 1998, A&A, 334, 505 Poveda A., Ruiz J., Allen C., 1967, Bol. Obs. Tonantzinla Tacubaya, 28, 86 Schmutz, W., Geballe, T. R., Schild, H., 1996, A&A, 311, L25. Sch[ö]{}nberner, D., Napiwotzki, R., 1994, A&A, 282, 106 Tauris T.M., Takens R.J., 1998, A&A, 330, 1047 Vanbeveren, D., Van Bever, J., De Donder, E., 1997, A&A, 317, 487 van der Heuvel, E. P. J, Portegies Zwart, S. F., Bhattacharya, D., Kaper, L., 2000, A&A, 364, 563 van der Hucht, K. A., 2001, New Astronomy Reviews, 45, 135 van Oijen, J. G. J., 1989, A&A, 217, 115 Webbink, R. F., 1984, ApJ, 277, 355 Woosley, S. E., Weaver, T. A., 1995, ApJS, 101, 181. [This paper has been typeset from a TeX/ LaTeX file prepared by the author.]{} \[lastpage\] [^1]: E-mail: Lynnette.Dray@astro.le.ac.uk [^2]: NB. In this paper we will follow the theorists’ convention of referring to the [*initially*]{} most massive star as the primary throughout, even if through interaction or winds it becomes the less massive star in the system.

--- abstract: 'In this paper, we present [*Neural-Swarm*]{}, a nonlinear decentralized stable controller for close-proximity flight of multirotor swarms. Close-proximity control is challenging due to the complex aerodynamic interaction effects between multirotors, such as downwash from higher vehicles to lower ones. Conventional methods often fail to properly capture these interaction effects, resulting in controllers that must maintain large safety distances between vehicles, and thus are not capable of close-proximity flight. Our approach combines a nominal dynamics model with a regularized permutation-invariant Deep Neural Network (DNN) that accurately learns the high-order multi-vehicle interactions. We design a stable nonlinear tracking controller using the learned model. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed controller significantly outperforms a baseline nonlinear tracking controller with up to four times smaller worst-case height tracking errors. We also empirically demonstrate the ability of our learned model to generalize to larger swarm sizes.' author: - 'Guanya Shi, Wolfgang Hönig, Yisong Yue, and Soon-Jo Chung [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]' bibliography: - 'IEEEabrv.bib' - 'ref.bib' title: | **Neural-Swarm: Decentralized Close-Proximity Multirotor Control\ Using Learned Interactions** --- Introduction ============ ### Related Work {#related-work .unnumbered} Problem Statement: Swarm Interactions ===================================== \[sec:prelim\] Learning Approach {#sec:learning} ================= Nonlinear Decentralized Controller Design {#sec:theory} ========================================= Experiments {#sec:exp} =========== Conclusion {#sec:con} ========== [^1]: Demo videos: <https://youtu.be/v4j-9pH11Q8> [^2]: The authors are with California Institute of Technology, USA. `{gshi, whoenig, yyue, sjchung}@caltech.edu`. [^3]: We thank Michael O’Connell and Xichen Shi for helpful discussions and Anya Vinogradsky for help with the firmware implementation. [^4]: The work is funded in part by Caltech’s Center for Autonomous Systems and Technologies (CAST) and the Raytheon Company.

--- address: | Department of Physics, Florida State University,\ Tallahassee, FL 32306-4350, USA\ E-mail: [kidonaki@sg1.hep.fsu.edu]{} author: - Nikolaos Kidonakis title: | Resummation for direct photon\ and $W$ + jet production --- Introduction ============ Direct photon production and $W$ + jet production are processes of great interest for a number of reasons. Direct photon production is important for determinations of gluon distributions while $W$ + jet production is relevant for estimating backgrounds to new physics. Near threshold for the production of the final state in these processes one can resum logarithmic corrections originating from soft gluon emission to all orders in perturbative QCD. These corrections are potentially large. A formalism for the resummation of soft-gluon contributions at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy has been recently developed for a variety of QCD hard scattering processes, including heavy quark, jet, direct photon, and $W$ + jet production (for reviews see Refs. [@NK; @kerkyra]). The resummed cross sections have been expanded up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO), thus providing new analytical higher order predictions, and exhibit a substantially reduced scale dependence relative to next-to-leading order (NLO); this is expected on theoretical grounds [@EPIC99]. Direct photon production ======================== First, we discuss resummation for direct photon production [@LOS; @cmn; @NK; @cmnov; @DIS99; @NKJO] in hadronic processes h\_1+h\_2 +X . The factorized cross section may be written as a convolution of parton distributions $\phi$ with the partonic hard scattering $\hat \sigma$ \_[h\_1h\_2]{}= \_f \_[f\_1/h\_1]{} \_[f\_2/h\_2]{} \_[f\_1f\_2 ]{} . Near partonic threshold $\hat \sigma$ includes large logarithmic terms that can be resummed to all orders in perturbation theory. If we take moments of the above equation, with $N$ the moment variable, we can write the partonic cross section as \_[f\_1f\_2]{}(N) &=& \_[f\_1/f\_1]{}(N) \_[f\_2/f\_2]{}(N) \_[f\_1 f\_2 ]{}(N)\ && =\_[f\_1/f\_1]{}(N) \_[f\_2/f\_2]{}(N) (N) H (N) , \[sigmamomdp\] where in the second line of Eq. (\[sigmamomdp\]) we have introduced a refactorization in terms of new center-of-mass parton distributions $\psi$ and a jet function $J$ that absorb the collinear singularities from the incoming partons and outgoing jet [@GS; @KS; @KOS; @LOS], respectively; a soft gluon function $S$ that describes noncollinear soft gluon emission [@KS; @KOS]; and a short-distance hard scattering function $H$. We may then solve for $\hat{\sigma}_{f_1 f_2\rightarrow \gamma}(N)$ in Eq. (\[sigmamomdp\]). After resumming the $N$-dependence of all the functions in the above equation, we may write the resummed cross section as \_[f\_1 f\_2 ]{}(N) &=& { \_[i=1,2]{} }\ && {E’\_[(f\_J)]{}(N) } H(\_s(\^2)) S(1, \_s(S/N\^2))\ && . \[rescrosect\] The exponent $E^{(f_i)}$ resums the ratio $\psi/\phi$ while $E'_{(f_J)}$ resums the $N$-dependence of the outgoing jet [@KOS; @LOS]. The dependence on the scale is given by $E^{(f_i)}_{\rm scale}$. Finally, ${\rm Re} \Gamma_S$ is the real part of the soft anomalous dimension $\Gamma_S$ which is determined from renormalization group analysis of the soft function $S$ [@KS; @KOS] and has been calculated explicitly at one-loop [@LOS; @NK]. Because of the simpler color structure, $\Gamma_S$ is here a simple function, in contrast to heavy quark and jet production where it is a matrix in color space [@KS; @KOS; @NKJSRV]. Since the direct photon production cross section has been calculated only up to NLO, expansions of the resummed result to higher orders provide new analytical predictions. Here we present the NNLO expansion for the partonic subprocess q(p\_1)+g(p\_2) (p\_)+q(p\_J) . We define the kinematical variables $s=(p_1+p_2)^2$, $t=(p_1-p_{\gamma})^2$, $u=(p_2-p_{\gamma})^2$, and $v \equiv 1+t/s$. The threshold region is given in terms of the variable $w \equiv -u/(s+t)$ by $w=1$. Then at $n$th order in $\alpha_s$ we encounter plus distributions of the form $[\ln^m(1-w)/(1-w)]_+$ with $m \le 2n-1$. The NLO soft gluon corrections in the $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme for this partonic channel are given by [@LOS; @NKJO] vw(1-v)s &=&\^B\_[qgq]{}\ && {(C\_F+2C\_A) \_+ .\ && +\_+\ && . +[O]{}((1-w)) } , with $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$ the factorization and renormalization scales. Here the Born term is [@GV] \^B\_[qgq]{}= \_s(\_R\^2) e\_q\^2 T\_[qg]{} v , where $T_{qg}=1+(1-v)^2$. Agreement is found with the exact NLO cross section in Ref. [@GV]. All $\delta(1-w)$ terms can be obtained by matching to the exact NLO result. [Figure 1. Exact NLO and approximate NNLO results for direct photon production.]{} \[fig1\] The NNLO $\overline {\rm MS}$ soft gluon corrections for $qg \rightarrow q\gamma$ are [@DIS99; @NKJO] vw(1-v)s &=&\^B\_[qgq]{}\ && {(C\_F+2C\_A)\^2 \_[+]{} .\ && +\_[+]{}\ && . +[O]{}(\_+)} , with $\beta_0=(11C_A-2n_f)/3$. We have also derived all NNLL terms in the NNLO expansion by matching with the exact NLO cross section [@NKJO]. Analogous results have been obtained for the partonic channel $q {\bar q} \rightarrow g \gamma$ [@NK; @NKJO]. In Fig. 1 we show some numerical results [@NKJO] for the direct photon production cross section as a function of the photon $p_T$ and compare with the experimental results from the E706 Collaboration at Fermilab [@E706]. We see that the sum of the exact NLO cross section and NNLO approximate corrections shows a much reduced dependence on the factorization scale relative to the exact NLO cross section alone. However, the NNLO cross section is still below the E706 data. $W$ + jet production ==================== In this section, we discuss resummation for $W$ + jet production [@NK; @NKVD] in hadronic processes h\_1+h\_2 W +X . The construction of the resummed cross section is completely analogous to what we presented in the previous section for direct photon production, Eq. (\[rescrosect\]). The soft anomalous dimensions are the same as for direct photon production. In this section we expand the NLL resummed cross section for $W$ + jet production up to NNLO and perform a comparison with the NLO fixed-order results of Refs. [@AR; @gpw]. We give explicit results for the partonic subprocess q(p\_1)+ [|q]{}(p\_2) W(Q) + g(p\_J) . The threshold region is given in terms of the variable $s_2=s+t+u-Q^2$ by $s_2=0$, and we find plus distributions of the form $[\ln^m(s_2/Q^2)/s_2]_+$ at every order in perturbative QCD. The NLO $\overline {\rm MS}$ soft gluon corrections for this partonic process at NLL accuracy are [@NK; @NKVD] E\_Q &=& \^B\_[q[|q]{} gW]{} [\_s(\_R\^2)]{}\ && {(4C\_F-C\_A) \_+ .\ && + \_+\ && . + [O]{}((s\_2) } . Here the Born term is \^B\_[q[|q]{} gW]{}&=& (|L\_[f\_2f\_1]{}|\^2+|R\_[f\_2f\_1]{}|\^2)\ && (++) , with $L$ and $R$ the left- and right-handed couplings of the $W$ boson to the quark line of flavor $f$ [@gpw]. The NLO expansion is in agreement with the exact one-loop results in Ref. [@gpw]. All $\delta(s_2)$ terms can be obtained by matching to the exact NLO result. The NNLO $\overline {\rm MS}$ soft gluon corrections for the partonic process $q{\bar q} \longrightarrow gW$ are [@NKVD] E\_Q &=& \^B\_[q[|q]{} gW]{} ([\_s(\_R\^2)]{})\^2\ && { (4C\_F-C\_A)\^2 \_+ .\ && +\_+\ && . +[O]{}(\_+)} . We can also derive all NNLL terms in the NNLO expansion by matching with the exact NLO cross section [@NKVD]. Analogous results have been obtained for the partonic channel $qg \rightarrow qW$ [@NK; @NKVD]. In future work we plan to study the numerical significance of resummation for $W$+ jet production. This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy. [99]{} N. Kidonakis, invited review for [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} A, hep-ph/9902484. N. Kidonakis, in [*JHEP Proceedings, Corfu Summer Institute on Elementary Paricle Physics, 1998*]{}, hep-ph/9904507. N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda, and G. Sterman, in proceedings of the [*EPIC’99 Workshop*]{}, 1999, hep-ph/9906338. E. Laenen, G. Oderda, and G. Sterman, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**438**]{} (1998) 173. S. Catani, M.L. Mangano and P. Nason, [*JHEP*]{} [**9807**]{} (1998) 024. S. Catani, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and W. Vogelsang, [*JHEP*]{} [**9903**]{} (1999) 025. N. Kidonakis, in proceedings of the [*DIS99 Workshop*]{}, Zeuthen, April 19-23, 1999, hep-ph/9905480. N. Kidonakis and J. Owens, in preparation. G. Sterman, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B281**]{} (1987) 310. N. Kidonakis and G. Sterman, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**387**]{} (1996) 867; [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B505**]{} (1997) 321; N. Kidonakis, Ph.D. Thesis, hep-ph/9606474. N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda, and G. Sterman, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B525**]{} (1998) 299; [**B531**]{} (1998) 365. N. Kidonakis, J. Smith, and R. Vogt, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**56**]{} (1997) 1553; N. Kidonakis, in [*QCD 97*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B**]{} [*(Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**64**]{} (1998) 402; N. Kidonakis and R. Vogt, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**59**]{} (1999) 074014. L.E. Gordon and W. Vogelsang, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**48**]{} (1993) 3136. E706 Collaboration, L. Apanasevich [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{} (1998) 2642. N. Kidonakis and V. Del Duca, in preparation. P.B. Arnold and M.H. Reno, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B319**]{} (1989) 37; (E) [**B330**]{} (1990) 284; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**40**]{} (1989) 912. R.J. Gonsalves, J. Pawlowski and C.-F. Wai, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**40**]{} (1989) 2245.

--- abstract: 'ORAC-DR is a general purpose data reduction pipeline system designed to be instrument and observatory agnostic. The pipeline works with instruments as varied as infrared integral field units, imaging arrays and spectrographs, and sub-millimeter heterodyne arrays & continuum cameras. This paper describes the architecture of the pipeline system and the implementation of the core infrastructure. We finish by discussing the lessons learned since the initial deployment of the pipeline system in the late 1990s.' address: 'Joint Astronomy Centre, 660 N. A‘ohōkū Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA' author: - Tim Jenness - Frossie Economou title: 'ORAC-DR: A generic data reduction pipeline infrastructure' --- data reduction pipelines ,techniques: miscellaneous ,methods: data analysis Introduction ============ In the early 1990s each instrument delivered to the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) and the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) came with its own distinct data reduction system that reused very little code from previous instruments. In part this was due to the rapid change in hardware and software technologies during the period, but it was also driven by the instrument projects being delivered by independent project teams with no standardisation requirements being imposed by the observatory. The observatories were required to support the delivered code and as operations budgets shrank the need to use a single infrastructure became more apparent. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cgs</span>[4]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dr</span>]{}[@1992ASPC...25..479S; @1996ASPC...87..223D [[ascl:1406.013](http://www.ascl.net/1406.013)]{}] was the archetypal instrument-specific on-line data reduction system at UKIRT. The move from VMS to UNIX in the acquisition environment coupled with plans for rapid instrument development of UFTI [@2003SPIE.4841..901R], MICHELLE [@1993ASPC...41..401G] and UIST [@2004SPIE.5492.1160R], led to a decision to revamp the pipeline infrastructure at UKIRT [@1998ASPC..145..196E]. In the same time period the SCUBA instrument [@1999MNRAS.303..659H] was being delivered to the JCMT. SCUBA had an on-line data reduction system developed on VMS that was difficult to modify and ultimately was capable solely of simple quick-look functionality. There was no explicit data reduction pipeline and this provided the opportunity to develop a truly instrument agnostic pipeline capable of supporting different imaging modes and wavelength regimes. The Observatory Reduction and Acquisition Control Data Reduction pipeline [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{}; @1999ASPC..172...11E; @2008AN....329..295C [[ascl:1310.001](http://www.ascl.net/1310.001)]{}] was the resulting system. In the sections that follow we present an overview of the architectural design and then describe the pipeline implementation. We finish by detailing lessons learned during the lifetime of the project. Architecture ============ The general architecture of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} system has been described elsewhere [@1999ASPC..172...11E; @2008AN....329..295C]. To summarize, the system is split into discrete units with well-defined interfaces. The recipes define the processing steps that are required using abstract language and no obvious software code. These recipes are expanded into executable code by a parser and this code is executed with the current state of the input data file objects and calibration system. The recipes call out to external packages[^1] using a standardized calling interface and it is these applications that contain the detailed knowledge of how to process pixel data. In all the currently supported instruments the external algorithm code is from the Starlink software collection [@2014ASPC..485..391C [[ascl:1110.012](http://www.ascl.net/1110.012)]{}] and uses the ADAM messaging system [@1992ASPC...25..126A], but this is not required by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} design. There was a deliberate decision to separate the core pipeline functionality from the high-performance data processing applications so that one single application infrastructure was not locked in. A key part of the architecture is that the pipeline can function entirely in a data-driven manner. All information required to reduce the data correctly must be available in the metadata of the input data files. This requires a systems engineering approach to observatory operations where the metadata are treated as equals to the science pixel data [see e.g., @2011tfa..confE..42J for an overview of the JCMT and UKIRT approach] and all observing modes are designed with observation preparation and data reduction in mind. An overview of the pipeline process is show in Fig. \[fig:flow\]. {width="\textwidth"} Implementation ============== In this section we discuss the core components of the pipeline infrastructure. The algorithms themselves are pluggable parts of the architecture and are not considered further. The only requirement being that the algorithm code must be callable either directly from Perl or over a messaging interface supported by Perl. Data Detection -------------- The first step in reducing data is determining which data should be processed. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} separates data detection from pipeline processing, allowing for a number of different schemes for locating files. In on-line mode the pipeline is set up to assume an incremental delivery of data throughout the period the pipeline is running. Here we describe the most commonly-used options. ### Flag files The initial default scheme was to check whether a new file with the expected naming convention had appeared on disk. Whilst this can work if the appearance of the data file is instantaneous (for example, it is written to a temporary location and then renamed), it is all too easy to attempt to read a file that is being written to. Modifying legacy acquisition systems to do atomic file renames proved to be difficult and instead a “flag” file system was used. A flag file was historically a zero-length file created as soon as the observation was completed and the raw data file was closed. The pipeline would look for the appearance of the flag file (it would be able to use a heuristic to know the name of the file in advance and also look a few ahead in case the acquisition system had crashed) and use that to trigger processing of the primary data file. As more complex instruments arrived capable of writing multiple files for a single observation (either in parallel [SCUBA-2; @2013MNRAS.430.2513H] or sequentially [ACSIS; @2009MNRAS.399.1026B]) the flag system was modified to allow the pipeline to monitor a single flag file but storing the names of the relevant data files inside the file (one file per line). For the instruments writing files sequentially the pipeline is able to determine the new files that have been added to the file since the previous check. Historically synchronization delays over NFS mounts caused difficulties when the flag file would appear but the actual data file had not yet appeared to the NFS client computer, but on modern systems this behavior no longer occurs. Modern file event notification schemes (such as `inotify` on Linux) do not generally help with the data detection problem since, in the current setup, the data reduction pipelines always mount the data disks from the acquisition computer over NFS. A more robust solution is to implement a publish/subscribe system whereby the pipeline monitors the acquisition computers for new data. Such a scheme is discussed in the next section. ### Parameter monitoring The SCUBA-2 quick look pipeline [@2005ASPC..347..585G] had a requirement to be able to detect files taken at a rate of approximately 1Hz for stare observations. This was impractical using a single-threaded data detection system embedded in the pipeline process and using the file system. Therefore, for SCUBA-2 quick-look processing the pipeline uses a separate process that continually monitors the four data acquisition computers using the DRAMA messaging system [@1995SPIE.2479...62B]. When all four sub-arrays indicate that a matched data set is available the monitored data are written to disk and a flag file created. Since these data are ephemeral there is a slight change to flag file behavior in that the pipeline will take ownership of data it finds by renaming the flag file. If that happens the pipeline will be responsible for cleaning up; whereas if the pipeline does not handle the data before the next quick look image arrives the gathering process will remove the flag file and delete the data before making the new data available. File format conversion ---------------------- Once files have been found they are first sent to the format conversion library. The instrument infrastructure defines what the external format of each file is expected to be and also the internal format expected by the reduction system. The format conversion system knows how to convert the files to the necessary form. This does not always involve a change in low level format (such as FITS to NDF) but can handle changes to instrument acquisition systems such as converting HDS files spread across header and exposure files into a single HDS container matching the modern UKIRT layout. Recipe Parser ------------- A [*Recipe*]{} is the top-level view of the data processing steps required to reduce some data. The requirements were that the recipe should be easily editable by an instrument scientist without having to understand the code, the [*Recipe*]{} should be easily understandable by using plain language, and it should be possible to reorganize steps easily. Furthermore, there was a need to allow [*Recipes*]{} to be edited “on the fly” without having to restart the pipeline. The next data file to be picked up would be processed using the modified version of the [*Recipe*]{} and this is very important during instrument commissioning. An example, simplified, imaging [*Recipe*]{} is shown in Fig.\[fig:recipe\]. Each of these steps can be given parameters to modify their behavior. The expectation was that these [*Recipes*]{} would be loadable into a Recipe Editor GUI tool, although such a tool was never implemented. _SUBTRACT_DARK_ _DIVIDE_BY_FLAT_ _BIAS_CORRECT_GROUP_ _APPLY_DISTORTION_TRANSFORMATION_ _GENERATE_OFFSETS_JITTER_ _MAKE_MOSAIC_ FILLBAD=1 RESAMPLE=1 Each of the steps in a [*Recipe*]{} is known as a [*Primitive*]{}. The [*Primitives*]{} contain the Perl source code and can themselves call other [*Primitives*]{} if required. The parser’s core job is to read the [*Recipe*]{}, replace the mentions of [*Primitives*]{}with subroutine calls to the source code for that primitive. For each [*Primitive*]{} the parser keeps a cache containing the compiled form of the [*Primitive*]{} as a code reference, the modification time associated with the [*Primitive*]{} source file when it was last read, and the full text of the [*Primitive*]{} for debugging purposes. Whenever a [*Primitive*]{}code reference is about to be executed the modification time is checked to decide whether the [*Primitive*]{} needs to be re-read. The parser is also responsible for adding additional code at the start of the [*Primitive*]{} to allow it to integrate into the general pipeline infrastructure. This code includes: - Handling of state objects that are passed through the subroutine argument stack and parsing of parameters passed to the [*Primitive*]{} by the caller. These arguments are designed not be language-specific and use a simple `KEYWORD=VALUE` syntax and can not be handled directly by the Perl interpreter. - Trapping for [*Primitive*]{} call recursion. - Debugging information such as timers to allow profile information be collected, and entry and exit log messages to indicate exactly when a routine is in use. - Callbacks to GUI code to indicate which [*Primitive*]{} is currently active. - Configuring the logging system so that all messages appearing will be associated with the correct primitive when they are written to the history blocks (see [Sect. \[sec:prov\]]{} for details). The design is such that adding new code to the entry and exit of each [*Primitive*]{} can be done in a few lines with little overhead. In particular, use is made of the `#line` directive in Perl that allows for the line number to be manipulated such that error messages reflect the line number in the original [*Primitive*]{} and not the line number in the expanded [*Primitive*]{}. Calling external packages is a very common occurrence and is also where most of the time is spent during [*Recipe*]{} execution. In order to minimize repetitive coding for error conditions and to allow for profiling, calls to external packages are surrounded by code to automatically handle these conditions. This allows the programmer to focus on the [*Recipe*]{} logic and not have to understand all the failure modes for a particular package.[^2] The parser is designed such that if a particular error code is important (for example there might be an error code indicating that a failure was due to there being too few stars in the image) then the automated error handling is changed if the [*Primitive*]{} writer is explicitly asking to check the return value from the external application. Recipe Parameters ----------------- The general behavior of a recipe can be controlled by editing it and adjusting the parameters passed to the [*Primitives*]{}. A much more flexible scheme is available which allows the person running the pipeline to specify a [*Recipe*]{} configuration file that can be used to control the behavior of [*Recipe*]{} selection and how a [*Recipe*]{} behaves. The configuration file is a text file written in the INI format. Although it is possible for the [*Recipe*]{} to be specified on the command-line that [*Recipe*]{} would be used for all the files being reduced in the same batch and this is not an efficient way to permanently change the [*Recipe*]{} name. Changing the file header is not always possible so the configuration file can be written to allow per-object selection of [*Recipes*]{}. For example, > [RECIPES_SCIENCE] > OBJECT1=REDUCE_SCIENCE > OBJECT2=REDUCE_FAINT_SOURCE > A.*=BRIGHT_COMPACT would select `REDUCE_SCIENCE` whenever a *science* observation of OBJECT1 is encountered but choose `REDUCE_FAINT_SOURCE` whenever OBJECT2 is found. The third line is an example of a regular expression that can be used to select recipes based on a more general pattern match of the object name. This relies on header translation functioning to find the observation type and object name correctly. This sort of configuration is quite common when the Observing Tool has not been set up to switch recipes. Once a [*Recipe*]{} has been selected it can be configured as simple key-value pairs: > [REDUCE_SCIENCE] > PARAM1 = value1 > PARAM2 = value2 > > [REDUCE_SCIENCE:A.*] > PARAM1 = value3 and here, again, the parameters selected can be controlled by a regular expression on the object name. The final set of parameters are made available to the primitives in a key-value lookup table. Recipe Execution {#sec:exec} ---------------- Once a set of files have been found the header is read to determine how the data should be reduced. Files from the same observation are read into what is known as a [*Frame*]{} object. This object contains all the metadata and pipeline context and, given that the currently used applications require files to be written, the name of the currently active intermediate file (or files for observations that either consist of multiple files or which generate multiple intermediate files). In some cases, such as for ACSIS, a single observation can generate multiple files that are independent and in these cases multiple [*Frame*]{} objects are created and they are processed independently. There is also a [*Group*]{} object which contains the collection of [*Frame*]{} objects that the pipeline should combine. The pipeline will have been initialized to expect a particular instrument and the resulting [*Frame*]{} and [*Group*]{} objects will be instrument-specific subclasses. The [*Frame*]{} object contains sufficient information to allow the pipeline to work out which [*Recipe*]{} should be used to reduce the data. The [*Recipe*]{} itself is located by looking through a search path and modifiers can be specified to select recipe variants. For example, if the recipe would normally be `REDUCE_SCIENCE` the pipeline can be configured to prefer a recipe suffix of `_QL` to enable a quick-look version of a recipe to be selected at the summit whilst selecting the full recipe when running off-line. The top-level [*Recipe*]{} is parsed and is then evaluated in the parent pipeline context using the Perl `eval` function. The [*Recipe*]{} is called with the relevant [*Frame*]{}, and [*Group*]{} objects along with other context. The reason we use `eval` rather than running the recipe in a distinct process is to allow the recipe to update the state. As discussed in [Sect. \[sec:onvoff\]]{}, the pipeline is designed to function in an incremental mode where data are reduced as they arrive, with group co-adding either happening incrementally or waiting for a set cadence to complete. This requires that the group processing stage knows the current state of the [*Group*]{} object and of the contributing [*Frame*]{} objects. Launching an external process to execute the recipe each time new data arrived would significantly complicate the architecture. As noted in the previous section, the [*Recipe*]{} is parsed incrementally and the decision on whether to re-read a [*Primitive*]{} is deferred until that [*Primitive*]{} is required. This is important for instruments such as MICHELLE and UIST which can observe in multiple modes (spectroscopy, imaging, IFU), sometimes requiring a single recipe invocation to call [*Primitives*]{} optimized for the different modes. The execution environment handles this by allowing a caller to set the instrument mode and this dynamically adjusts the [*Primitive*]{} selection code. Header Translation ------------------ As more instruments were added to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} it quickly became apparent that many of the [*Primitives*]{} were being adjusted to support different variants of FITS headers through the use of repetitive if/then/else constructs. This was making it harder to support the code and it was decided to modify the [*Primitives*]{} to use standardized headers. When a new [*Frame*]{} object is created the headers are immediately translated to standard form and both the original and translated headers are available to [*Primitive*]{} authors. The code to do the translation was felt to be fairly generic and was written to be a standalone module[^3]. Each instrument header maps to a single translation class with a class hierarchy that allows, for example, JCMT instruments to inherit knowledge of shared JCMT headers without requiring that the translations be duplicated. Each class is passed the input header and reports whether the class can process it, and it is an error for multiple classes to be able to process a single header. A method exists for each target generic header where, for example, the method to calculate the start airmass would be `_to_AIRMASS_START`. The simple unit mappings (where there is a one-to-one mapping of an instrument header to a generic header without requiring changes to units) are defined as simple Perl lookup tables but at compile-time the corresponding methods are generated so that there is no difference in interface for these cases. Complex mappings that may involve multiple input FITS headers, are written as explicit conversion methods. The header translation system can also reverse the mapping such that a set of generic headers can be converted back into instrument-specific form. This can be particularly useful when required to update a header during processing. Calibration System ------------------ During [*Frame*]{} processing it is necessary to make use of calibration frames or parameters derived from calibration observations. The early design focused entirely on how to solve the problem of selecting the most suitable calibration frame for a particular science observation without requiring the instrument scientist to write code or understand the internals of the pipeline. The solution that was adopted involves two distinct operations: filing calibration results and querying those results. When a calibration image is reduced (using the same pipeline environment as science frames) the results of the processing are registered with the calibration system. Information such as the name of the file, the wavelength, and the observing mode are all stored in the [*index*]{}. In the current system the [*index*]{} is a text file on disk that is cached by the pipeline but the design would be no different if an SQL database was used instead; no [*Primitives*]{} would need to be modified to switch to an SQL backend. The only requirement is that the [*index*]{} is persistent over pipeline restarts (which may happen a lot during instrument commissioning). The second half of the problem was to provide a rules-based system. A calibration rule simply indicates how a header in the science data must relate to a header in the calibration database in order for the calibration to be flagged as suitable. The following is an excerpt from a rules file for an imaging instrument dark calibration: > OBSTYPE eq 'DARK' > MODE eq $Hdr{MODE} > EXP_TIME == $Hdr{EXP_TIME} > MEANCOUNT Each row in the rules file is evaluated in turn by replacing the unadorned keyword with the corresponding calibration value read from the [*index*]{} and the `$Hdr` corresponding to the science header. In the above example the calibration would match if the exposure times and observing readout mode match and the calibration itself is a dark. These rules are evaluated using the Perl `eval` command so the full Perl interpreter is available. This allows for complex rules to be generated such as a rule that allows a calibration to expire if it is too old. The rules file itself represents the schema of the database in that for every line in the rules file, information from that calibration is stored in the [*index*]{}. In the example above, `MEANCOUNT` is not used in the rules processing but the presence of this item means that the corresponding value will be extracted from the header of the calibration image and registered in the calibration database. Once an item is stored in the calibration database a calibration query will make that value available in addition to the name of the matching calibration file. It is therefore simple for the instrument scientist to add a new header for tracking, although this does require that the old [*index*]{} is removed and the data reprocessed to regenerate a new [*index*]{} in the correct form. The calibration selection system can behave differently in off-line mode as the full set of calibrations can be made available and calibrations taken after the current observation may be relevant. Each instrument’s calibration class can decide whether this is an appropriate behavior. The calibration system can also be modified by a command-line argument at run time to allow the user to decide which behavior to use. For example, with the SCUBA pipeline [@1999ASPC..172..171J] the user can decide which opacity calibration scheme they require from a number of options. One of the more controversial aspects of the calibration system was that the UKIRT pipelines would stop and refuse to reduce data if no suitable calibration frame had been taken previously (such as a dark taken in the wrong mode or with the wrong exposure). This sometimes led to people reporting that the pipeline had crashed (and so was unstable) but the purpose was to force the observer to stop and think about their observing run and ensure that they did not take many hours of data with their calibration observations being taken in a manner incompatible with the science data. A pro-active pipeline helped to prevent this and also made it easier to support flexible scheduling [@2002ASPC..281..488E; @2004SPIE.5493...24A] without fearing that the data were unreducible. This hard-line approach to requiring fully calibrated observations, even if the PI’s specific science goals did not require it, was adopted in anticipation of the emergence of science data archives as an important source of data for scientific papers. Casting the PI not as the data owner, but rather as somebody who is being leased observatory data from the public domain for the length of their proprietary period, requires an observation as only being complete if fully calibratable. In that way, the telescope time’s value is maximised by making the dataset useful to the widest range of its potential uses. To this end, the authors favor a model where for flexibly-scheduled PI-led facilities, calibration time is not deducted from the PI’s allocation. Provenance Tracking {#sec:prov} ------------------- For the outputs from a data reduction pipeline it is important for astronomers to understand what was done to the data and how they can reproduce the processing steps. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} manages this provenance and history tracking in a number of different ways. The pipeline makes available to [*Primitives*]{} the commit ID (SHA1) of the pipeline software and the commit ID of the external application package. It is up to the [*Recipe*]{} to determine whether use should be made of that information. For the [*Recipes*]{} that run at the JCMT Science Archive [@2014Economou] there is code that inserts this information, and the [*Recipe*]{} name, into data headers. Summit processing [*Recipes*]{} do not include this detail as the products are generally thought to be transient in nature as the [*Recipes*]{} are optimized for speed and quality assurance tracking rather than absolute data quality. One caveat in this approach is that an end-user who modifies a [*Recipe*]{} will not see any change as the commit ID will not have changed. This was thought to be of secondary importance compared to the major use case of archive processing but does need consideration before the reproducibility aspects of data reduction can be considered complete. Detailed tracking of the individual steps of the processing are handled differently in that the pipeline is written with the assumption that the external applications will track provenance and history themselves. This is true for the Starlink software where the NDF library, which already supported detailed history tracking, was updated to also support file provenance so that all ancestor files could be tracked [see e.g. @ndfjenness for details on the provenance algorithm]. We took this approach because we felt it was far too complicated to require that the pipeline infrastructure and [*Primitives*]{} track what is being done to the data files. Modifying the file I/O library meant that provenance tracking would be available to all users of the external packages (in this case the Starlink software applications) and not just the pipeline users. The history information automatically logged by the external applications is augmented by code in the pipeline that logs the primitive name whenever header information is synchronized to a file, and, optionally, all text messages that are output by a [*Primitive*]{} can be stored as history items in the files written by the [*Primitive*]{}. Configurable Display System --------------------------- On-line pipelines are most useful when results are displayed to the observer. One complication with pipeline display is that different observers are interested in different intermediate data products or wish the final data products to be displayed in a particular way. Display logic such as this can not be embedded directly in [*Primitives*]{}; all a [*Primitive*]{} can do is indicate that a particular product *could* be displayed and leave it to a different system to decide *whether* the product should be displayed and how to do so. The display system uses the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} file naming convention to determine relevance. Usually, the text after the last underscore, referred to as the file suffix, is used to indicate the reduction step that generated the file: `mos` for mosaic, `dk` for dark, etc. When a [*Frame*]{} or [*Group*]{} is passed to the display system the file suffix and, optionally a [*Group*]{} versus [*Frame*]{} indicator, are used to form an identifier which is compared with the entries in the display configuration file. For each row containing a matching identifier the files will be passed to the specific display tool. Different plot types are available such as image, spectrum, histogram, and vector plot and also a specific mode for plotting a 1-dimensional dataset over a corresponding model. Additional parameters can be used to control placement within a viewport and how auto-scaling is handled. The display system currently supports <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gaia</span> [@2009ASPC..411..575D [[ascl:1403.024](http://www.ascl.net/1403.024)]{}] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kappa</span> [@SUN95 [[ascl:1403.022](http://www.ascl.net/1403.022)]{}] as well as the historical P4 tool (part of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cgs</span>[4]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dr</span>]{} [@SUN27] and an important influence on the design). Originally the display commands would be handled within the [*Recipe*]{}execution environment and would block the processing until the display was complete. This can take a non-negligible amount of time and for the SCUBA-2 pipeline to meet its performance goals this delay was unacceptable. The architecture was therefore modified to allow the display system running from within the [*Recipe*]{} to register the display request but for a separate process to be monitoring these requests and triggering the display. Support modules --------------- As well as the systems described above there are general support modules that provides standardized interfaces for message output, log files creation and temporary file handling. The message output layer is required to allow messages from the external packages and from the [*Primitives*]{}to be sent to the right location. This might be a GUI, the terminal or a log file (or all at once) and supports different messaging levels to distinguish verbose messages, from normal messages and warnings. Internally this is implemented as a tied object that emulates the file handle API and contains multiple objects to allow messages to be sent to multiple locations. Log files are a standard requirement for storing information of interest to the scientist about the processing such as quality assurance parameters or photometry results. The pipeline controls the opening of these files in a standard way so that the primitive writer simply has to worry about he content. With the current external applications there are many intermediate files and most of them are temporary. The allocation of filenames is handled by the infrastructure and they are cleaned up automatically unless the pipeline is configured in debugging mode to retain them. Supporting New Instruments ========================== An important part of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} philosophy is to make adding new instruments as painless as possible and re-use as much of the existing code as possible. The work required obviously depends on the type of instrument. An infrared array will be straightforward as many of the [*Recipes*]{} will work with only minor adjustments. Adding support for an X-Ray telescope or radio interferometer would require significantly more work on the recipes. To add a new instrument the following items must be considered: - How are new data presented to the pipeline? [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} supports a number of different data detection schemes but can’t cover every option. - What is the file format? All the current [*Recipes*]{} use Starlink applications that require NDF [@ndfjenness] and if FITS files are detected the infrastructure converts them to NDF before handing them to the rest of the system. If the raw data are in HDF5, or use a very complex data model on top of FITS, new code will have to be written to support this. - How to map the metadata to the internal expectations of the pipeline? A new module would be needed for `Astro::FITS::HdrTrans`. - Does it need new [*Recipes*]{}/[*Primitives*]{}? This depends on how close the instrument is to an instrument already supported. The [*Recipe*]{} parser can be configured to search in instrument-specific sub-directories and, for example, the Las Cumbres Observatory imaging recipes use the standard [*Primitives*]{} in many case but also provide bespoke versions that handle the idiosyncrasies of their instrumentation. Once this has been decided new subclasses will have to be written to encode specialist behavior for [*Frame*]{} and [*Group*]{} objects and the calibration system, along with the instrument initialization class that declares the supported calibrations and applications. Lessons Learned =============== Language choice can hinder adoption ----------------------------------- In 1998 the best choice of dynamic “scripting” language for an astronomy project was still an open question with the main choices being between Perl and Tcl/Tk with Python being a distant third [@1995ComPh...9...57A; @1999ASPC..172..494J; @1999ASPC..172..483B; @2000ASPC..216...91J]. Tcl/Tk had already been adopted by Starlink [@1995ASPC...77..395T], STScI [@1998SPIE.3349...89D], SDSS [@1996ASPC..101..248S] and ESO [@1996ASPC..101..396H; @1995ASPC...77...58C] and would have been the safest choice, but at the time it was felt that the popularity of Tcl/Tk was peaking. Perl was chosen as it was a language gaining in popularity and the development team were proficient in it in addition to developing the Perl Data Language [PDL; @PDL] promising easy handling of array data; something Tcl/Tk was incapable of handling. Over the next decade and a half, beginning with the advent of `pyraf` [@2000ASPC..216...59G; @2006hstc.conf..437G [[ascl:1207.010](http://www.ascl.net/1207.010)]{}] and culminating in Astropy , Python became the dominant language for astronomy, becoming the *lingua franca* for new students in astronomy and the default scripting interface for new data reductions systems such as those for ALMA [@2007ASPC..376..127M] and LSST [@2010SPIE.7740E..15A]. In this environment, whilst [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} received much interest from other observatories, the use of Perl rather than Python became a deal-breaker given the skill sets of development groups. During this period only two additional observatories adopted the pipeline: the Anglo-Australian Observatory for IRIS2 [@2004SPIE.5492..998T] and Las Cumbres Observatory for their imaging pipeline [@2013PASP..125.1031B]. The core design concepts were not at issue, indeed, Gemini adopted the key features of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} design in their Gemini Recipe System [@2014ASPC..485..359L]. With approximately 100,000 lines of Perl code in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{}[^4] it is impractical to rewrite it all in Python given that the system does work as designed. Of course, a language must be chosen without the benefit of hindsight but it is instructive to see how the best choice for a particular moment can have significant consequences 15 years later. In-memory versus intermediate files ----------------------------------- When [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} was being designed the choice was between IRAF [@2012ASPC..461..595F [[ascl:9911.002](http://www.ascl.net/9911.002)]{}] and Starlink for the external packages. At the time the answer was that Starlink messaging and error reporting were significantly more robust and allowed the [*Primitives*]{} to adjust their processing based on specific error states (such as there being too few stars in the field to solve the mosaicking offsets). Additionally, Starlink supported variance propagation and a structured data format. From a software engineering perspective Starlink was clearly the correct choice but it turned out to be yet another reason why [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} could not be adopted by other telescopes. Both these environments relied on each command reading data from a disk file, processing it in some way and then writing the results out to either the same or a new file. Many of these routines were optimized for environments where the science data was comparable in size to the available RAM and went to great lengths to read the data in chunks to minimize swapping. It was also not feasible to rewrite these algorithms (that had been well-tested) in the Perl Data Language, or even turn the low-level libraries into Perl function calls, and the penalty involved in continually reading and writing to the disk was deemed to be a good trade off. As it turns out, the entire debate of Starlink versus IRAF is somewhat moot in the current funding climate and in an era where many pipeline environments [e.g., @2010SPIE.7740E..15A] are abandoning intermediate files and doing all processing in memory for performance reasons, using, for example, `numpy` arrays or “piddles”[^5]. For instruments where the size of a single observation approaches 1TB [e.g., SWCam at CCAT; @2014SPIE9153-21] this presents a sizable challenge but it seems clear that this is the current trend and a newly written pipeline infrastructure would assume that all algorithm work would be in memory. Recipe configuration is needed ------------------------------ Initially, the intent was for [*Recipes*]{} to be edited to suit different processing needs and for the processing to be entirely driven by the input data. This was driven strongly by the requirement that the pipeline should work at the telescope without requiring intervention from the observer. The initial design was meant to be that the astronomer would select their [*Recipe*]{} when they prepared the observation and that this would be the [*Recipe*]{} automatically picked up by the pipeline when the data were observed. Eventually we realized that anything more than two or three recipes to choose from (for example, is your object broad line or narrow line, or are your objects extremely faint point sources or bright extended structures?) in the Observing Tool became unwieldy and most people weren’t sure how they wanted to optimize their data processing until they saw what the initial processing gave them. After many years of resistance a system was developed in 2009 for passing [*Recipe*]{} parameters from configuration files to the pipeline and this proved to be immensely popular. It is much simpler for people to tweak a small set of documented parameters than it is to edit recipes and it is also much easier to support many project-specific configuration files than it is to keep track of the differences between the equivalent number of bespoke recipes. When a processing job is submitted to the JCMT Science Archive any associated project-specific configuration file is automatically included, and these can be updated at any time based on feedback from the data products. It took far too long to add this functionality and this delay was partly driven by the overt focus on online functionality despite the shift to the pipeline being used predominantly in an offline setting. This is discussed further in the next section. Online design confused offline use {#sec:onvoff} ---------------------------------- [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} was initially designed for on-line summit usage where data appear incrementally and where as much processing should be done on each frame whilst waiting for subsequent frames to arrive. As discussed previously ([Sect. \[sec:exec\]]{}), this led to the execution of the [*Recipe*]{} within the main process so that context could be shared easily. For off-line mode the environment is very different and you would ideally wish to first reduce all the calibration observations, then process all the individual science observations and finally do the group processing to generate mosaics and co-adds. When doing this the only context that would need to be passed between different [*Recipe*]{}executions would be the calibration information that is already persistent. Indeed, the [*Recipes*]{} themselves could be significantly simplified in that single observation [*Recipes*]{} would not include any group processing instructions. This is not strictly possible in all cases. For the ACSIS data reduction [*Recipes*]{} [@JennessACSISDR] the output of the frame processing depends on how well the group co-adding has been done; the more measurements that are included, the better the baseline subtraction. As written, the recipes have to handle both on-line and off-line operation and this is achieved by the group [*Primitives*]{} being configured to be no-ops if they realize that the [*Frame*]{} object that is currently being processed is not the final member of the group. Whilst the off-line restrictions can be annoying to someone reducing a night of data on their home machine, it is possible to deal with the problems by scanning through a set of observations and running the pipeline separately for each one. This is exactly how the the healpix processing for the JCMT Science Archive is implemented [@2014SPIE9152-93]. Parallelization is therefore occurring at a level above the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} pipeline itself. Currently, the UKIRT Science Archive [@2014ASPC..485..143B] reduces data in two passes: first all the calibrations are reduced from a single night and then all the science data are reduced together. This is particularly important for the archival data taken before the ORAC software was released. In 2012 Las Cumbres added the ability to sort the [*Group*]{} objects before starting the processing in off-line mode and this allows them to reduce all the calibration observations before doing the science observations. The PiCARD [@SUN265] frontend to the infrastructure was developed to try to overcome some of the on-line bias in the data handling. The **Pi**peline for **C**ombining and **A**nalyzing **R**educed **D**ata, was introduced in 2007 [@2008ASPC..394..565J] specifically to allow the existing infrastructure to be leveraged in an off-line science archive environment. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} layer was removed and replaced with a simplified application that accepts a list of files, works out what type of instrument they come from, and uses the same parser to read the specified recipe. Dynamic recipe generation works well ------------------------------------ Whilst the initial driver for dynamic recipe generation came directly out of the requirement for a readable [*Recipe*]{}, it would have been simple to write the [*Primitives*]{} as Perl subroutines from the beginning and require the primitive writer to handle the subroutine arguments and return codes. In some sense, this would have been the obvious approach as that is how most people want to write code. It soon became clear that the benefits associated with running a parser over the [*Primitives*]{} were substantial. Not only could we minimize the use of repetitive code but we could dynamically add in profiling code. In fact, this was critical to the ongoing development of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} infrastructure as the current version of the parser is the third complete rewrite and none of the rewrites required any change to [*Primitive*]{} code. The first version of the parser did not use subroutines at all and simply expanded the [*Recipe*]{}into one long string for evaluation. Threading and Distributed Processing ------------------------------------ Perl does not really support multi-threaded operation[^6] and this has led to some problems with components of the system that use blocking I/O such as the display system or the file detection code. Being able to monitor new data arriving whilst creating a thread for the current data to be processed seems attractive but would probably have created more complication than would be acceptable and using separate processes has worked despite it feeling “kludgy”. Similarly, the way the messaging interface was implemented meant that it was not possible to send multiple messages concurrently. The ability to send four files to four separate, but identical, tasks in parallel, and waiting for them all to complete would have led to some efficiency games even if the tasks were all running on the single pipeline computer. We are again struggling with this issue as the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smurf</span> map-maker [@2013MNRAS.430.2545C [[ascl:1310.007](http://www.ascl.net/1310.007)]{}], currently supported by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{}, is being modified to support multi-node operation using MPI [@2014ASPC..485..399M]. It may be that implementing MPI at the task level is much easier than at the messaging level but this remains to be tested. Conclusions =========== [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} has been in use since 1998, running on four telescopes and ten instruments covering the submillimeter to the optical and imaging to IFUs. Prototype pipelines have also been developed for Gemini and ESO instruments to prove the inherent flexibility of the design [@2003ASPC..295..237C; @2004ASPC..314..460C] and the CCAT project are considering adopting it [@2014SPIE9152-109]. In an environment similar to that now promoted by the DevOps movement [see e.g., @2014arXiv1407.6463E], we participated, together with our contributors, in the design, implementation, extension, operation, distribution and night-time telescope support of the pipeline as it was running on every night at UKIRT, JCMT and later the JCMT Science Archive over a period of 16 years. We therefore had the opportunity to evaluate what features contributed to the easy extensibility and low maintenance cost of the codebase over a long period of time in a changing computing environment. We regard the following as key design successes of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{}, and hope to see them repeated in other astronomical data reduction infrastructures: - The clean separation of recipes, primitives, instrument specification, logging, and external applications. The core design is unchanged from the beginning and we frequently reaped the benefits of a design that meant that the science code was well isolated from the infrastructure components that were in turn relatively agnostic about their implementation. Thus we were able to engage in major pieces of refactoring such as rewriting the recipe parser or reorganizing the class hierarchy for [*Frame*]{} and [*Group*]{} classes without affecting the pipeline users. - Reusing primitive code for new instruments was a key requirement and this has worked; especially once header translation was added. For example, Las Cumbres Observatory are adding additional instruments to the pipeline and can reuse the imaging [*Primitives*]{}, only modifying code that defines the differences between instruments. A similar approach has been used by the LSST data management stack to allow it to support different camera geometries [@2010SPIE.7740E..15A]. - Defining the items of interest in the calibration rules file guarantees that all the required information is available to the calibration system whilst also making it trivial to add additional information to the database. Such techniques anticipate the evolving requirements of astronomical observing and build in a flexibility that requires no, or minimal, changes. It also externalizes to instrument scientists important aspects of the pipeline operations in a human readable (and configurable) way. - [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} was used at UKIRT and JCMT as a “quick-look” pipeline during observing (even though the data reduction quality was higher than the term suggests) and so was a vital part to the smooth functioning of the observatory. As is often the case, the pipeline was often the first system to alert the observers that something had gone awry with data taking, and so occasionally triggered night-time support calls reporting that “there was something wrong with the pipeline”, despite the fact that an extensive suite of engineering interfaces were also available to the operators. We conclude from this that despite the understandable tendency to focus on the scientific user of the data, data reduction systems are often the first port of call for investigating technical issues. We frequently utilized the completeness and readability of our file metadata to identify problems for our engineers, and so came to regard the data reduction infrastructure as a core technical element of a modern facility as well as a valuable scientific productivity tool. Ultimately, the design of the pipeline infrastructure succeeded in its goals of minimizing the amount of code needed for each new instrument delivery, re-using a significant amount of code available to the community and in making a system that can be tweaked easily by instrument scientists and interested astronomers. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} was initially developed for UKIRT as part of the ORAC Project [@1998SPIE.3349..184B], and then further developed by the Joint Astronomy Centre to support JCMT and UKIRT instrumentation. We thank all the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">orac-dr</span>]{} recipe developers who have helped make the pipeline successful, and in particular we thank Malcolm Currie, Brad Cavanagh, Andy Gibb, Paul Hirst, Tim Lister, Stuart Ryder and Stephen Todd for their significant contributions. We thank Malcolm Currie and Andy Gibb for comments on the draft manuscript. The source code is available from and distributed under the Gnu General Public Licence. [56]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][`#1`]{} \[2\][\#2]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][[](http://dx.doi.org/#1)]{} \[1\][[](pmid:#1)]{} \[2\][\#2]{} , , , , , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. pp. . . , , , . . , . . , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume  of **. p. . , . . , . , [[arXiv:1307.6212]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6212). , , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . . , , , . , in: (Ed.), , volume of **. pp. . . , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , , a. , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . Bell, G. S. et al., b. , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . . , , , , . , in: (Ed.), , volume of **. pp. . . , T. M. et al., . . , . , [[arXiv:1305.2437]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2437). , J. V. et al., . . , . , [[arXiv:0907.3610]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3610). , , , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , . . , . . , , , , , , , , . . , . , [[arXiv:1301.3652]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3652). , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume  of **. p. . , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , . . . Joint Astronomy Centre / Starlink Project. , , , , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , . . . Joint Astronomy Centre. , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume  of **. p. . , . , in: (Ed.), , volume of **. pp. . . , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , , , , , . . . , , , . . [[arXiv:1407.6463]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6463). , , , , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , . . . Joint Astronomy Centre. , , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , . , in: (Ed.), , volume  of **. p. . , , . . . <http://www.ddj.com/184410442>. , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , p. . , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , W. S. et al., . . , . , [[arXiv:1301.3650]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3650). , W. S. et al., . . , . , [[arXiv:astro-ph/9809122]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9809122). Jenness, T. et al., a. . . <https://github.com/Starlink/aandc-ndf/releases/download/v1.00-submitted/acndf.pdf>. , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , , , b. . . , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , . , in: [Gajadhar]{}, S. et al. (Eds.), , p. . [[arXiv:1111.5855]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5855). , , , , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . Jenness, T. et al., c. , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , [[arXiv:1406.1515]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1515). , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , , , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . [[arXiv:1405.0482]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0482). , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , S. K. et al., . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. pp. . . , P. F. et al., . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. pp. . . , G. et al., . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . , et al., . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. p. . . , , , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume  of **. p. . , . , in: , , (Eds.), , volume  of **. p. . , C. G. et al., . , in: , (Eds.), , volume of **. pp. . . [^1]: These are known as “algorithm engines” in the ORAC-DR documentation. [^2]: The `oracdr_parse_recipe` command can be run to provide a complete translation of a [*Recipe*]{}. [^3]: `Astro::FITS::HdrTrans`, available on CPAN [^4]: For infrastructure and [*Primitives*]{}, but counting code only, with comments adding more than 100,00 lines to that number. Blank line count not included, nor are support modules from CPAN required by the pipeline but distributed separately. [^5]: A “piddle” is the common term for an array object in the Perl Data Language; an instance of a `PDL` object. [^6]: There have been multiple attempts to support native threads in Perl but nothing has appeared that is recommended.

--- abstract: 'We reformulate quantum tunneling in a multi-dimensional system where the tunneling sector is non-linearly coupled to oscillators. The WKB wave function is explicitly constructed under the assumption that the system was in the ground state before tunneling. We find that the quantum state after tunneling can be expressed in the language of the conventional in-in formalism. Some implications of the result to cosmology are discussed.' author: - Kazuyuki Sugimura$^1$ bibliography: - '\$HOME/physics/mybib.bib' title: 'In-in formalism on tunneling background: multi-dimensional quantum mechanics ' --- Introduction ============ Quantum tunneling has been studied for a long time as one of the most exciting topics in various fields of science, from the study of the dynamics of atomic and molecular systems to condensed matter physics and field theory (see [@mohsen:2003; @coleman_aspects], and references therein). Regarding applications to cosmology, there is even a possibility that the universe was born via quantum tunneling[@Vilenkin:1984wp]. Furthermore, the string theory landscape has been proposed as a possible setting of the early universe inflation[@Susskind:2003kw]. In this framework, scalar fields are thought to tunnel among many false vacua (i.e. local minima of the potential) in the vast string theory potential landscape. The formulation of the false vacuum decay (i.e. the quantum tunneling from a false vacuum) in field theory was first considered in flat spacetimes[@Coleman:1977py; @Callan:1977pt], and was extended to include gravity in [@Coleman:1980aw] (see [@Sugimura:2011tk] for the extension to multiple-field cases). Multi-dimensional quantum tunneling has also been well studied[@mohsen:2003], and is formulated by constructing the wave functions for quantum tunneling using the WKB method[@Banks:1973ps; @Banks:1974ij; @Gervais:1977nv; @Yamamoto:1993mp]. Field theoretic extension was developed in [@Tanaka:1993ez], and such formulation has been applied to the quantum fluctuations on a tunneling background. It was further extended to include gravity in [@Tanaka:1994qa]. As a result of these developments, it has been possible to calculate the quantum fluctuations in the universe after false vacuum decay[@Yamamoto:1996qq; @Garriga:1997wz; @Garriga:1998he]. All previous works on quantum tunneling neglect effects of non-linear interactions. In other words, only free quantum field theory on a tunneling background has been considered so far. In light of the recent progress in observational cosmology, however, it is now important to study the observational consequences of non-linear interactions. For example, the non-Gaussianity of the cosmological fluctuations is now a hot topic in cosmology [@Bartolo:2004if; @Komatsu:2009kd; @Chen:2010xka]. It is clearly necessary to reformulate quantum field theory on a tunneling background with non-linear interactions included, in order to calculate the non-Gaussianity in a universe undergoing quantum tunneling, as is motivated by the string landscape. Estimates for the non-Gaussianity in such a scenario have been calculated in the literature[@Sugimura:2012kr; @Park:2011ty], but up to now there is no rigorous proof that the formulation used there is valid. In this paper, we reformulate multi-dimensional quantum tunneling with non-linear interactions, following the formulation by Yamamoto [@Yamamoto:1993mp]. Although the formulation of the multi-dimensional system is interesting in itself, it can also be regarded as a first step towards the formulation of quantum field theory. We expect that extensions from multi-dimensional cases to field theory with gravitation are possible as before [@Yamamoto:1993mp; @Tanaka:1993ez; @Tanaka:1994qa], but leave such issues to future studies. As the simplest extension of the 1-dimensional case, we will study a 2-dimensional system in which the tunneling sector $y$ is non-linearly coupled to the oscillator $\eta$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:potential\]. The restriction to a 2-dimensional system keeps calculations as simple as possible whilst still maintaining the essential features of multi-dimensional effects. The particle, originally positioned in the false vacuum at $(y_F,0)$, moves to the nucleation point at $(y_N,0)$ by quantum tunneling, and then rolls down classically, as shown in Fig. \[fig:potential\]. Assuming that the potential is static, the wave function $\Psi(y,\eta)$ for such a particle is a solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation. The boundary conditions for $\Psi(y,\eta)$ corresponding to the scenario outlined above are given as follows: $\Psi(y,\eta)$ should be an out-going wave function outside the barrier, and $\Psi(y,\eta)$ should match the wave function for the quantum state before the quantum tunneling around the false vacuum. Let us put a screen at $y$ outside the barrier, and then prepare the above system many times and let the particles hit the screen. The particles hit the screen with different $\eta$ each time, since $\Psi(y,\eta)$ is extended in the $\eta$ direction. The statistical properties of $\eta$ at $y$ are given by the quantum expectation values with respect to $\Psi(y,\eta)$, defined as $\big<\eta^n\big>_{y}\equiv \int d\eta \eta^n|\Psi(y,\eta)|^2$ where $n=1,\,2,\,3,\,\cdots$. In this paper, we obtain formulae for such quantities by constructing $\Psi(y,\eta)$ explicitly using the WKB method. If we define $t$ as the time the particle takes to reach $y$ from the nucleation point, we can interpret $\Psi(y,\eta)$ as the $t$-dependent wave function with respect to $\eta$. Then, we find that our resulting formulae can be expressed in the language of the conventional in-in formalism[@Weinberg:2005vy; @Maldacena:2002vr]. Note that $\big<\eta^n\big>_y$ at given $y$, or given $t$, can be regarded as the analogue of the $n$-point correlation functions at a given time in field theory, where the time is defined in terms of the value of the tunneling field. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:wkbnext\], we obtain the expression for the quantum expectation value in the Schrödinger picture. In Sec. \[sec:interaction\], we move to the interaction picture, where the quantum expectation value is given in the in-in formalism form. In Sec. \[sec:appl-toy-model\], we apply the formalism obtained in Sec. \[sec:wkbnext\] and in Sec. \[sec:interaction\] to a simple toy model for illustration purposes. Finally, we conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\]. ![The potential for the 2-dimensional system, where the tunneling sector $y$ is non-linearly coupled to the oscillator $\eta$. The particle moves from the false vacuum $(y_F, 0)$ to the nucleation point $(y_N,0)$ by quantum tunneling, and rolls down classically from the nucleation point. []{data-label="fig:potential"}](figure/potential.eps){width="12cm"} Formulation: Schrödinger picture {#sec:wkbnext} ================================ WKB analysis for 2-dimensional system ------------------------------------- As mentioned in the introduction, let us consider a 2-dimensional system. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{H}&=\frac{p_y^2}{2}+\frac{p_\eta^2}{2}+V(y,\eta)\,, \label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$ where $V(y,\eta) $ has a false vacuum and nucleation point at $(y,\eta)=(y_F,0)$ and $(y_N,0)$, respectively, as shown in Fig. \[fig:potential\]. The nucleation point is defined as the opposite end to the false vacuum on the tunneling path, which is the classical trajectory connecting the false vacuum and the region outside the potential barrier with minimum action. Separating $V(y,\eta)$ into the $y$-part $V_{tun}(y)$ and the $\eta$-part $V_\eta(y,\eta)$ as $V(y,\eta)=V_{tun}(y)+V_\eta(y,\eta)$, we assume for simplicity that $V_\eta(y,\eta)$ can be written as $V_\eta(y,\eta)=(\omega^2(y)/2)\eta^2+V_{int}(y,\eta)$, where the nonlinear interaction term $V_{int}(y,\eta)$ consists of the cubic and higher order terms with respect to $\eta$. The vanishing of the linear term with respect to $\eta$ in the potential guarantees that the tunneling path lies on the $y$-axis. The inclusion of the nonlinear interaction term $V_{int}(y,\eta)$ is the essential new point in this paper, compared to the literature[@Yamamoto:1996qq; @Garriga:1997wz; @Garriga:1998he]. For later convenience, here we denote the $y$- and $\eta$-parts of the Hamiltonian as $\mathcal{H}_y=p_y^2/2+V_{tun}(y)$ and $\mathcal{H}_\eta = p_\eta^2/2+V_\eta(y,\eta)$, respectively. In the system defined by eq. , we consider the tunneling wave function $\Psi(y,\eta)$, which is a solution of the time independent Schrödinger equation with eigenenergy $E$ $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathcal{H}}\Psi(y,\eta)&= E\Psi(y,\eta)\,. \label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$ Here, quantities with hat($\hat{\ }$) are operators, and $\hat{p}_y$ and $\hat{p}_\eta$ in $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ are given by $(\hbar/i)(\partial/\partial y)$ and $(\hbar/i)(\partial/\partial \eta)$, respectively. In this paper, we concentrate on quantum tunneling from the quasi-ground-state, which is defined as the ground state for the potential expanded around the false vacuum. We can consider quantum tunneling from excited states, as in [@Yamamoto:1993mp], but we leave such issues to future studies. As mentioned in the introduction, $\Psi(y,\eta)$ should be an out-going wave function outside the barrier. We construct the tunneling wave function under the following assumptions: 1. the WKB approximation is valid well inside and well outside the barrier, 2. the coupling between the $y$ and $\eta$ directions is small, 3. the region around the nucleation point where the WKB approximation breaks is narrow, 4. the coupling between the $y$ and $\eta$ directions vanishes around the false vacuum. We hope to return to more general cases, say, cases where assumptions 3) and/or 4) are relaxed, in future. If there was no coupling between the two directions (i.e. if $V_\eta(y,\eta)$ could be denoted as $V_\eta(\eta)$), the tunneling wave function $\Psi(y,\eta)$ would be given by the product of $\Psi_y(y)$ and $\Phi(\eta)$, where $\Psi_y(y)$ is the 1-dimensional tunneling wave function for $V_{tun}(y)$ and $\Phi(\eta)$ is the ground state for $V_\eta(\eta)$. In our case, however, we consider small but non-vanishing coupling, and thus we expand $\Psi(y,\eta)$ and $E$ in eq.  as $$\begin{aligned} \Psi(y,\eta)=\Psi_y(y)\Phi(y,\eta)\,,\qquad E=E_y+E_\eta\,. \label{eq:11}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Psi_y(y)$ and $E_y$ are, respectively, the wave function and energy of the 1-dimensional Schrödinger equation $\mathcal{H}_y\Psi_y(y)=E_y\Psi_y(y)$, which we will briefly discuss below. As a result of assumption 4), the quasi-ground-state is given by $\Psi_y(y)\Phi_F(\eta)$, where $\Phi_F(\eta)$ is the ground state for the $\eta$-part of the potential around the false vacuum $V_F(\eta)(\equiv V_\eta(y_F,\eta))$. Here, by focusing on eq.  around the false vacuum and denoting the ground state energy with respect to $V_F(\eta)$ as $E_F$, it can be seen that $E_\eta$ is given by $E_F$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:inst\], the tunneling path $y(\tau)$, or instanton, is a solution of the Euclidean equation of motion (EOM) $y''(\tau)-dV_{tun}/dy=0$, where $'$ denotes the derivative with respect to the imaginary, or Euclidean, time $\tau$. The boundary conditions for $y(\tau)$ are given by $y(\pm \infty)= y_F$ and $y(0)=y_N$, where the freedom in choosing the origin of $\tau$ is fixed. Well inside the potential barrier, we rewrite the wave function as $\Psi_y(y)=e^{-S_y(y)/\hbar}$ with the Euclidean action $S_y(\tau)(=S_y(y(\tau)))$, and make the WKB expansion $S_y=S_0+\hbar S_1+ \hbar^2 S_2+\cdots$. Then, by solving the Schrödinger equation order by order and using the instanton $y(\tau)$, we can obtain $dS_0(y)/dy= y'(\tau)$, $S_1(y)=(1/2)\ln (dS_0/dy)$, and so on, where we take $\tau$ to be in the region $\tau\in (-\infty,0)$. It is known that we can move from inside the barrier to outside the barrier by analytical continuation $\tau\to t=-i\tau$, where $t$ is the real, or Lorentzian, time. After the analytical continuation, the instanton gives the classical motion of the particle $y(t)\equiv y(\tau=it)$, which starts rolling down from the nucleation point at $t=0$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:potential\] and Fig. \[fig:inst\]. Furthermore, the analytical continuation of the Euclidean action $S_y(t)\equiv S_y(\tau=it)$ gives the tunneling wave function $\Psi_y(y(t))=e^{-S_y(t)/\hbar}$ well outside the barrier. In the following, we can use $\tau$, $t$ and $y$ interchangeably. ![The schematic picture of instanton $y(\tau)$ with the imaginary time $\tau$ (doted line) and its analytical continuation $y(t)\equiv y(\tau=it)$ with the real time $t$ (solid line).[]{data-label="fig:inst"}](figure/instanton.eps){width="9cm"} Now, we will transform eq.  inside the potential barrier. By substituting eq.  with $E_\eta=E_F$ into eq.  and using the 1-dimensional Schrödinger equation $\mathcal{H}_y\Psi_y(y)=E_y\Psi_y(y)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \hbar\frac{dS_y}{dy}\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\Phi(y,\eta) -\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial y^2}\Phi(y,\eta) +\hat{H}(y)\Phi(y,\eta)=0\,, \label{eq:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}(y)&=\frac{\hat{p}_\eta^2}{2}+V_\eta(y,\eta)-E_F\,. \label{eq:60}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we can neglect the second term in eq. , since the $y$-dependence of $\psi(y,\eta)$ is expected to be small as a result of assumption 2). By neglecting the second term in eq.  and using the leading order relation in the WKB approximation $\hbar(dS_y/dy)(\partial/\partial y)\approx \hbar(\partial/\partial \tau)$, we can transform eq.  into $$\begin{aligned} -\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Phi(\tau,\eta) =\hat{H}(\tau)\Phi(\tau,\eta)\,. \label{eq:29}\end{aligned}$$ This equation is of exactly the same form as the “time-dependent Schrödinger equation” with imaginary time $\tau$, defined for $\tau\in(-\infty,0)$. Let us now check the consistency of the approximation used to derive eq. , by estimating the size of the second term in eq. . To next-to-leading order in the WKB approximation, the coefficient of the second term in eq.  can be approximated as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\hbar^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial y^2}&\approx -\frac{\hbar y''}{{y'}^3}\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau} +\frac{1}{2{y'}^2}(\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau})^2\,. \label{eq:58}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\hbar y''}/{{y'}^3}\approx 2(dS_1(y)/dy)/(dS_0(y)/dy)$ and $(\hbar{\partial }/{\partial \tau})$ can be estimated as $O(\hbar \omega)$ using eq. . Thus, when the first and second operators on the r.h.s. act on $\Phi(\tau,\eta)$, they give terms that are suppressed, under WKB approximation, by factors of $O((dS_1(y)/dy)/(dS_0(y)/dy))$ and $O(\hbar \omega/y'^2)$ relative to other terms in eq. , respectively. It may be useful to make a comment on the WKB expansion used above. Strictly speaking, this expansion is not merely a expansion in $\hbar$ where $\eta$ is considered to be $O(\hbar^{1/2})$, as was done in [@Yamamoto:1993mp]. In such an expansion, the non-linear interaction terms would not appear in eq. , since the non-linear interaction terms would become higher order in $\hbar$ (e.g. $\eta^3$ term would become $O(\hbar^{3/2})$). Rather, here we have expanded equations based on the fact that the classical part of the wave function $S_0(y)$ dominates over quantum effects, which makes it possible to consistently take into account the effect of non-linear interaction terms in eq. . We can also transform eq.  outside the barrier, following similar arguments to those outlined above but with the real time $t$ instead of the imaginary time $\tau$. As a result of the analytical continuation $\tau\to t=-i\tau$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi(t,\eta) =\hat{H}(t)\Phi(t,\eta)\,, \label{eq:3}\end{aligned}$$ which is the “time-dependent Schrödinger equation” with real time $t$, defined for $t\in(0,\infty)$. For later convenience, let us recall that the original 2-dimensional wave function $\Psi(y,\eta)$ is denoted as $$\begin{aligned} \Psi(y,\eta)&=\exp\left[{-{S(t)}/{\hbar}}\right]\Phi(t,\eta)\,, \label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$ where $y(=y(\tau=it))$ is inside and outside the potential barrier for $t\in(+i \infty,0)$ and $t\in(0,\infty)$, respectively. Around the false vacuum or the nucleation point, where the WKB approximation is not valid, we determine $\Phi$ using matching conditions. Thanks to assumptions 3) and 4), the matching conditions are given in a simple way. Firstly, the matching condition at $y=y_N$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\tau\to -0}\Phi(\tau,\eta)=\lim_{t\to +0}\Phi(t,\eta)\,, \label{eq:61}\end{aligned}$$ since $\Psi(y,\eta)=\Psi_y(y)\Phi(y,\eta)$ on both sides of $y_N$ should have the same value at $y_N$. Here, we can use eq.  and eq.  until very close to $y_N$ thanks to assumption 3). Secondly, the matching condition at $y=y_F$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\tau\to-\infty }\Phi(\tau,\eta)= \Phi_F(\eta)\,, \label{eq:62}\end{aligned}$$ since the wave function is assumed to match the quasi-ground-state around the false vacuum, which is given by $\Psi_y(y)\Phi_F(\eta)$ due to assumption 4), as mentioned below eq. . Expectation values of operators ------------------------------- We will obtain the tunneling wave function by solving eq.  and eq.  with the matching condition eq.  and eq. . For notational simplicity, we introduce bra-ket notation, where eq.  is written as $$\begin{aligned} i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}&=\hat{H}(t){\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}\,, \label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} {\left<{\eta}|{\Phi(t)}\right>}&=\Phi(t,\eta)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The formal solution to eq.  is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}= P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_0}^t H(t')dt'\right]\right){\left|{\Phi(t_0)}\right>}\,, \label{eq:6}\end{aligned}$$ where $0<t_0<t$ and the path ordering operator $P$ orders operators according to their order along the integration path. From now on, we omit $\hat{\ }$ over operators for brevity. Similarly, the formal solution to eq.  is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(\tau)}\right>}= P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{1}{\hbar}\int_{-i\tau_0}^{-i\tau} H(\tau')d\tau'\right]\right){\left|{\Phi(\tau_0)}\right>}\,, \label{eq:7}\end{aligned}$$ for $\tau_0<\tau<0$. The expressions in eq.  and eq.  are not valid at the nucleation point, where the WKB approximation breaks down. However, thanks to the matching condition given by eq. , which can be written in bra-ket notation as ${\left|{\Phi(\tau=-0)}\right>}={\left|{\Phi(t=+0)}\right>}$, we can connect the two expressions at the nucleation point as $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>} &=P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{0}^{t} H(t')dt'\right]\right){\left|{\Phi(0)}\right>} {\nonumber\\}&=P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_{-i\tau_0\to0\to t} H(t')dt'\right]\right){\left|{\Phi(-i\tau_0)}\right>}\,, \label{eq:4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\int_{-i\tau_0\to0\to t}dt'=\int_{0}^{t}dt'+\int_{-i\tau_0}^{0}dt'$. The matching around the false vacuum is given as follows. We consider a wave function which matches the quasi-ground-state around the false vacuum. The ket ${\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}$ corresponding to the quasi-ground state $\Phi_F(\eta)$ can be given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}&= \lim_{T\to\infty}e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}H_FT}{\left|{\Phi}\right>}\,, \label{eq:5} \end{aligned}$$ where $H_F\equiv H(+i\infty)$ and ${\left|{\Phi}\right>}$ is arbitrary as long as it is not orthogonal to ${\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}$. We don’t need to care about the overall normalization of ${\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}$, since it will be canceled in the calculations of quantum expectation values, as will be seen below. In deriving eq. , we use the fact that the ground state has $H_F=0$ while excited states have $H_F>0$, which comes from the definition of $H(y)$ in eq. . From assumption 4), there exists a $\tau_0$ such that for $\tau<\tau_0$ we can approximate $H(\tau)$ and ${\left|{\Phi(-i\tau)}\right>}$ as $H_F$ and ${\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}$, respectively. Thus, using eq.  and eq. , the state evolving from ${\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}$ at $t=-i\tau_0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>} &= P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{-i\tau_0 \to 0\to t} H(t')dt'\right]\right) \lim_{T\to\infty}e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}H_FT}{\left|{\Phi}\right>}{\nonumber\\}&=P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{+i\infty\to0\to t} H(t')dt'\right]\right){\left|{\Phi}\right>}\,. \label{eq:15}\end{aligned}$$ Now we are able to evaluate the quantum expectation values. For an operator $\mathcal{O}$ with respect to $\eta$ (i.e. some function of $\eta$ and $p_\eta$), the quantum expectation value at given $y(=y(t))$ outside the barrier is given by $$\begin{aligned} \big<\mathcal{O}\big>_y&= \frac{\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\eta \Psi^*(y,\eta)\mathcal{O}\Psi(y,\eta)} {\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\eta |\Psi(y,\eta)|^2}{\nonumber\\}&= \frac{{\left<{\Phi(t)}\left|{\mathcal{O}}\right|{\Phi(t)}\right>}} {{\left<{\Phi(t)}|{\Phi(t)}\right>}}\,. \label{eq:17}\end{aligned}$$ To derive the second line, we use eq.  and cancel the factors $e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}S(t)}$ appearing both in numerator and denominator. Taking the hermitian conjugate of eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\left<{\Phi(t)}\right|}&=\left({\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}\right)^\dagger{\nonumber\\}&= {\left<{\Phi}\right|}P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_{t\to0\to -i\infty} H(t')dt'\right]\right)\,, \label{eq:19}\end{aligned}$$ where $H(t^*)=H(t)$ since $H(y)$ given in eq.  depends only on $y$ and $y(-\tau)=y(\tau)$ due to the Euclidean time inversion symmetry of the instanton. By substituting eq.  and eq.  into eq. , we obtain the resulting formula for the quantum expectation values in the Schrödinger picture $$\begin{aligned} \big<\mathcal{O}\big>_y&= \frac{{\left<{\Phi}\left|{ P\left(\mathcal{O}\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_C H(t')dt'\right] \right) }\right|{\Phi}\right>}} {{\left<{\Phi}\left|{P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_C H(t')dt'\right]\right)}\right|{\Phi}\right>}}\,, \label{eq:16}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} C:+i\infty\to0\to t\to0\to-i\infty \label{eq:32}\end{aligned}$$ is the time integration path, as shown in Fig. \[fig:inin\], and $\mathcal{O}$ is ordered by $P$ as if it is defined at $t$. In the denominator of eq. , we can deform the integration path from $C$ to $i\infty\to -i\infty$ using $P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{0\to t\to 0} H(t')dt'\right]\right)=1$. If ${\left|{\Phi}\right>}$ was chosen to be orthogonal to ${\left|{\Omega_F}\right>}$, we could obtain the quantum expectation values for quantum tunneling from an excited state, as studied in [@Yamamoto:1993mp]. We leave such issues to future studies. ![The time integration path $C$ given by eq. . The time integration along the imaginary axis (doted line) corresponds to the evolution of the quantum state during tunneling, and along the real axis (solid line) corresponds to the evolution after tunneling. []{data-label="fig:inin"}](figure/inin_path.eps){width="9cm"} Formulation: interaction picture {#sec:interaction} ================================ Relation between interaction and Schrödinger pictures ----------------------------------------------------- Since the expression given in eq.  is difficult to evaluate directly, in this section we will move from the Schrödinger picture formulation to the interaction picture one. This can be accomplished almost in the same way as usual, but taking into account the non-unitarity of the evolution operator for the imaginary part of the integration path. The interaction picture formulation may be helpful when considering the multi-dimensional tunneling system in the context of quantum field theory, where the interaction picture is employed. First of all, we introduce the evolution operator $$\begin{aligned} U(t_2,t_1)&=P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} H(t)dt\right]\right){\nonumber\\}&\equiv 1+(-i)\int_{t_1}^{t_2}H(t')dt' +(-i)^2\int_{t_1}^{t_2}dt'\int_{t_1}^{t'}dt''H(t')H(t'')+\cdots\,, \label{eq:27}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are on the path $C$ given by eq. . The inverse operator for $U(t_2,t_1)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \left(U(t_2,t_1)\right)^{-1}&=U(t_1,t_2)\,, \label{eq:33}\end{aligned}$$ which can be confirmed by explicit calculation of $(U(t_2,t_1)\left(U(t_2,t_1)\right)^{-1}$ using eq. . The combination rule $$\begin{aligned} U(t_3,t_2)U(t_2,t_1)&=U(t_3,t_1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied as usual. It should be noted that $U(t_2,t_1)$ is not generally a unitary operator since the path $C$ include the imaginary part, and that $U(t_2,t_1)$ satisfies the relation $U(t_2,t_1)^{\dagger}=U(t_2^*,t_1^*)^{-1}$. To find interaction picture expression, we expand the full Hamiltonian given in eq.  as $H(t)=H_0(t)+H_{int}(t)$, where the free part $H_0(t)$ and the interaction part $H_{int}(t)$ are given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned} H_{0}(t)=\frac{p_\eta^2}{2}+\frac{\omega^2(t)}{2}\eta^2-E_F\,,\qquad H_{int}(t)=V_{int}(y(t),\eta)\,. \label{eq:47}\end{aligned}$$ Using $H_{0}(t)$, we can define the annihilation and creation operators at each $t$, respectively, as $$\begin{aligned} a_{t}&=\sqrt{\frac{2\omega(t)}{\hbar}}\eta+i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\hbar\omega(t)}}p_\eta\,,\qquad a^\dagger_{t}=\sqrt{\frac{2\omega(t)}{\hbar}}\eta-i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\hbar\omega(t)}}p_\eta\,, \label{eq:59}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{t}$ and $a^\dagger_{t}$ satisfy the usual commutation relation. The eigenstates with respect to $H_0(t)$ can be defined with $a_{t}$ and $a^\dagger_{t}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{n_t}\right>}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}\left(a^\dagger_{t}\right)^n{\left|{0_t}\right>}\,,\qquad a_{t}{\left|{0_t}\right>}=0\,, \label{eq:18}\end{aligned}$$ where they satisfy $$\begin{aligned} H_{0}(t){\left|{n_t}\right>}&=E_{n_t}{\left|{n_t}\right>}\,,\qquad E_{n_t}=\hbar\omega(t)\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)-E_F\,. \label{eq:34}\end{aligned}$$ When $H_0(t)$ explicitly depends on time, $a_t$ and ${\left|{0_t}\right>}$ also become time-dependent. $a_t$ at the times $t=t_1$ and $t=t_2$ are related by a Bogolubov transformation, and ${\left|{0_{t_1}}\right>}$ and ${\left|{0_{t_2}}\right>}$ are annihilated by $a_{t_1}$ and $a_{t_2}$, respectively. The evolution operator for the free Hamiltonian $H_0(t)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} U^{(0)}(t_2,t_1)&= P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} H_0(t)dt\right]\right)\,. \label{eq:45}\end{aligned}$$ Interaction picture operators $\mathcal{O}_I(t)$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{O}_I(t)&\equiv U^{(0)}(0,t) \mathcal{O}\, U^{(0)}(t,0)\,, \label{eq:35}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{O}$ are Schrödinger picture operators. In the interaction picture, states are evolved with the evolution operator for $H_I(t)$, given by $$\begin{aligned} U_I(t_2,t_1)&= P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} H_I(t)dt\right]\right)\,, \label{eq:21}\end{aligned}$$ where the interaction Hamiltonian $H_I(t)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} H_I(t)&\equiv H_{int}(\eta_I(t),t)\,. \label{eq:40}\end{aligned}$$ For any $t_1$ and $t_2$ on $C$ given by eq. , we can rewire $U_I(t_2,t_1)$ in terms of $U(t_2,t_1)$ from eq.  and $U^{(0)}(t_2,t_1)$ from eq.  as $$\begin{aligned} U_I(t_2,t_1)&=U(t_2,t_1) U^{(0)}(t_1,t_2) = U^{(0)}(t_1,t_2)U(t_2,t_1)\,, \label{eq:39}\end{aligned}$$ which can be confirmed by explicit calculation. To describe $\eta_I(t)$ and $p_{\eta I}(t)$ in a simple way, we introduce a positive frequency function $u(t)$ and a negative frequency function $v(t)$. They are defined as solutions to the linearized EOM, $$\begin{aligned} \ddot{u}(t)=-\omega^2(t)u(t)\,,\qquad \ddot{v}(t)=-\omega^2(t)v(t)\,, \label{eq:38}\end{aligned}$$ which are complex conjugate to each other when $t$ is real; $$\begin{aligned} u^*(t)=v(t)\qquad{\rm for\ real\ } t\,,\label{eq:14}\end{aligned}$$ and satisfy Klein-Goldon(KG) normalization, $$\begin{aligned} u(t)\dot{v}(t)-\dot{u}(t)v(t)=i\hbar\,. \label{eq:23}\end{aligned}$$ Here, a dot denotes the derivative with respect to $t$. When $t$ is imaginary, since we define $u(t)$ and $v(t)$ by analytical continuation from real $t$, eqs.  and still hold but eq.  is no longer true. It should be noted that the freedom in choosing $u(t)$ corresponds to the freedom to make an arbitrary Bogolubov transformation. Using $u(t)$ and $v(t)$, we can define the annihilation operator $a$ and the creation operator $a^\dagger$, respectively, as $$\begin{aligned} a=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(\eta_I(t)\dot{v}(t)-p_{\eta I}(t)v(t)\right)\,,\qquad a^\dagger=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(\eta_I(t)\dot{u}(t)-p_{\eta I}(t)u(t)\right)\,. \label{eq:25}\end{aligned}$$ We will see below that the operators defined in eq.  are time-independent and hermitian conjugate to each other. Firstly, it can be explicitly shown that these operators are time-independent by differentiating $a$ and $a^\dagger$ in eq.  with respect to $t$ and using eq.  and the evolution equations for $\eta_I(t)$ and $p_{\eta I}(t)$, $$\begin{aligned} \dot{\eta}_I(t)&=\frac{1}{i\hbar}\left[\eta_I(t),H_0(t)\right] =p_{\eta I}(t)\,,\qquad \dot{p}_{\eta I}(t)=\frac{1}{i\hbar}\left[p_{\eta I}(t),H_0(t)\right] =-\omega^2(t)\eta_ I(t)\,. \label{eq:24}\end{aligned}$$ Since eqs.  and are valid not only for real $t$ but also for imaginary $t$, eq.  can be used even when $t$ is imaginary. Secondly, by considering eq.  when $t$ is real and using eq.  and the hermiticity of $\eta_I(t)$ and $p_{\eta I}(t)$, it is clear that $a$ and $a^\dagger$ defined in eq.  are hermitian conjugate to each other. Using eq.  and eq. , $\eta_I(t)$ and $p_{\eta I}(t)$ can be written, respectively, as $$\begin{aligned} \eta_I(t)=a u(t)+a^{\dagger}v(t)\,,\qquad p_{\eta I}(t)=a \dot{u}(t)+a^{\dagger}\dot{v}(t)\,. \label{eq:9}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that eq.  is valid not only for real $t$ but also for imaginary $t$. In-in formalism along complex path ---------------------------------- For later convenience, we introduce the state ${\left|{\Phi_N}\right>}$, which is the state at the nucleation point when non-linear interactions are switched off. By taking the limit $t\to\pm i\infty$ in eq. , eq. , eq.  and eq. , we define $\omega_F$, $a_F$, ${\left|{n_F}\right>}$, $H_{0_F}$ and $E_{n_F}$. Using those asymptotic quantities, ${\left|{\Phi_N}\right>}$ is obtained as $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi_{N}}\right>}&= \lim_{T\to\infty}e^{E_{0_F}T}U^{(0)}(0,iT){\left|{0_{F}}\right>}\,, \label{eq:20}\end{aligned}$$ where the normalization factor $e^{E_{0_F}T}$ is introduced to make the expression finite and constant in the limit $T\to\infty$. As a result of the explicit $t$-dependence of the free Hamiltonian $H_0(t)$, ${\left|{\Phi_{N}}\right>}$ is not proportional to ${\left|{0_{F}}\right>}$ in general. The difference between ${\left|{\Phi_{N}}\right>}$ and ${\left|{0_{F}}\right>}$ is determined by solving the EOMs for the positive and negative frequency functions given in eq. [^1]. As will be confirmed below, the annihilation operator $a$ that annihilates ${\left|{\Phi_{N}}\right>}$ is associated with $u(t)$ and $v(t)$ defined with the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned} u(t)\stackrel{t\to- i\infty}{\to} e^{-i\omega_{F}t}\,, \qquad v(t)\stackrel{t\to+ i\infty}{\to} e^{i\omega_{F}t}\,, \label{eq:26}\end{aligned}$$ up to constant factors determined by the KG normalization. Note that $u(t)$ and $v(t)$ satisfy the conditions for positive and negative frequency functions given by eq.  and eq. . The corresponding annihilation operator is defined by substituting $v(t)$ given by eq.  into eq. , and can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} a&=-\frac{i}{\hbar} U^{(0)}(0,t) \left(\eta\dot{v}(t)-p_{\eta}v(t)\right)U^{(0)}(t,0){\nonumber\\}&\propto \lim_{T\to \infty}e^{-\omega_F T}U^{(0)}(0,iT)a_F U^{(0)}(iT,0)\,. \label{eq:30}\end{aligned}$$ In deriving the first equality we used eq. , eq.  and the $t$-independence of $a$, and in deriving the second we used eq.  in the limit $t\to i\infty$ along with eq. . Then, using eq.  and eq. , we can explicitly show that $$\begin{aligned} a{\left|{\Phi_N}\right>}&\propto \lim_{T\to \infty}e^{(E_{0_F}-\omega_F) T} U^{(0)}(0,iT)a_F U^{(0)}(iT,0)U^{(0)}(0,iT){\left|{0_{F}}\right>} =0\,, \label{eq:37}\end{aligned}$$ as we stated above. Now we will move from the Schrödinger picture to the interaction picture. By inserting $U^{(0)}(t_1,t_2)U^{(0)}(t_2,t_1)=1$ into eq.  many times, and using eq.  and eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &{\left<{\Phi}\right|} U^{(0)}(-i\infty,0)U^{(0)}(0,-i\infty) U(-i\infty,0)U(0,t)U^{(0)}(t,0)U^{(0)}(0,t){\nonumber\\}[-5pt] \big<\mathcal{O}\big>_y\ =\ &\frac{\quad \qquad\times \mathcal{O}U^{(0)}(t,0) U^{(0)}(0,t) U(t,0)U(0,i\infty) U^{(0)}(i\infty,0)U^{(0)}(0,i\infty){\left|{\Phi}\right>}} {{\left<{\Phi}\left|{ U^{(0)}(-i\infty,0)U^{(0)}(0,-i\infty)U(-i\infty,0) U(0,i\infty)U^{(0)}(i\infty,0)U^{(0)}(0,i\infty)}\right|{\Phi}\right>}}{\nonumber\\}=&\ \frac{{\left<{\Phi_N}\right|}U_I(-i\infty,t)\mathcal{O}_I(t) U_I(t,i\infty){\left|{\Phi_N}\right>}} {{\left<{\Phi_N}\left|{U_I(-i\infty,i\infty)}\right|{\Phi_N}\right>}}\,, \label{eq:22} \end{aligned}$$ where the overall factors appearing in both numerator and denominator cancel each other. To make the correspondence between this result and that of the conventional in-in formalism[@Weinberg:2005vy; @Maldacena:2002vr] clearer, we can rewrite eq.  as $$\begin{aligned} \big<\mathcal{O}(t)\big>& = \frac{\big<P\left(\mathcal{O}_I(t)\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_C H_I(t')dt'\right] \right)\big>^{(N)}} {\big<P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_C H_I(t')dt'\right] \right)\big>^{(N)}}\,, \label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$ where the time integration path $C$ is given by eq. , $\big<\mathcal{O}(t)\big>\equiv\big<\mathcal{O}\big>_y$, and $\big<\ \big>^{(N)}$ is defined as $\big<\mathcal{O} \big>^{(N)}\equiv {\left<{\Phi_N}\left|{\mathcal{O}}\right|{\Phi_N}\right>}/{\left<{\Phi_N}|{\Phi_N}\right>}$. We can deform the integration path in the denominator from $C$ to $i\infty\to -i\infty$ using $P\left(\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{0\to t\to 0} H_I(t')dt'\right]\right)=1$. Since the annihilation operator $a$ annihilates ${\left|{\Phi_N}\right>}$, Wick’s theorem can be used to evaluate eq.  as usual. The $N$-point correlation function $\big<P\big(\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I(t_2)\cdots \eta(t_N)\big)\big>^{(N)}$ vanishes when $N$ is odd, but is given by $$\begin{aligned} \big<P\big(\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I(t_2)\cdots \eta(t_N)\big)\big>^{(N)} &=\sum_{{\rm set\ of\ pairs}}\quad \prod_{{\rm pairs}}\big<P\big(\eta_I(t_i)\eta_I(t_j)\big)\big>^{(N)}\,, \label{eq:42}\end{aligned}$$ when $N$ is even. Here, the 2-point correlation function $\big<P\big(\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I(t_2)\big)\big>^{(N)}$ can be evaluated as $$\begin{aligned} \big<P\big(\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I(t_2)\big)\big>^{(N)}&= \begin{cases} u(t_1)v(t_2)&{\rm when\ }t_1{\rm\ precedes\ } t_2 {\rm\ along\ }C\,,\\ u(t_2)v(t_1)&{\rm when\ }t_2{\rm\ precedes\ } t_1 {\rm\ along\ }C\,, \end{cases} \label{eq:41}\end{aligned}$$ where $u(t)$ and $v(t)$ are given by eq. . Before closing this section, let us summarize what we have found. The expression given in eq.  is in the same form as the conventional in-in formalism, which is often used in quantum field theory calculations involving interactions[@Weinberg:2005vy; @Maldacena:2002vr]. However, the time integration path $C:i\infty\to0\to t\to0\to-i\infty$ is different from the usual case, where the time integration path is $t_0\to t\to t_0$ when the initial state is given at an initial time $t_0$ or $-\infty(1-i\epsilon)\to t\to -\infty(1+i\epsilon)$ when the initial state is given in the past infinity. In our case, the quasi-ground-state is chosen as the initial state of the false vacuum, and the corresponding time is given as $t=\pm i\infty$ using the instanton $y(\tau)$ defined with Euclidean time $\tau=it$. In eq. , the imaginary part of the integration path $C$ corresponds to the evolution inside the barrier, or during tunneling, while the real part corresponds to the evolution outside the barrier, or after tunneling. Application to toy model {#sec:appl-toy-model} ======================== Toy model --------- For illustration purposes, we explicitly apply the formalism obtained above to a simple toy model. We assume that the instanton is given by $$\begin{aligned} y(\tau)\approx \begin{cases} y_F& \left(-\infty<\tau< -\tau_W\right)\,,\quad\left(\tau_W<\tau< \infty\right)\,,\\ y_N& \left(-\tau_W<\tau< +\tau_W\right)\,,\\ >y_N &\left( 0<t(=-i\tau)<\infty\right)\,, \label{eq:36} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_W$ ($0<\tau_W$) is the wall size of the thin-wall instanton, and that the potential $V_\eta(y,\eta)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} V_\eta(y,\eta)=\frac{\omega^2}{2}\eta^2+\tilde{\lambda}(y)\,\eta^3\,, \label{eq:28}\end{aligned}$$ where the $y$-dependent coupling constant $\tilde{\lambda}(y)$ is assumed to be effective only inside the potential barrier (i.e. $y_F<y<y_N$). By substituting eq.  and eq.  into eq. , $H(\tau)=H_0+H_{int}(\tau)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} H_0=\frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{\omega^2}{2}\eta^2-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\,,\qquad H_{int}(\tau) &\approx\lambda \delta\left(\tau- \tau_W\right)\eta^3 +\lambda \delta\left(\tau+ \tau_W\right)\eta^3\,, \label{eq:46} \end{aligned}$$ where $\delta(x)$ is Dirac’s delta function and $\lambda=\int_{-\tau_W-0}^{-\tau_W+0}\tilde{\lambda}(\bar{y}(\tau))d\tau$. Here, the eigenenergy of the quasi-ground-state is given by $E_F=\hbar\omega/2$, since $H_{int}(\tau)$ vanishes around the false vacuum and the quasi-ground-state is the ground state for $H_0$. In the following, we denote the ground state and the annihilation operator associated with $H_0$ as ${\left|{0}\right>}$ and $a$, respectively. We will calculate $\big<\eta\big>_y$, or $\big<\eta(t)\big>$, using both the the Schrödinger and interaction picture expressions, given in eq.  and eq. , respectively. Although $\big<\eta(t)\big>=0$ in the free theory calculation, we obtain $\big<\eta(t)\big>(t)\neq0$ as a result of the effect of non-linear interaction. Calculation in Schrödinger picture ---------------------------------- To evaluate eq. , we obtain ${\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}$ using eq. . The evolution of the ground state ${\left|{0}\right>}$ defined at the false vacuum ($t'=+i\infty$) to behind the wall ($t'=-i(-\tau_W-0)$) is trivial since $H(t')$ is simply given by $H_0$ in this region, and we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(-i(-\tau_W-0))}\right>}&= {\left|{0}\right>}\,. \label{eq:49} \end{aligned}$$ Using eq. , the evolution of the state across the wall (i.e. $t'=-i(-\tau_W-0)\to -i(-\tau_W+0)$) is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(-\tau_W+0)}\right>}&=e^{-\frac{\lambda}{\hbar} \eta^3}{\left|{\Phi(-\tau_W-0)}\right>}\,. \label{eq:48} \end{aligned}$$ Since $H(t')$ is again simply $H_0$ from in front of the wall ($t'=-i(-\tau_W+0)$) to outside the barrier ($t'=t$), the evolution of the state between them is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}&=\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H_0 (t-i\tau_W)\right]{\left|{\Phi(-i(-\tau_W+0))}\right>}\,. \label{eq:50} \end{aligned}$$ By combining eq. , eq.  and eq.  we obtain, to first order in $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} {\left|{\Phi(t)}\right>}&\approx\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H_0 (t-i\tau_W)\right](1-\frac{\lambda}{\hbar}\eta^3){\left|{0}\right>}\,, \label{eq:51}\end{aligned}$$ and its hermitian conjugate is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\left<{\Phi(t)}\right|}&\approx{\left<{0}\right|}(1-\frac{\lambda}{\hbar}\eta^3) \exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}H_0 (t+i\tau_W)\right]\,. \label{eq:52}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting eq.  and eq.  into eq.  we obtain, to leading order in $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} \big<\eta(t)\big>&\approx- \frac{\lambda}{\hbar}{\left<{0}\left|{ \eta \exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}H_0 (t-i\tau_W)\right]\eta^3+ \eta^3 \exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}H_0 (t+i\tau_W)\right]\eta }\right|{0}\right>}{\nonumber\\}&=-\frac{3\hbar\lambda}{2\omega^2}\cos\left(\omega t\right)e^{-\omega\tau_W}\,. \label{eq:43}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the second line, we used $[a,a^\dagger]=1$, $H_0{\left|{0}\right>}=0$, $[H_0,a]=-\hbar \omega$, $[H_0,a^\dagger]=\hbar \omega$ and $\eta=(\hbar/2\omega)^{1/2}\left(a+a^\dagger\right)$. Calculation in interaction picture ---------------------------------- Since $H_0$ is independent of $t$, eq.  can be easily solved. $u(t)$ and $v(t)$ defined with the boundary conditions in eq.  are given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned} u(t)= \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\omega}}e^{-i\omega t}\,, \qquad v(t)= \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\omega}}e^{i\omega t}\,.\end{aligned}$$ By using $H_{int}(\tau)$ given in eq.  along with eq. , we obtain, to first order in $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} \exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_C H_I(t')dt'\right]& \approx 1- \frac{\lambda}{\hbar}\eta_I^3(i\tau_W) - \frac{\lambda}{\hbar}\eta_I^3(-i\tau_W)\,. \label{eq:63}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting eq.  into eq.  we obtain, to leading order in $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} \big<\eta(t)\big> &\approx-\frac{\lambda}{\hbar} \big<\eta_I(t)\eta_I^3(i\tau_W)+\eta_I^3(-i\tau_W)\eta_I(t)\big>^{(N)}{\nonumber\\}&=-\frac{3\hbar\lambda}{2\omega^2}\cos\left(\omega t\right)e^{-\omega\tau_W}\,. \label{eq:44}\end{aligned}$$ which is in agreement with eq. , as it should be. To obtain the second line, we used Wick’s theorem, as in eq. . Here, for example, $\big<\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I^3(t_2)\big>^{(N)}$ can be evaluated as $$\begin{aligned} \big<\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I^3(t_2)\big>^{(N)} &=3\big<\eta_I(t_1)\eta_I(t_2)\big>^{(N)}\big<\eta_I^2(t_2)\big>^{(N)} =3u(t_1)u(t_2)v^2(t_2)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== We have studied a 2-dimensional tunneling system, where the tunneling sector $y$ is non-linearly coupled to an oscillator $\eta$. Assuming the system is initially in a quasi-ground-state at the false vacuum, the 2-dimensional tunneling wave function $\psi(y,\eta)$ has been constructed using the WKB method. We have considered the effect of non-linear interactions, which has not been studied in the context of multi-dimensional tunneling systems before, to our knowledge. We have determined the quantum expectation values with respect to the $\eta$ direction at a given $y$ outside the barrier. We first introduced a Schrödinger picture formulation to obtain eq.  in Sec. \[sec:wkbnext\], and then moved to an interaction picture formulation in Sec. \[sec:interaction\] to obtain eq. . The resulting formula given in eq.  is of the same form as the conventional in-in formalism, which is often used in quantum field theory calculations with interactions[@Weinberg:2005vy; @Maldacena:2002vr]. However, the time integration path is modified to the one consisting of an imaginary part in addition to a real part. The difference in the integration path for the usual case and the quantum tunneling case can be understood as follows. In the usual case, an initial state is given at some finite past $t=t_0$ or the infinite past $t=-\infty$, both of which are defined on the real axis. However, in the case of quantum tunneling, the initial state is given at the false vacuum, where the corresponding time is $t=\pm i\infty$. In our case, the imaginary part of the integration path corresponds to the evolution of the quantum state during tunneling, while the real part corresponds to the evolution after the quantum tunneling. In this paper, the formulation has been done in a multi-dimensional quantum mechanical system. In order to apply it to cosmology, we need to extend the formulation to field theory, with gravitational effects included. Such an extension has been done in the case without interactions in [@Yamamoto:1993mp; @Tanaka:1993ez; @Tanaka:1994qa], and we expect similar extension to be possible in the case with interactions. Although a full derivation is now under investigation, one might naively expect that the integration path will also consist of an imaginary part corresponding to the evolution during quantum tunneling, and real part corresponding to the evolution after quantum tunneling. Calculations assuming this naive expectation to be true have already been performed in the literature[@Sugimura:2012kr; @Park:2011ty]. Observable effects resulting from non-linear interactions, such as the non-Gaussianity of cosmological fluctuations, are now recognized as powerful tools to probe the early universe. It is therefore important for us to be able to determine such features that may result from models involving quantum tunneling, which are motivated by the string landscape. KS thanks J. White, M. Sasaki, T. Tanaka and K. Yamamoto for useful discussions and valuable comments. This work was supported in part by Monbukagaku-sho Grant-in-Aid for the Global COE programs, “The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” at Kyoto University. KS was supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows No. 23-3437. Positive frequency function and wave function {#sec:post-freq-funct} ============================================= In this appendix, we will illustrate the the relation between the positive frequency function $u(t)$ used in this work and its corresponding wave function $\psi(\eta,t)$ used in the literature[@Yamamoto:1993mp]. We will employ the 1-dimensional harmonic oscillator with Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned} H&=\frac{p_\eta^2}{2}+\frac{\omega^2}{2}\eta^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ as an example. We will also see how the freedom in choosing $u(t)$ and $v(t)$ is related to the Bogolubov transformation. As usual, the ground state ${\left|{0}\right>}$ and the corresponding annihilation operator $a$ are given by $$\begin{aligned} a&=\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{2\hbar}}\eta+i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\hbar\omega}}p_\eta\,,\qquad a{\left|{0}\right>}=0 \,, \label{eq:54}\end{aligned}$$ where the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as $H=\hbar\omega\left(a^\dagger a +\frac{1}{2}\right)$ and the commutation relation is given by $\left[a,a^\dagger\right]=1$. The Bogolubov transformed vacuum state ${\left|{\tilde{0}}\right>}$ and corresponding annihilation operator $\tilde{a}$ are constructed as $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{a}=\alpha a +\beta a^\dagger\,,\qquad \tilde{a}{\left|{\tilde{0}}\right>}&=0\,, \label{eq:64}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ satisfy $|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2=1$. Here, $\tilde{a}$ satisfies the commutation relation $\left[\tilde{a},\tilde{a}^\dagger\right]=1$ but is nothing to do with the Hamiltonian. In the Heisenberg picture, operators are defined as $\mathcal{O}_H(t) =e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht}\mathcal{O} e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht}$, where operators with and without subscript $H$ correspond to Heisenberg and Schrödinger operators, respectively. The positive frequency functions $u(t)$, which are solutions to the EOM $\ddot{u}(t)=-\omega^2 u(t)$ and satisfy the Klein-Gordon normalization $u\dot{u}^*-\dot{u}u^*=i\hbar$, define the corresponding annihilation operators $a_u$ by $$\begin{aligned} a_u&=\frac{1}{i}\left(\eta_H(t)\dot{u}^*(t)-p_{\eta H}(t)u^{*}(t)\right)\,. \label{eq:53}\end{aligned}$$ The positive frequency function $u_0(t)=\sqrt{\hbar/2\omega}\,e^{-i\omega t}$ gives the annihilation operator $a$ of the ground state defined in eq. , while $\tilde{u}(t)=\alpha^* u_0(t)-\beta u_0^*(t)$ gives $\tilde{a}$ of the Bogolubov transformed vacuum state defined in eq. . We will explicitly construct the wave function $\psi_u(\eta)={\left<{\eta}|{0_u}\right>}$ where ${\left|{0_u}\right>}$ satisfies $a_u{\left|{0_u}\right>}=0$. Using eq. , $\mathcal{O}_H(t) =e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht}\mathcal{O} e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht}$ and $p_\eta=-i\hbar (\partial/\partial\eta)$, we can rewrite $a_u{\left|{0_u}\right>}=0$ in terms of the wave function as $$\begin{aligned} \left(i\hbar\, u^{*}(t)\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}+\dot{u}^*(t)\eta\right) e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht}\psi_u(\eta,t)&=0\,, \label{eq:57}\end{aligned}$$ where $H=-(\hbar^2/2)(\partial^2/\partial \eta^2) +(\omega^2/2)\eta^2$. For the ground state, the positive frequency function is given by $u_0(t)$ and $H=\hbar\omega/2$. By solving eq. , we obtain, neglecting an imaginary phase, $$\begin{aligned} \psi_0(\eta)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\pi\hbar}}\exp\left[-\frac{\omega \eta^2}{2\hbar}\right]\,, \label{eq:31}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_0(\eta)$ is the well known ground state wave function for the harmonic oscillator, as expected. Here we choose the overall normalization such that $\int d\eta |\psi_0(\eta,t)|^2=1$. For the Bogolubov transformed vacuum state, the positive frequency function is given by $\tilde{u}(t)$. Using the hermiticity of $H$ and solving eq. , we obtain, neglecting an imaginary phase, $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\psi}(\eta,t)=e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht} \left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi\hbar }\frac{\dot{\tilde{u}}^*(t)}{\tilde{u}^{*}(t)}} \exp\left[\frac{i}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\tilde{u}}^*(t)}{\tilde{u}^{*}(t)} \eta^2\right]\right)\,, \label{eq:55}\end{aligned}$$ where we again choose the overall normalization such that $\int d\eta |\tilde{\psi}(\eta,t)|^2=1$. [^1]: The effect of the explicit $t$-dependence of $H_0(t)$ was determined by directly solving the Schrödinger equation in [@Yamamoto:1993mp]. For the correspondence between this work and [@Yamamoto:1993mp], see App. \[sec:post-freq-funct\].

--- abstract: 'In the 70’s Igusa developed a uniform theory for local zeta functions and oscillatory integrals attached to polynomials with coefficients in a local field of characteristic zero. In the present article this theory is extended to the case of rational functions, or, more generally, meromorphic functions $f/g$, with coefficients in a local field of characteristic zero. This generalization is far from being straightforward due to the fact that several new geometric phenomena appear. Also, the oscillatory integrals have two different asymptotic expansions: the usual one when the norm of the parameter tends to infinity, and another one when the norm of the parameter tends to zero. The first asymptotic expansion is controlled by the poles (with negative real parts) of all the twisted local zeta functions associated to the meromorphic functions $f/g - c$, for certain special values $c$. The second expansion is controlled by the poles (with positive real parts) of all the twisted local zeta functions associated to $f/g$.' address: - | University of Leuven, Department of Mathematics\ Celestijnenlaan 200 B, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium - 'Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados, Departamento de Matemáticas, Unidad Querétaro, Libramiento Norponiente \#2000, Fracc. Real de Juriquilla. C.P. 76230, Querétaro, QRO, México. ' author: - Willem Veys - 'W. A. Zúñiga-Galindo' title: Zeta functions and Oscillatory Integrals for meromorphic functions --- [^1] [^2] introduction ============ In the present article we extend the theory of local zeta functions and oscillatory integrals to the case of [*meromorphic*]{} functions defined over local fields. In the classical setting, working on a local field $K$ of characteristic zero, for instance on $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, one considers a pair $(h,\Phi)$, where $h:U\rightarrow K$ is a $K$-analytic function defined on an open set $U \subset K^n$ and $\Phi$ is a test function, compactly supported in $U$. One attaches to $(h,\Phi)$ the local zeta function $$Z_{\Phi}(s;h):=\int\limits_{K^{n}\smallsetminus h^{-1}\left\{ 0\right\} } \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert h\left( x\right) \right\vert _{K} ^{s}\left\vert dx\right\vert_K$$ for $s\in \mathbb{C}$ with $\operatorname{Re}(s)>0$. Here $\left\vert dx\right\vert_K$ denotes the Haar measure on $K^n$ and $\left\vert a\right\vert_K$ the modulus of $a\in K$. More generally, one considers the (twisted) local zeta function $$Z_{\Phi}(\omega;h):=\int\limits_{K^{n}\smallsetminus h^{-1}\left\{ 0\right\} } \Phi\left( x\right) \omega \big(h(x)\big) \left\vert dx\right\vert_K$$ for a quasi-character $\omega$ of $K^\times$. By using an embedded resolution of singularities of $h^{-1}\{ 0\}$, one shows that $Z_{\Phi}(\omega;h)$ admits a meromorphic continuation to the whole complex plane. In the Archimedean case the poles of $Z_{\Phi}(\omega;h)$ are integer shifts of the roots of the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of $h$, and hence induce eigenvalues of the complex monodromy of $h$. In the $p$-adic case such a connection has been established in several cases, but a general proof constitutes one of the major challenges in this area. In the Archimedean case $K=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, the study of local zeta functions was initiated by I. M. Gel’fand and G. E. Shilov [@G-S]. The meromorphic continuation of the local zeta functions was established, independently, by M. Atiyah [@Atiyah] and J. Bernstein [@Ber], see also [@I2 Theorem 5.5.1 and Corollary 5.5.1]. On the other hand, in the middle 60’s, A. Weil initiated the study of local zeta functions, in the Archimedean and non-Archimedean settings, in connection with the Poisson-Siegel formula [@We0]. In the 70’s, J.-I. Igusa developed (for polynomials $h$) a uniform theory for local zeta functions over local fields of characteristic zero [@I3], [@I2]. The $p$-adic local zeta functions are connected with the number of solutions of polynomial congruences $\operatorname{mod} p^{m\text{ }}$and with exponential sums $\operatorname{mod}p^{m}$, see e.g. [@D0], [@I2]. More recently, J. Denef and F. Loeser introduced in [@D-L] the motivic zeta functions which constitute a vast generalization of the $p$-adic local zeta functions. Fixing an additive character $\Psi:K\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, the oscillatory integral attached to $\left( h,\Phi\right) $ is defined as $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;h\right) =\int\limits_{K^{n}\smallsetminus h^{-1}\{ 0\}} \Phi\left( x\right) \Psi\big( zh( x)\big) \left\vert dx\right\vert_K \qquad \text{ for }z\in K.$$ A central mathematical problem consists in describing the asymptotic behavior of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;h\right) $ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} \rightarrow\infty$. Under mild conditions, there exists an asymptotic expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;h\right) $ at infinity, controlled by the poles of twisted local zeta functions. For instance when $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$ we have the following [@I3]. Assume that (the restriction to the support of $\Phi$ of) the critical locus of $h$ is contained in $h^{-1}\{ 0\}$, and denote for simplicity $|z|=|z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$. Then $$E_\Phi\left( z;h\right) = \sum_\gamma \sum_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma}} e_{\gamma,m}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \left\vert z\right\vert^{\gamma}\left( \ln\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{m-1} \label{intro1}$$ for sufficiently large $|z|$, where $\gamma$ runs through all the poles$\mod 2\pi i / \ln p$ of $Z_\Phi\left(\omega;h\right)$ (for all quasi-characters $\omega$), $m_\gamma$ is the order of $\gamma$, and $e_{\gamma,m}$ is a locally constant function on $\mathbb{Z}_p^\times$. In this article we extend Igusa’s theory for local zeta functions and oscillatory integrals to the case in which the function $h$ is replaced by a meromorphic function. (Actually, Igusa’s theory is developed in [@I3], [@I2] for polynomials $h$, but it is more generally valid for analytic functions, since the arguments are locally analytic on a resolution space.) Besides independent interest, there are other mathematical and physical motivations for pursuing this line of research. S. Gusein-Zade, I. Luengo and A. Melle-Hernández have studied the complex monodromy (and A’Campo zeta functions attached to it) of meromorphic functions, see e.g. [@G-LM], [@G-LM1], [@G-LM2]. This work drives naturally to ask about the existence of local zeta functions with poles related with the monodromies studied by the mentioned authors. At an arithmetic level, we mention the special case of the oscillatory integrals associated to $p$-adic Laurent polynomials, that are if fact exponential sums $\operatorname{mod} p^{\ell}$. Estimates for exponential sums attached to non-degenerate Laurent polynomials $\operatorname{mod} p$ were obtained by A. Adolphson and S. Sperber [@A-S2] and J. Denef and F. Loeser [@D-L-1]. Finally, the local zeta functions attached to meromorphic functions are very alike to parametric Feynman integrals and to $p$-adic string amplitudes, see e.g. [@Be-Bro], [@Bo-We], [@B-F-O-W], [@Marcolli]. For instance in [@Marcolli Section 3.15], M. Marcolli pointed out explicitly that the motivic Igusa zeta function constructed by J. Denef and F. Loeser may provide the right tool for a motivic formulation of the dimensionally regularized parametric Feynman integrals. We now describe our results. In Section \[section zetafunctions\], we describe the meromorphic continuation of (twisted) local zeta functions attached to meromorphic functions $f/g$, see Theorems \[Theorem1\] and \[Theorem2\]. These results are related with the work of F. Loeser in [@Lo2] for multivariable local zeta functions. The local zeta functions attached to meromorphic functions may have poles with positive and negative real parts. We establish the existence of a band $\beta<\operatorname{Re}(s)<\alpha$, with $\alpha \in \mathbb{Q}_{>0} \cup \{+\infty\}$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{Q}_{<0} \cup \{-\infty\}$, on which the local zeta functions are analytic, and we show that $\alpha$, $\beta$ can be read of from an embedded resolution of singularities of the divisor defined by $f$ and $g$, see Theorem \[Theorem3\]. In the case of meromorphic functions, the problem of determining whether or not the corresponding local zeta function has a pole is more complicated than in the function case, see Example \[example\]. We develop criteria for the existence of poles, see Corollary \[coroll\] and Lemma \[Lemma7\]. In Subsection \[motivic\], we treat briefly the motivic and topological zeta functions for rational functions. These invariants are connected with special cases of the general theory of motivic integration of R. Cluckers and F. Loeser [@CL1]. Sections \[section oscillatory\] and \[section expansions\] constitute the core of the article. In Section \[section oscillatory\], we review Igusa’s method for estimating oscillatory integrals for polynomials/holomorphic functions, and we present our new strategy and several technical results in the case of meromorphic functions, see Propositions \[propE0\], \[PropEinfty\], \[Prop1p\] and \[Prop2p\]. Then in Section \[section expansions\], we prove our expansions and estimations for oscillatory integrals associated to meromorphic functions. This is not a straightforward matter, due to the fact that new geometric phenomena occur in the meromorphic case, see Remarks \[zeta2\], \[conductor\] and \[diffform\], and Definitions \[specialpoints\] and \[specialvalues\]. In addition, there exist two different asymptotic expansions: one when the parameter of the oscillatory integral approaches the origin and another when this parameter approaches infinity. The first asymptotic expansion is controlled by the poles with positive real parts of all twisted local zeta functions attached to the corresponding meromorphic function, see Theorems \[Esmallz\], \[Esmallz-p\] and \[estimate0\]. The second expansion is controlled by the poles with negative real parts of all twisted local zeta functions attached to the corresponding meromorphic function, see Theorems \[thmEinfty\], \[thmEinfty-p\] and \[estimateinfty\]. As an illustration, we mention here the form of the expansion at infinity when $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$. Let now $h$ be a meromorphic function on $U$. In Definition \[specialvalues\] we associate a finite set $\mathcal {V}$ of [*special values*]{} to $h$ and $\Phi$, including the critical values of (a resolution of indeterminacies of) $h$ that belong to the support of $\Phi$. Then $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;h\right) = \sum_{c\in \mathcal {V}} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\gamma_c<0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma_c}}} e_{\gamma_c,m,c}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \Psi(c\cdot z) \left\vert z\right\vert^{\gamma_c}\left( \ln \left\vert z\right\vert\right)^{m-1} \label{intro2}$$ for sufficiently large $\left\vert z\right\vert$, where $\gamma_c$ runs trough all the poles$\mod 2\pi\sqrt{-1}/\ln p$ with negative real part of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;h-c\right) $ (for all quasi-characters $\omega$), $m_{\gamma_c}$ is the order of $\gamma_c$, and $e_{\gamma_c,m,c}$ is a locally constant function on $\mathbb{Z}_p^\times$. Consider for example $h=(x^2+x^3-y^2)/x^2$. Then $1$ is the only special value (it is not a critical value), and Theorem \[thmEinfty-p\] yields the term $\Psi( z) \left\vert z\right\vert^{-5/2}$ in the expansion, see Examples \[examplecritical\] and \[examplecritical2\]. Note that the expansion (\[intro1\]) is simpler, mainly due to restricting the support of $\Phi$. In the context of meromorphic functions however, one typically has expansions as in (\[intro2\]), even when the support of $\Phi$ is arbitrarily small! In [@CL], see also [@CGH], R. Cluckers and F. Loeser obtained similar expansions to those presented in Theorem \[thmEinfty-p\], for $p$ big enough, in a more general non-Archimedean setting, but without information on the powers of $|z|_{K}$ and $\ln|z|_{K}$. We also note that the existence of two types of asymptotic expansions for $p$-adic oscillatory integrals attached to Laurent polynomials, satisfying certain very restrictive conditions, was established by E. León-Cardenal and the second author in [@L-Z]. Acknowledgement. We thank Raf Cluckers, Arno Kuijlaars, Adam Parusinski, Michel Raibaut and Orlando Villamayor for helpful conversations. preliminaries {#section preliminaries} ============= The group of quasicharacters of a local field --------------------------------------------- We take $K$ to be a non-discrete$\ $locally compact field of characteristic zero. Then $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{C}$, or a finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, the field of $p$-adic numbers. If $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, we say that $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$*-field*, otherwise we say that $K$ is a $p$*-field*. For $a\in K$, we define the *modulus* $\left\vert a\right\vert _{K}$ of $a$ by$$\left\vert a\right\vert _{K}=\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{l}% \text{the rate of change of the Haar measure in }(K,+)\text{ under }x\rightarrow ax\text{ }\\ \text{for }a\neq0,\\ \\ 0\ \text{ for }a=0\text{.}% \end{array} \right.$$ It is well-known that, if $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-field, then $\left\vert a\right\vert _{\mathbb{R}}=\left\vert a\right\vert $ and $\left\vert a\right\vert _{\mathbb{C}}=\left\vert a\right\vert ^{2}$, where $\left\vert \cdot\right\vert $ denotes the usual absolute value in $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, and, if $K$ is a $p$-field, then $\left\vert \cdot\right\vert _{K}$ is the normalized absolute value in $K$. A quasicharacter of $K^{\times}$ is a continuous group homomorphism from $K^{\times}$ into $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$. The set of quasicharacters forms a topological Abelian group denoted by $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $. The connected component of the identity consists of the $\omega_{s}$, $s\in\mathbb{C}$, defined by $\omega_{s}\left( z\right) =\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{s}$ for $z\in K^{\times}$. We now take $K$ to be a $p$-field. Let $R_{K}$ be the valuation ring of $K$, $P_{K}$ the maximal ideal of $R_{K}$, and $\overline{K}=R_{K}/P_{K}$  the residue field of $K$. The cardinality of the residue field of $K$ is denoted by $q$, thus $\overline{K}=\mathbb{F}_{q}% $. For $z\in K$, $ord\left( z\right) \in\mathbb{Z}\cup\{+\infty\}$ denotes the valuation of $z$, and $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}=q^{-ord\left( z\right) }$. We fix a uniformizing parameter $\mathfrak{p}$ of $R_{K}$. If $z\in K^{\times}$, then $ac$ $z=z\mathfrak{p}^{-ord(z)}$ denotes the angular component of $z$. Given $\omega\in \Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $, we choose $s\in\mathbb{C}$ satisfying $\omega\left( \mathfrak{p}\right) =q^{-s}$. Then $\omega$ can be described as follows: $\omega\left( z\right) =\omega_{s}\left( z\right) \chi\left( ac\text{ }z\right) $ for $z\in K^{\times}$, in which $\chi:=\omega\mid _{R_{K}^{\times}}$ is a character of $R_{K}^{\times}$. Furthermore, $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $ is a one dimensional complex manifold, isomorphic to $(\mathbb{C}\text{ mod }(2\pi i/\ln q)\mathbb{Z})\times\left( R_{K}^{\times}\right) ^{\ast}$, where $\left( R_{K}^{\times}\right) ^{\ast}$ is the group of characters of $R_{K}^{\times}$. Next we take $K$ to be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. Now for $z\in K^{\times}$ we denote $ac$ $z=\frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }$. Then $\omega \in \Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $ can again be described as $\omega(z)=\omega_{s}\left( z\right) \chi\left( ac\text{ }z\right) $ for $z\in K^{\times}$, where $\chi$ is a character of $\{z \in K^{\times} \mid |z|=1\}$. Concretely in this case $\chi=\chi_l=(\cdot)^l$, in which $l\in \{0,1\}$ or $l\in\mathbb{Z}$, according as $K=\mathbb{R}$ or $K=\mathbb{C}$. In addition, $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $ is a one dimensional complex manifold, which is isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}\times\left( \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\right) $ or $\mathbb{C}% \times\mathbb{Z}$, according as $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. For arbitrary $K$, we will denote the decompositions above as $\omega =\omega_{s}\chi\left( ac\right) \in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$. We have that $\sigma\left( \omega\right) :=\operatorname{Re}(s)$ depends only on $\omega$, and $\left\vert \omega\left( z\right) \right\vert =\omega_{\sigma\left( \omega\right) }\left( z\right) $. We define for all $\beta <\alpha$ in $\mathbb{R}\cup \{-\infty,+\infty\}$ an open subset of $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $ by $$\Omega_{\left( \beta,\alpha\right) }\left( K^{\times}\right) =\left\{ \omega\in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) \mid\sigma\left( \omega\right) \in\left( \beta,\alpha\right) \right\} .$$ For further details we refer the reader to [@I2]. Local zeta functions for meromorphic functions {#notations} ---------------------------------------------- If $K$ is a $p$-field, resp. an $\mathbb{R}$-field, we denote by $\mathcal{D}(K^{n})$ the $\mathbb{C}$-vector space consisting of all $\mathbb{C}$-valued locally constant functions, resp. all smooth functions, on $K^n$, with compact support. An element of $\mathcal{D}(K^{n})$ is called a *test function*. To simplify terminology, we will call a non-zero test function that takes only real and non-negative values a *positive* test function. Let $f,g:U\rightarrow K$ be non-zero $K$-analytic functions defined on an open $U$ in $K^{n}$, such that $f/g$ is not constant. Let $\Phi:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be a test function with support in $U$. Then the local zeta function attached to $\left( \omega,f/g,\Phi\right) $ is defined as $$Z_{\Phi}(\omega;f/g)=\int\limits_{U\smallsetminus D_{K}}\Phi\left( x\right) \omega\left( \frac{f\left( x\right) }{g\left( x\right) }\right) |dx|_{K}, \label{zeta}$$ where $D_{K}=f^{-1}\left\{ 0\right\} \cup g^{-1}\left\{ 0\right\} $ and $|dx|_{K}$ is the normalized Haar measure on $K^{n}$. \(1) The convergence of the integral in (\[zeta\]) is not a straightforward matter; in particular the convergence does not follow from the fact that $\Phi$ has compact support. \(2) When considering only polynomials $f$ and $g$, it would be natural to assume that $f$ and $g$ are coprime in the polynomial ring $K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. In that case the set $D_K$ only depends on $f/g$. For more general $K$-analytic functions however, the set $D_K$ depends in fact on the chosen $f$ and $g$ to represent the meromorphic function $f/g$. But this will not really affect our methods and results. Note that the zeta function $Z_{\Phi}(\omega;f/g)$ does depend only on the quotient $f/g$. Ordinary and adapted embedded resolutions ----------------------------------------- We state two versions of embedded resolution of $D_{K}$ that we will use in this paper. \[thresolsing\] Let $U$ be an open subset of $K^{n}$. Let $f,g$ be $K$-analytic functions on $U$ as in Subsection \[notations\]. \(1) Then there exists an embedded resolution $\sigma:X_{K}\rightarrow U$ of $D_{K}$, that is, \(i) $X_{K}$ is an $n$-dimensional $K$-analytic manifold, $\sigma$ is a proper $K$-analytic map which is locally a composition of a finite number of blow-ups at closed submanifolds, and which is an isomorphism outside of $\sigma^{-1}(D_{K})$; \(ii) $\sigma^{-1}\left( D_{K}\right) =\cup_{i\in T}E_{i}$, where the $E_{i}$ are closed submanifolds of $X_{K}$ of codimension one, each equipped with a pair of nonnegative integers $\left( N_{f,i},N_{g,i}\right) $ and a positive integer $v_i$, satisfying the following. At every point $b$ of $X_{K}$ there exist local coordinates $\left( y_{1},\ldots,y_{n}\right) $ on $X_{K}$ around $b$ such that, if $E_{1},\ldots,E_{r}$ are the $E_{i}$ containing $b$, we have on some open neighborhood $V$ of $b$ that $E_{i}$ is given by $y_{i}=0$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $$\sigma^{\ast}\left( dx_{1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dx_{n}\right) =\eta\left( y\right) \left( %TCIMACRO{\dprod \limits_{i\in I}}% %BeginExpansion \prod_{i=1}^r %EndExpansion y_{i}^{v_{i}-1}\right) dy_{1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dy_{n}, \label{for2}%$$ and $$\begin{aligned} f^{\ast}(y) & :=\left( f\circ\sigma\right) \left( y\right) =\varepsilon _{f}\left( y\right) \prod_{i=1}^r y_{i}^{N_{f,i}},\label{for3}\\ g^{\ast}(y) & :=\left( g\circ\sigma\right) \left( y\right) =\varepsilon _{g}\left( y\right) \prod_{i=1}^r y_{i}^{N_{g,i}}, \label{for4}%\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta\left( y\right), \varepsilon_{f}\left( y\right), \varepsilon_{g}\left(y\right)$ belong to $\mathcal{O}_{X_{K},b}^{\times}$, the group of units of the local ring of $X_{K}$ at $b$. \(2) Furthermore, we can construct such an embedded resolution $\sigma:X_{K}\rightarrow U$ of $D_{K}$ satisfying the following additional property at every point $b$ of $X_K$: \(iii) with the notation of (\[for3\]) and (\[for4\]), either $f^{\ast}(y)$ divides $g^{\ast}(y)$ in $\mathcal{O}_{X_{K},b}$ (what is equivalent to $N_{f,i} \leq N_{g,i}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,r$), or conversely $g^{\ast}(y)$ divides $f^{\ast}(y)$. Part (1) is one of the standard formulations of embedded resolution. It follows from Hironaka’s work [@H]. See also [@BEV Section 8],[@E-N-V Section 5],[@W1],[@W2] for more details, and especially [@D-vdD Theorem 2.2] for the $p$-field case. One obtains a resolution as in part (2) by first resolving the indeterminacies of $f/g$, considered as map from $U$ to the projective line, and then further computing an embedded resolution of the union of the exceptional locus and the strict transform of $D_K$. \[convention\](1) When $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, the map $\sigma$ is a composition of a finite number of blow-ups. But in the more general analytic setting, it is possible that one needs infinitely many blow-ups, and hence that $T$ is infinite. Consider for example the case $U=\{(a,b)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid a\neq 0\}$, $f=(y-1)(y - \sin 1/x)$ and $g=1$. The curve defined by $f$ has infinitely many isolated singular points, even contained in a bounded part of $U$. There are even such examples where the multiplicity of the singular points is not bounded. Consider the analytic function $a(x)=\prod_{j=1}^\infty jx \sin \frac 1{jx}$ on $\mathbb{R}_{>0}$, with zeroes at $\frac 1{m\pi}, m \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$. For instance $\frac 1{m!\pi}$ is a zero of multiplicity $m$. Then the curve defined by $a(x)-a(y)$ on $U=\mathbb{R}_{>0}^2$ has infinitely many singular points contained in a bounded part of $U$, where moreover the multiplicities of those singular points are not bounded. \(2) However, the construction of $\sigma$ is locally finite in the following sense. For any compact set $\mathcal{C}\subset U$, there is an open neighborhood $U_\mathcal{C} \supset \mathcal{C}$ such that the restriction of $\sigma$ to $\sigma^{-1}(U_\mathcal{C})$ is a composition of a finite number of blow-ups. We refer to [@W2] for more details. In order to handle this situation we note that in our setting \(i) the objects of study associated to $f$ and $g$, zeta functions and oscillatory integrals, depend only on the values of $f$ and $g$ on a small neighborhood of the (compact) support of the test function $\Phi$; and \(ii) most of our invariants and estimates depend on $\Phi$. [Convention.]{} We consider here simply the compact set $\mathcal{C}:=\supp \Phi$ and we fix an appropriate open $U_\Phi := U_\mathcal{C}$ such that the restriction of $\sigma$ to $\sigma^{-1}(U_\Phi)$ is a composition of a finite number of blow-ups. In the sequel we will call an embedded resolution $\sigma$ as in part (2) of Theorem \[thresolsing\] an [*adapted embedded resolution*]{} of $D_{K}$. An adapted embedded resolution yields in general much more components $E_i, i\in T,$ than an economic standard embedded resolution. But it will be a crucial tool to derive the results of Sections \[section oscillatory\] and \[section expansions\]. \[units\]In Theorem \[thresolsing\], we note that $f^{\ast}/g^{\ast}$, considered as a map to $K$, is defined in the points $b$ of $\sigma^{-1}\left( D_{K}\right)$ satisfying $N_{f,i} \geq N_{g,i}$ for $i=1,\dots,r$. In particular there can exist points $b\in\sigma^{-1}\left( D_{K}\right)$ such that $\frac{f^{\ast}(y)}{g^{\ast}(y)}$ is a unit in the local ring at $b$ (this happens when $N_{f,i}=N_{g,i}$ for $i=1,\dots,r$). Moreover, in that case the degree of the first non-constant term in the Taylor expansion at $b$ can be larger than $1$. See Example \[examplecritical1\]. This will be an important new feature when studying zeta functions and oscillatory integrals of meromorphic functions $f/g$, compared to analytic functions $f$. \[defalphabeta\]Let $\sigma:X_{K}\to U$ be an embedded resolution of $D_{K}$ as in Theorem \[thresolsing\] and Remark \[convention\]. For $i\in T$, we denote $N_i= N_{f,i} - N_{g,i}$ and call $(N_i,v_i)$ the datum of $E_i$. \(1) We put $T_+ = \{i\in T\mid N_i>0 \text{ and } E_i \cap \sigma^{-1}(\supp \Phi) \neq \emptyset\}$ and $T_- = \{i\in T\mid N_i<0 \text{ and } E_i \cap \sigma^{-1}(\supp \Phi) \neq \emptyset\}$, and we define $$\alpha=\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{ll}% \min_{i\in T_{-}}\left\{ \frac{v_{i}}{|N_{i}|}\right\} & \text{if }T_{-} \neq\emptyset\\ & \\ +\infty & \text{if }T_{-}=\emptyset, \end{array} \right.$$ and $$\beta=\beta_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{ll}% \max_{i\in T_{+}}\left\{ -\frac{v_{i}}{N_{i}}\right\} & \text{if }T_{+} \neq\emptyset\\ & \\ -\infty & \text{if }T_{+}=\emptyset. \end{array} \right.$$ \(2) Whenever $T$ is finite, in particular when $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, we can remove the condition $E_i \cap \sigma^{-1}(\supp \Phi) \neq \emptyset$ in the definition of $T_{+}$ and $T_{-}$, and then we obtain global invariants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ not depending on $\Phi$. Convergence, meromorphic continuation and poles of local zeta functions {#section zetafunctions} ======================================================================= Zeta functions over $p$-fields {#subsection zetap} ------------------------------ Before treating general zeta functions for meromorphic functions, it is useful to recall the following basic computation. \[Lemma 8.2.1 in [@I2]\]\[lemma3\] Let $K$ be a $p$-field. Take $a\in K$, $\omega=\omega_s\chi(ac) \in \Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $ and $N\in\mathbb{Z}$. Take also $n\in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and $e\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. Then $${\displaystyle\int\limits_{(a+\mathfrak{p}^{e}R_{K})\smallsetminus\left\{ 0\right\} }} \omega\left( z\right) ^{N}\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{n-1}\left\vert dz\right\vert =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{llll}% \left( 1-q^{-1}\right) \frac{q^{-en-eNs}}{1-q^{-n-Ns}} & & \text{if} & \begin{array} [c]{c}% a\in\mathfrak{p}^{e}R_{K}\\ \chi^{N}=1 \end{array} \\ & & & \\ q^{-e}\omega\left( a\right) ^{N}\left\vert a\right\vert _{K}^{n-1} & & \text{if} & \begin{array} [c]{c}% a\notin\mathfrak{p}^{e}R_{K}\\ \chi^{N}\mid_{U^{\prime}}=1 \end{array} \\ & & & \\ 0 & & &\text{all other cases,} \end{array} \right.$$ in which $U^{\prime}=1+\mathfrak{p}^{e}a^{-1}R_{K}$. In the first case, the integral converges on $\operatorname{Re}(s)>-\frac{n}{N}$, if $N>0$, and on $\operatorname{Re}(s)<\frac{n}{\left\vert N\right\vert }$, if $N<0$. Note that for $N=0$ we obtain a non-zero constant. \[Theorem1\] Assume that $K$ is a $p$-field. We consider $f,g$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\], and we fix an embedded resolution $\sigma$ for $D_K$ as in Theorem \[thresolsing\], for which we also use the notation of Definition \[defalphabeta\]. Then the following assertions hold: \(1) $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ converges for $\omega\in$ $\Omega_{\left( \beta,\alpha\right) }\left( K^{\times}\right) $; \(2) $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ has a meromorphic continuation to $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $ as a rational function of $\omega\left(\mathfrak{p}\right)=q^{-s} $, and its poles are of the form $$s=- \frac{v_{i}}{N_{i}}+\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{N_{i}\ln q}k, \ k\in \mathbb{Z},$$ for $i\in T_+\cup T_-$. In addition, the order of any pole is at most $n$. These are more or less immediate consequences of the work of Loeser on multivariable zeta functions [@Lo2]. In his setting $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, but his arguments are also valid for holomorphic functions. Take $\omega_1,\omega_2\in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$. Then, by [@Lo2 Théorème 1.1.4], the integral $$Z_{\Phi}(\omega_1,\omega_2;f,g):=\int\limits_{U\smallsetminus D_{K}}\Phi\left( x\right) \omega_1(f\left( x\right))\, \omega_2 (g\left( x\right))\, |dx|_{K}, \label{zeta2}$$ obviously converging when $\sigma(\omega_1)$ and $\sigma(\omega_2)$ are positive, has a meromorphic continuation to $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)\times \Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$ as a rational function of $\omega_1\left(\mathfrak{p}\right)=q^{-s_1}$ and $\omega_2\left(\mathfrak{p}\right)=q^{-s_2}$, with more precisely $$\prod_{i}(1-q^{v_i+N_{f,i}s_1+N_{g,i}s_2})$$ as denominator; here $i$ runs over the $i\in T$ such that $E_i \cap \sigma^{-1}(\supp \Phi) \neq \emptyset$. Hence the real parts of the poles of $Z_{\Phi}(\omega_1,\omega_2;f,g)$ belong to the union of the lines $v_i+N_{f,i}\sigma_1+N_{g,i}\sigma_2=0$. Taking $\omega_1=\omega$ and $\omega_2=\omega^{-1}$ (and hence $s_1=s$ and $s_2=-s$), this specializes to the stated results about $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $. \[altern\]Alternatively, it is straightforward to adapt Igusa’s proof in the classical case ($g=1$) directly to our situation. As a preparation for Sections \[section oscillatory\] and \[section expansions\], we recall briefly the main idea. (1) We pull back the integral $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ to an integral over $X_K\smallsetminus \sigma^{-1}(D_{K})$ via the resolution $\sigma$, and compute it by subdividing the (compact) integration domain $\sigma^{-1}\left( \text{supp}\, \Phi \right) \subset X_{K}$ in a finite disjoint union of compact open sets on which the integrand becomes monomial in local coordinates. More precisely, using the notation of Theorem \[thresolsing\], we can assume that such an integration domain around a point $b\in X_K$ is of the form $B=c+(\mathfrak{p}^{e}R_{K})^{n}$ in the local coordinates $y_1,\ldots,y_n$, and that $\vert\eta\left( y\right)\vert_K$, $\vert\varepsilon_{f}\left( y\right)\vert_K$, $\vert\varepsilon_{g}\left(y\right)\vert_K$ are constant on $B$. Then the contribution of $B$ to $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ is a non-zero constant times $$\label{localcontrib} %\int_B \omega(y) \left\vert y\right\vert^v\left\vert dy\right\vert %_{K} = \prod_{i=1}^r \int_{c_i+\mathfrak{p}^{e}R_{K}\setminus \{y_i=0\}} \omega^{N_{i}}\left(y_{i}\right) \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K^{v_{i} -1}\left\vert dy_i\right\vert _{K} .$$ Finally one concludes by using the local computation of Lemma \[lemma3\]. We want to stress the new feature mentioned in Remark \[units\]: in (\[localcontrib\]), it is possible that all $N_i=0$, while some $v_i>1$. \(2) Note that one needs an argument as in (1) to see that the defining integral of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ converges at least somewhere. \(3) If $\sigma$ is an adapted embedded resolution, we have around $b\in\sigma^{-1}(D_K)$ that $N_1,\dots,N_r$ are either all non-positive or all non-negative in (\[localcontrib\]). \[remarkpoles-p\] There is a refinement concerning the list of candidate poles in Theorem \[Theorem1\] and Remark \[altern\]. Writing $\omega= \omega_s\chi(ac)$, we have, by Lemma \[lemma3\], that $- \frac{v_{i}}{N_{i}}$ can be the real part of a pole of the corresponding integral in (\[localcontrib\]) only if the order of $\chi$ divides $N_i$. Hence, in Theorem \[Theorem1\](2) the poles are subject to the additional restriction that the order of $\chi$ divides $N_i$. For later use in Sections \[section oscillatory\] and \[section expansions\], we stress the following special case. When $N_i=1$ in (\[localcontrib\]), the corresponding integral has no pole unless $\chi$ is trivial. Then, considering in Theorem \[Theorem1\] the case that $g=1$ and $f^{-1}\{0\} \cap \supp \Phi$ has no singular points, we have that $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega_s\chi(ac);f\right) $ has no poles unless $\chi$ is trivial, in which case its poles are of the form $s=- 1+\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{\ln q}k, \ k\in \mathbb{Z},$ and of order $1$. Zeta functions over $\mathbb{R}$-fields --------------------------------------- The strategy being analogous as for $p$-fields, we provide less details. \[Theorem2\]Assume that $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-field. We consider $f,g$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\], and we fix an embedded resolution $\sigma$ for $D_K$ as in Theorem \[thresolsing\], for which we also use the notation of Definition \[defalphabeta\]. Then the following assertions hold: \(1) $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ converges for $\omega\in$ $\Omega_{\left( \beta,\alpha\right) }\left( K^{\times}\right) $; \(2) $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega,f/g\right) $ has a meromorphic continuation to $\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right) $, and its poles are of the form $$s= -\frac{v_{i}}{N_{i}}-\frac{k}{[K:\mathbb{R}]N_{i}}, \quad k\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},$$ for $i\in T_+\cup T_-$. In addition, the order of any pole is at most $n$. Analogously as in the proof of Theorem \[Theorem1\], this can be derived from the results on multivariable zeta functions [@Lo2], although there the detailed form of the possible poles is not mentioned explicitly. Anyway, (2) can be shown exactly as in the proof of [@I2 Theorem 5.4.1]. \[alternreal\]Again, as a preparation for Sections \[section oscillatory\] and \[section expansions\], we mention the main idea of (the generalization of) Igusa’s proof in the classical case. After pulling back the integral $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ to an integral over $X_K\smallsetminus \sigma^{-1}(D_{K})$ via the resolution $\sigma$, subdividing the new integration domain, and this time also using a partition of the unity, one writes $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ as a finite linear combination of monomial integrals. With the notation of Theorem \[thresolsing\], we can assume that these are of the form $$\int_{K^n\setminus \cup_{i=1}^r \{y_i=0\}} \Theta(y)\, \omega\left(\epsilon_f(y)\epsilon_g^{-1}(y)\right)\prod_{i=1}^r \omega^{N_{i}}\left(y_{i}\right) \prod_{i=1}^r\left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K^{v_{i} -1} \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K},$$ where $\Theta\left( y\right) $ is a smooth function with support in the polydisc $$\left\{ y\in K^{n}\mid \left\vert y_{j}\right\vert_K <1\text{ for } j=1,\ldots ,n\right\} .$$ Note again that, following Remark \[units\], it is possible that all $N_i=0$, while some $v_i>1$. \[polesoverC\]Looking more in detail at the proof of [@I2 Theorem 5.4.1], which uses Bernstein polynomial techniques for dealing with the poles of monomial integrals, we have in fact a somewhat sharper result concerning the poles of $Z_{\Phi}(\omega;f/g)$ when $K=\mathbb{C}$: when $\omega\left( z\right) =\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{s}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) ^{l}$, they are of the form $ s= - \frac{|l|}2 -\frac{v_{i}+k}{N_{i}}, k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},$ for $N_i>0$, and $ s= \frac{|l|}2 +\frac{v_{i}+k}{|N_{i}|}, k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},$ for $N_i<0$. For later use in Sections \[section oscillatory\] and \[section expansions\], we consider in Theorem \[Theorem2\] the case that $g=1$ and $f^{-1}\{0\} \cap \supp \Phi$ has no singular points. If $K=\mathbb{C}$, we have as special case of Remark \[polesoverC\] that the poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega_s\chi_l(ac);f\right) $ are of the form $s=-\frac {|l|}2 - 1 - k,\ k\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. If $K=\mathbb{R}$, the poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega_s\chi_l(ac);f\right) $ are odd integers when $l=0$ and even integers when $l=1$. Both when $K=\mathbb{C}$ and $K=\mathbb{R}$ these poles are of order $1$ [@Ja Theorem 4.19],[@AVG II §7]. Here we also want to mention that there is substantial work of Barlet and his collaborators related to Theorem \[Theorem2\] and the remarks above, see e.g. [@BM]. Existence of poles, largest and smallest poles {#subsection:about poles} ---------------------------------------------- Take $f,g:U\to K$ and a non-zero test function $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. We consider $$Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) :=Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega_s;f/g\right)= {\displaystyle\int\limits_{U\smallsetminus D_{K}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert \frac{f\left( x\right) }{g\left( x\right) }\right\vert _{K}^{s}\left\vert dx\right\vert_K$$ for $s\in \mathbb{C}$. By the results of the previous subsections, we know that this integral converges when $\beta <\operatorname{Re}(s)<\alpha$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are as in Definition \[defalphabeta\], hence a priori depending on some chosen embedded resolution. It turns out that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in fact [*do not*]{} depend on the chosen resolution. This follows from the next result, that generalizes the classical result for the zeta function of an analytic function $f$. For that classical result Igusa gives in [@I1] the strategy of a proof using Langlands’ description of residues in terms of principal value integrals [@Lan], see also [@AVG] for $K=\mathbb{R}$. This idea uses explicit meromorphic continuations of certain monomial integrals, and it could probably be extended to the case of meromorphic functions $f/g$. Here we provide a direct proof that also works simultaneously for all fields $K$. \[Theorem3\] Take $K$, $f$, $g$, $\sigma:X_{K}\rightarrow U$ and $\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma ,D_{K}\right), \beta_\Phi\left( \sigma ,D_{K}\right)$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. (1) Assume that $\beta_\Phi\left( \sigma ,D_{K}\right) \neq-\infty$, and that it is equal to $-\frac{v_i}{N_i}$ precisely for $i\in T_\beta \, (\subset T_+)$. If $\Phi$ is positive with $\Phi(P)>0$ for some $P\in \sigma (\cup_{i\in T_\beta}E_i)$, then $\beta_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $ is a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $. \(2) Assume that $\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma ,D_{K}\right) \neq +\infty$, and that it is equal to $\frac{v_i}{|N_i|}$ precisely for $i\in T_\alpha \, (\subset T_-)$. If $\Phi$ is positive with $\Phi(P)>0$ for some $P\in \sigma (\cup_{i\in T_\alpha}E_i)$, then $\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $ is a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $. \(3) Hence $\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $ and $\beta_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $ do not depend on $\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $. \(1) Take a *generic* point $b$ in a component $E$ of $\sigma^{-1}\left( D_{K}\right) $ with numerical datum $\left(N= N_{f}-N_{g},v\right) $ such that $\beta=\beta_\Phi\left( \sigma ,D_{K}\right)=-\frac{v}{N}$ and $\Phi(\sigma(b))>0$. Take also a small enough polydisc-chart $B\subset X_{K}$ around $b$ with coordinates $y=\left( y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}\right) $ such that $\Phi(\sigma(P))>0$ for all $P$ in the closure $\bar B$ of $B$, $$\label{simple monomial} \left( \frac{f}{g}\circ\sigma \right) \left( y\right) =\varepsilon\left( y\right) y_{1}^{N} \qquad \text{and}\qquad \sigma^{\ast}\left( dx_{1} \wedge\ldots\wedge dx_{n}\right) =\eta\left( y\right) y_{1}^{v-1},$$ with $\varepsilon\left( y\right)$ and $\eta\left( y\right)$ invertible power series on $B$. We can change the coordinate $y_1$ in order to have that $\varepsilon$ is a constant, and assume that $\left\vert \eta\left( y\right) \right\vert _{K}$ is bounded below by a positive constant $C_1$. When $K$ is a $p$-field, we could assume that $\left\vert \eta\left( y\right) \right\vert _{K}$ is constant on $B$. Denoting $C_2= |\varepsilon|_K \min _{Q\in \sigma(\bar B)}\Phi\left(Q\right) $, we have on $B$ that $$( \Phi \circ \sigma)(y) \left\vert \left( \frac{f}{g}\circ\sigma\right) \left( y\right) \right\vert_{K}^\beta \left\vert \eta\left( y\right) \right\vert _{K} |y_{1}^{v-1}|_K \geq C_2\, |y_1|_K^{N\beta}\, C_1 |y_1|_K^{v-1} = C_2 C_1 |y_1|_K^{-1}.$$ Then, by the $K$-analytic change of variables formula (see e.g. [@I2 Proposition 7.4.1] for $p$-fields), $$\begin{aligned} {\displaystyle\int\limits_{U\smallsetminus D_{K}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert \frac{f\left( x\right) }{g\left( x\right) }\right\vert _{K}^{\beta}\left\vert dx\right\vert_K & = {\displaystyle\int\limits_{X_K\smallsetminus \sigma^{-1}D_{K}}} (\Phi\circ\sigma) \left( y\right) \left\vert \left( \frac{f}{g}\circ\sigma\right) \left( y\right) \right\vert_{K}^\beta \left\vert \sigma^*dx\right\vert_K\\ &\geq C_2 C_1 {\displaystyle\int\limits_{B\setminus \{y_1=0\}}} |y_1|_K^{-1}|dy|_K = +\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $Z_{\Phi}(\gamma;f/g)$ exists and is positive for $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $\beta<\gamma<0$. Then, by using the Monotone Convergence Theorem, we have that $$\lim_{\gamma\to\beta} Z_{\Phi}(\gamma;f/g) = \lim_{\gamma\to\beta} {\displaystyle\int\limits_{U\smallsetminus D_{K}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert \frac{f\left( x\right) }{g\left( x\right) }\right\vert _{K}^{\gamma}\left\vert dx\right\vert_K =+\infty.$$ Hence $\beta$ must be a pole of $Z_{\Phi}(s;f/g)$, being a meromorphic function in the whole complex plane. \(2) By Part (1) we have that $-\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $ is a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;g/f\right) $, and hence $\alpha_\Phi\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) $ is a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) =Z_{\Phi}\left(-s;g/f\right) $. Note that, whenever $T$ is finite, in particular when $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, the global $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of Definition \[defalphabeta\](2) also do not depend on $\Phi$. In [@VZ Theorem 2.7] we showed in the context of zeta functions of mappings over $p$-fields that the analogue of $\beta$ is a real part of a pole. With the technique above one can in fact show that also in that context $\beta$ itself is a pole. \[coroll\]Take $\frac{f}{g}:U\smallsetminus D_{K}\rightarrow K$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. \(1) Assume that there exists a point $x_{0}\in U$ such that $f\left( x_{0}\right) =0$ and $g\left( x_{0}\right) \neq0$. Then, for any positive test function $\Phi$ with support in a small enough neighborhood of $x_0$, the zeta function $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $ has a negative pole. (2) Assume that there exists a point $x_{0}\in U$ such that $f\left( x_{0}\right) \neq 0$ and $g\left( x_{0}\right) =0$. Then, for any positive test function $\Phi$ with support in a small enough neighborhood of $x_0$, the zeta function $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $ has a positive pole. (3) In particular, if $K=\mathbb{C}$ and $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, then $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $ always has a pole for an appropriate positive test function $\Phi$. Given $x_0$ as in (1), there must exist a component $E_i$ of $\sigma^{-1}(D_K)$ in an embedded resolution $\sigma$ of $D_K$ for which $N_i>0$. Hence $\beta\left( \sigma,D_{K}\right) \neq - \infty$ and then, by Theorem \[Theorem3\], it is a pole. Alternatively, $f/g$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $x_0$, and hence this is really just the classical result. The argument for (2) is similar. When $f$ and $g$ have exactly the same zeroes in $U$, we cannot derive any conclusion from Corollary \[coroll\]. In fact, in that case all possibilities can occur: no poles, only positive poles, only negative poles, or both positive and negative poles. We provide an example for each situation. \[example\]Let $K=\mathbb{R}$, or $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$ such that $-1$ is not a square in $\mathbb{Q}_p$ (that is, $p \equiv 3 \mod 4$). In the examples below we take $U=K^2$ and we consider in each case polynomials $f$ and $g$ such that the zero locus over $K$ of both $f$ and $g$ consists of the origin. \(1) Take $f=(x^{2}+y^{2})^2$ and $g =x^{4}+y^{4}$. An embedded resolution of $D_K$ is obtained by blowing up at the origin; the exceptional curve has datum $(N,v)=(0,2)$. Hence, for any test function $\Phi$, $Z_{\Phi}(s;f/g)$ does not have poles. \(2) Take $f=x^{2}+y^{2}$ and $g =x^{4}+y^{4}$. Again an embedded resolution of $D_K$ is obtained by blowing up at the origin; the exceptional curve now has datum $(N,v)=(-2,2)$. Hence $1$ is a pole of $Z_{\Phi}(s;f/g)$ when $\Phi$ is positive around the origin, and there are no negative (real parts of) poles. \(3) Take $f=x^{4}+y^{4}$ and $g=x^{2}+y^{2}$. Analogously, $-1$ is a pole of $Z_{\Phi}(s;f/g)$ when $\Phi$ is positive around the origin, and there are no positive (real parts of) poles. \(4) Take $f=y^{2}+x^{4}$ and $g =x^{2}+y^{4}$. Now an embedded resolution of $D_K$ is obtained by first blowing up at the origin, yielding an exceptional curve with datum $(0,2)$, and next performing two blow-ups at centres the origins of the two charts, yielding exceptional curves with data $(2,3)$ and $(-2,3)$. Hence $-3/2$ and $3/2$ are poles of $Z_{\Phi}(s;f/g)$ when $\Phi$ is positive around the origin. \[Lemma7\] Take $\frac{f}{g}:U\smallsetminus D_{K}\rightarrow K$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. \(1) The zeta function $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $ has a negative pole, for an appropriate positive $\Phi$, if and only if there exists a bounded sequence $\left( a_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}} \subset U\smallsetminus D_{K}$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\vert \frac{f\left( a_{n}\right) }{g\left( a_{n}\right) }\right\vert _{K}=0. \label{limit_1}$$ \(2) The zeta function $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $ has a positive pole, for an appropriate positive $\Phi$, if and only if there exists a bounded sequence $\left( a_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} } \subset U\smallsetminus D_{K}$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\vert \frac{f\left( a_{n}\right) }{g\left( a_{n}\right) }\right\vert _{K}=\infty. \label{limit_1}$$ \(1) We consider an adapted embedded resolution $\sigma$ of $D_K$ as in Theorem \[thresolsing\], obtained by resolving the indeterminacies of $f/g$. From Theorem \[Theorem3\], it is clear that $Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) $ has a negative pole for an appropriate positive $\Phi$ if and only if there exists a component $E_i$ of $\sigma^{-1}\left( D_{K}\right) $ with $N_i>0$. Assume first that $N_i>0$ for the component $E_i$. Take a generic point $b$ of $E_i$ and a small enough chart $B\subset X_{K}$ around $b$ with coordinates $y=\left( y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}\right) $, such that the equation of $E_i$ around $b$ is $y_1=0$. Take a sequence $(a'_n)_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}}$ defined by $a'_n=(z_n,0,\dots,0)$, where all $z_n\neq 0$ and $ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\vert z_n\right\vert _{K}=0 $. Clearly $a'_n$ converges (in norm) to $b$, and hence $\frac fg (\sigma(a'_n))=(\frac fg \circ\sigma) (a'_n)$ converges to $(\frac fg \circ \sigma) (b)$, and this equals zero since $N_i>0$. Consequently the sequence $(\sigma(a'_n))_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}}$ is as desired. Conversely, assume that the bounded sequence $\left( a_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}} \subset U\smallsetminus D_{K}$ satisfies $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\vert \frac{f\left( a_{n}\right) }{g\left( a_{n}\right) }\right\vert _{K}=0$. Say the $a_n$ belong to the compact subset $A$ of $U$. Since $\sigma$ is an isomorphism outside the inverse image of $D_K$, each $a_n$ has a unique preimage $a'_n$ in $X_K$. The $a'_n$ belong to the compact set $\sigma^{-1}(A)$ (recall that $\sigma$ is proper), and hence we may assume, maybe after restricting to a subsequence, that the sequence $(a'_n)$ converges (in norm) to an element $a'$ of $\sigma^{-1}(A)$. The map $\frac fg \circ \sigma$ is everywhere defined (as map to the projective line) and continuous, yielding $$\big(\frac fg \circ\sigma\big)(a')= \big(\frac fg \circ\sigma\big)(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a'_n)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\big(\frac fg \circ\sigma\big)(a'_n)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac fg(a_n)=0.$$ Consequently $a'$ belongs to the union of the $E_i$ satisfying $N_i>0$, and then in particular there is at least one such $E_i$. \(2) This is proved analogously. Denef’s explicit formula ------------------------ Here we assume that $f$ and $g$ are polynomials over a $p$-field $K$, and that $\Phi$ is the characteristic function of a union $W$ of cosets$\mod P_K^n$ in $R_K^n$. Denef introduced in [@D2] the notion of [*good reduction$\mod P_K$*]{} for an embedded resolution, and proved an explicit formula [@D2 Theorem 3.1] for $Z_{\Phi}\left(s;f\right)$ when $\sigma$ has good reduction$\mod P_K$. His arguments extend to the case of a rational function $f/g$. Before stating the formula, we mention the following important property. When $f$ and $g$ are defined over a number field $F$, one can choose also the embedded resolution $\sigma$ of $f^{-1}\{0\}\cup g^{-1}\{0\}$ to be defined over $F$. We can then consider $f/g$ and $\sigma$ over any non-archimedean completion $K$ of $F$, and then $\sigma$ has good reduction$\mod P_K$ for all but a finite number of completions $K$. \[TheoremDenef\] Let $f,g \in R_K\left[x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\right]$ such that $f/g$ is not constant, and suppose that $\Phi$ is the characteristic function of $W$ as above. If $\sigma$ has good reduction$\mod P_K$, then, with the notation of Theorem \[thresolsing\], we have $$Z_{\Phi}\left( s;f/g\right) =q^{-n}\sum\limits_{I\subset T}c_{I}\prod\limits_{i\in I}\frac{q-1}{q^{v_i +N_{i}s}-1},$$ where $$c_{I}=\card\left\{ a\in \overline{X}\left( \overline{K}\right) \mid a\in \overline{E_{i}}\left( \overline{K}\right) \Leftrightarrow i\in I\text{% ; and }\overline{\sigma }(a)\in \overline{W}\right\} .$$ Here $\overline{\cdot }$ denotes the reduction mod $P_K$, for which we refer to [@D2 Section 2]. We compute $Z(s):= \int_{(p\mathbb{Z}_p)^2} \left|\frac{f(x,y)}{g(x,y)}\right|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^s |dx\wedge dy|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$ for the rational functions $f/g$ in Example \[example\], using Theorem \[TheoremDenef\]. Recall that $p\equiv 3\mod 4$. In case (1) we have simply that $Z(s)= \frac1{p^2}$, but this was already obvious from the defining integral, since we are just integrating the constant function $1$. The cases (2) and (3) yield $$Z(s)=\frac{p^2-1}{p^2(p^{2-2s}-1)} \qquad\text{and}\qquad Z(s)=\frac{p^2-1}{p^2(p^{2+2s}-1)},$$ respectively. For case (4) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} Z(s)&=\frac{1}{p^2}\left[ p\frac{p-1}{p^{3+2s}-1} + p\frac{p-1}{p^{3-2s}-1} + (p-1)\frac{p-1}{p^{2}-1} \right. \\ \qquad &\left. +\frac{(p-1)^2}{(p^{3+2s}-1)(p^2-1)} + \frac{(p-1)^2}{(p^{3-2s}-1)(p^2-1)}\right] \\ &= \frac{(p-1)(p^{4+2s}+p^{4-2s}+p^5-p^4+p^3-p^2-p-1)}{p^2(p^{3+2s}-1)(p^{3-2s}-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, we provide an expression for case (4) when $p\equiv 1\mod 4$. Then the strict transform of $f^{-1}\{0\}$ and $g^{-1}\{0\}$ (with data $(1,1)$ and $(-1,1)$, respectively), intersects the second and third exceptional curve, respectively, in two points. The formula of Theorem \[TheoremDenef\] now yields nine terms, and we obtain after an elementary computation that $$Z(s)=\frac{(p-1)D(p^s,p)}{p^2(p^{3+2s}-1)(p^{3-2s}-1)(p^{1+s}-1)(p^{1-s}-1)}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} D(p^s,p)&= p^{5+3s}+p^{5-3s} + (p^2-2p-1)(p^{4+2s}+p^{4-2s}) \\ +(-p^5&+p^3+p^2-p-1)(p^{1+s}+p^{1-s}) + p^7-p^6+2p^5-2p^4+2p^2+3p-1 .\end{aligned}$$ \[motivic\] Motivic and topological zeta functions -------------------------------------------------- The analogue of the original explicit formula of Denef plays an important role in the study of the motivic zeta function associated to a regular function [@D-L]. One can associate more generally a motivic zeta function to a rational function on a smooth variety, and obtain a similar formula for it in terms of an embedded resolution. Since this is not the focus of the present paper, we just formulate the more general definition and formula, referring to e.g. [@D-L2], [@V1] for the notion of jets and arcs, Grothendieck ring, and motivic measure. Set as usual $\left[ \cdot \right] $ for the class of a variety in the Grothendieck ring of algebraic varieties over a field $F$, and $\mathbb{L}:=\left[ \mathbb{A}^{1}\right] $. We also denote by $\mathcal{M}$ the localization of that Grothendieck ring with respect to $\mathbb{L}$ and the elements $\mathbb{L}^a -1, a\in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$. Let $Y$ be a smooth algebraic variety of dimension $n$ over a field $F$ of characteristic zero, and $f/g$ a non-constant rational function on $Y$. Let $W$ be a subvariety of $Y$. Denote for $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ by $\mu(\mathfrak{X}_{n}^W)$ the motivic measure of the arcs $\gamma $ on $Y$ with origin in $W$ for which $ord_{t}( \gamma^{\ast}(f/g)) =n$. A priori, it is not clear that this set of arcs is measurable, but one can show that $\mu(\mathfrak{X}_{n}^W)$ is well defined in $\mathcal{M}$ (see [@CL1 Theorem 10.1.1]). \[defmotzeta\]With notation as above, the *motivic zeta function* associated to $f/g$ (and $W$) is $$Z_{W}(f/g);T) =\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\ \mu (\mathfrak{X} _{n}^W) T^n.$$ Note that this is a series in $T$ and $T^{-1}$ (over $\mathcal{M}$), and that such expressions in general do not form a ring. As in the classical case however, $Z_{W}(f/g);T)$ turns out to be a rational function in $T$, see [@CL1 Theorem 5.7.1]. Using the change of variables formula in motivic integration ([@D-L2 Lemma 3.3],[@CL1 Theorem 12.1.1]), one obtains the following formula for $Z_{W}(f/g);T)$ in terms of an embedded resolution of $f^{-1}\{0\}\cup g^{-1}\{0\}$, which generalizes the similar formula in the classical case. \[Theoremmotivic1\] Let $\sigma :X\rightarrow Y$ be an embedded resolution of $f^{-1}\{0\}\cup g^{-1}\{0\}$, for which we use the analogous notation $E_{i}$, $N_i= N_{f,i} - N_{g,i}$ and $v_{i}$ $(i\in T)$ as in Theorem \[thresolsing\]. With also $E_{I}^{\circ }:=\left( \cap _{i\in I}E_{i}\right) \setminus \left( \cup _{k\notin I}E_{k}\right) $ for $ I\subset T$, we have $$Z_{W}\left( f/g;T\right) =\sum\limits_{I\subset T}\left[ E_{I}^{\circ }\cap \sigma ^{-1}W\right] \prod\limits_{i\in I}\frac{\left( \mathbb{L}-1\right) T^{N_{i}}}{\mathbb{L}^{v_{i}}-T^{N_{i}}}.$$ Note that above we use only very special cases of the far reaching general theory in [@CL1]. Alternatively, one could obtain Theorem \[Theoremmotivic1\] by considering a classical two-variable motivic zeta function associated to $f$ and $g$, the change of variables formula, and a specialization argument as in the proof of Theorem \[Theorem1\]. We also want to mention that Raibaut [@R Section 4.1] introduced another kind of motivic zeta function for a rational function, in order to define a motivic Milnor fibre at the germ of an indeterminacy point. Specializing to topological Euler characteristics, denoted by $\chi \left( \cdot \right) $, as in [@D-L (2.3)] or [@V1 (6.6)], we obtain the expression $$Z_{top,W}\left(f/g;s\right) :=\sum_{I\subset T}\chi \left( E_{I}^{\circ }\cap \sigma ^{-1}W\right) \prod_{i\in I}\frac{1}{ v_{i}+N_{i}s}\in \mathbb{Q}(s),$$ which is then independent of the chosen embedded resolution. (When the base field is not the complex numbers, we consider $\chi (\cdot )$ in étale $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-cohomology as in [@D-L].) It can be taken as a definition for the *topological zeta function* associated to $f/g$ (and $W$), generalizing the original one of Denef and Loeser associated to a polynomial [@D-L3]. For $n=2$, Gonzalez Villa and Lemahieu give in [@GL] a different definition of a topological zeta function associated to a meromorphic function $f/g$, roughly not taking into account the components $E_i$ with $N_i<0$. That construction is more ad hoc, but well suited to generalize the so-called [*monodromy conjecture*]{} in dimension $2$ to meromorphic functions. Oscillatory Integrals {#section oscillatory} ===================== In this section we start the study of the asymptotic behavior of oscillatory integrals attached to meromorphic functions. In the next section we then prove our main results. The set-up ---------- ### Additive characters We denote $$\Psi\left( x\right) :=\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{lll} \exp\left(2\pi\sqrt{-1}x\right) & \text{if} & x\in K=\mathbb{R}\\ & & \\ \exp\left(4\pi\sqrt{-1}\operatorname{Re}(x)\right) & \text{if} & x\in K=\mathbb{C}\text{.} \end{array} \right.$$ We call $\Psi$ *the standard additive character on* $K=\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{C}$. Given $$z=\sum_{n=n_{0}}^{\infty}z_{n}p^{n}\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}\text{, with }z_{n}% \in\left\{ 0,\ldots,p-1\right\} \text{ and }z_{n_{0}}\neq0,$$ we set $$\left\{ z\right\} _{p}:=\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{lll}% 0 & \text{if} & n_{0}\geq0\\ & & \\ \sum_{n=n_{0}}^{-1}z_{n}p^{n} & \text{if} & n_{0}<0, \end{array} \right.$$ *the fractional part of* $z$. We also put $\{0\}_p=0$. Then $\exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1}\left\{ z\right\} _{p}),$ $z\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, determines an additive character on $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, trivial on $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ but not on $p^{-1}\mathbb{Z}_{p}$. For a finite extension $K$ of $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, we recall that there exists an integer $d\geq0$ such that $Tr_{K/\mathbb{Q} _{p}}(z)\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ for $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\leq q^{d}$, but $Tr_{K/\mathbb{Q}_{p}}(z_{0})\notin\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ for some $z_{0}$ with $\left\vert z_{0}\right\vert _{K}=q^{d+1}$. The integer $d$ is called *the exponent of the different* of $K/\mathbb{Q}_{p}$. It is known that $d\geq e-1$, where $e$ is the ramification index of $K/\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, see e.g. [@We VIII Corollary of Proposition 1]. The additive character $$\Psi(z):=\exp\Big(2\pi\sqrt{-1}\left\{ Tr_{K/\mathbb{Q}_{p}}(\mathfrak{p}% ^{-d}z)\right\} _{p}\Big),\text{ }z\in K\text{, }%$$ is a *standard additive character* of $K$, i.e., $\Psi$ is trivial on $R_{K}$ but not on $P_{K}^{-1}$. ### Oscillatory integrals {#oscillatory-integrals} We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. The oscillatory integral attached to $\left( \frac{f}{g},\Phi\right) $ is defined by $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) =% {\displaystyle\int\limits_{U\smallsetminus D_{K}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \Psi\left( z\cdot\frac{f\left( x\right) }{g\left( x\right) }\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K}%$$ for $z\in K$. Our goal is to study the asymptotic behavior of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) $ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow+\infty$ and of $E_{\Phi }\left( z;f/g\right) -\int_{U}\Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K}$ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow0$. Classical results ----------------- In the classical case of an analytic function $f$ (when $g=1$), the oscillatory integral above is related to the zeta function $Z_\Phi(\omega;f)$ and to the fibre integral $$F_{\Phi}\left( t;f\right)=\int_{f\left( x\right) =t} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert \frac{dx}{df}\right\vert_{K}$$ for $t\in K^{\times}$, where $\frac{dx}{df}$ denotes the Gel’fand-Leray differential form on $f\left( x\right) =t$. More precisely, denoting by $C_f:=\{z\in U \mid \nabla f(z)=0\}$ the critical set of $f$, one assumes that $C_f\cap \supp \Phi \subset f^{-1}\{0\}$. Then asymptotic expansions of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f\right)$ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow+\infty$ are closely related to asymptotic expansions of $F_{\Phi}\left( t;f\right)$ as $\left\vert t\right\vert_{K}\rightarrow0$, and to poles of $Z_\Phi(\omega;f)$. These matters were extensively studied by many authors, for instance in several papers of Barlet in the case of $\mathbb{R}$-fields. See also [@AVG] when $K=\mathbb{R}$. Igusa presented in [@I3] a uniform theory over arbitrary local fields of characteristic zero (for polynomials $f$, but also valid for analytic functions). We first recall three spaces of functions from [@I3] that we will use, and the relations between them. ### Relating spaces of functions through Mellin and Fourier transform \[functionclassreal\]Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. Let $\Lambda$ be a strictly increasing (countable) sequence of positive real numbers with no finite accumulation point, and $\{ n_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ a sequence of positive integers. \(1) We define $\mathcal {G}$ as the space of all complex-valued functions $G$ on $K^\times$ such that (i) $G\in C^{\infty }\left( K^{\times}\right) $; \(ii) $G(x)$ behaves like a Schwartz function of $x$ as $\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}$ tends to infinity; \(iii) we have the asymptotic expansion $$G\left( x\right) \approx \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} \sum_{m=1}^{n_\lambda} b_{\lambda,m}\left( \frac{x}{\left\vert x\right\vert }\right) \left\vert x\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda-1}\left( \ln\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ as }\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow0,\label{Gdef}$$ where the $b_{\lambda,m}$ are smooth functions on $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\} $. In addition, this expansion is termwise differentiable and uniform in $x/|x|$ (we refer to [@I3 page 23] for a detailed explanation of this terminology). \(2) We define $\mathcal {Z}$ as the space of all complex-valued functions $Z$ on $\Omega(K^\times)$ such that \(i) $Z(\omega=\omega_s\chi_l(ac))$ is meromorphic on $\Omega(K^\times)$ with poles at most at $s\in -\Lambda$; \(ii) there are constants $r_{\lambda,m,l}$ such that $Z(\omega_s\chi_l(ac))-\sum_{m=1}^{n_\lambda}\frac{r_{\lambda,m,l}}{(s+\lambda)^m}$ is holomorphic for $s$ close enough to $-\lambda$, for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$; \(iii) for every polynomial $P\in \mathbb{C}[s,l]$ and every vertical strip in $\mathbb{C}$ of the form $B_{\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}}:=\left\{ s\in \mathbb{C} \mid \operatorname{Re}(s)\in\left( \sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}\right) \right\} $, we have that $P( s,l) Z (\omega_s\chi_l(ac))$ is uniformly bounded for all $l$ and for $s\in B_{\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}}$ with neighborhoods of the points in $-\Lambda$ removed therefrom. \[functionclasspadic\] Let $K$ be a $p$-field. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite set of complex numbers$\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$ with positive real part, and $\{ n_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ a sequence of positive integers. \(1) We define $\mathcal {G}$ as the space of all complex-valued functions $G$ on $K^\times$ such that (i) $G$ is locally constant; \(ii) $G(x)=0 $ when $\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}$ is sufficiently large; \(iii) we have the expansion $$G\left( x\right) = \sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \sum_{m=1}^{n_\lambda} b_{\lambda,m}\left( ac(x)\right) \left\vert x\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda-1}\left( \ln\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ for sufficiently small}\left\vert x\right\vert _{K},\label{Gdefp}$$ where the $b_{\lambda,m}$ are locally constant functions on $R_K^\times$. \(2) We define $\mathcal {Z}$ as the space of all complex-valued functions $Z$ on $\Omega(K^\times)$ such that \(i) there are constants $r_{\lambda,m,\chi}$ such that $Z(\omega_s\chi(ac))-\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\sum_{m=1}^{n_\lambda}\frac{r_{\lambda,m,\chi}}{(1-q^{-\lambda}q^{-s})^m}$ is a Laurent polynomial in $q^{-s}$; \(ii) there exists a positive integer $e$ such that $Z (\omega_s\chi(ac))$ is identically zero unless the conductor $e_{\chi}$ of $\chi$ satisfies $e_{\chi}\leq e $. In order to simplify notation in the sequel of this article, we adapted slightly Igusa’s setup in the sense that we consider expansions involving $\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda-1}$ instead of $\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda}$ in (\[Gdef\]) and (\[Gdefp\]). This implies that the statements of the theorems below differ also slightly from the formulation in [@I3]. [[@I3 I Theorems 4.2, 4.3 and 5.3]]{} \[Thm\_Igusa\_ZF\] The Mellin transform $M_K$ induces a bijective correspondence between the spaces $|x|_K\mathcal {G}$ and $\mathcal {Z}$. More precisely, for any $G\in \mathcal {G}$, define $M_K (|x|_KG)$ as a function on $\Omega_{(0,+\infty)}(K^\times)$ by $$M_K(|x|_K G)(\omega)=\int_{K^\times}|x|_K G(x)\omega(x) \frac {|dx|_K}{m_K|x|_K},$$ where $m_K$ is $2$, $2\pi$ or $1-q^{-1}$, according as $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{C}$, or a $p$-field. Then its meromorphic continuation to $\Omega(K^\times)$ is in $\mathcal {Z}$, and the map $G\mapsto M_K (|x|_K G)$ induces a bijection between the spaces $|x|_K \mathcal {G}$ and $\mathcal {Z}$. Under the bijective correspondence $|x|_KG\mapsto Z$ above, the coefficients in the expansion of $|x|_KG$ and the coefficients in the Laurent expansion of $Z$ around its poles determine each other. See [@I3 I Theorems 4.2, 4.3 and 5.3] for the exact relations. [[@I3 II Theorem 2.1]]{} \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\] (1) Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. Let $\Lambda$ be a strictly increasing (countable) sequence of positive real numbers with no finite accumulation point, and $\{ n_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ a sequence of positive integers. Then the space $\mathcal {G}^*$ of Fourier transforms of functions in $\mathcal {G}$ consists precisely of all complex-valued functions $H$ on $K$ such that \(i) $H\in C^{\infty }\left( K\right) $; \(ii) we have the termwise differentiable uniform asymptotic expansion $$H\left( x\right)\approx \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} \sum_{m=1}^{n_\lambda} c_{\lambda,m}\left( \frac{x}{\left\vert x\right\vert }\right) \left\vert x\right\vert _{K}^{-\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ as }\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow \infty,\label{Hthm}$$ where the $c_{\lambda,m}$ are smooth functions on $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\} $. Furthermore, if $H$ is the Fourier transform $G^*$ of $G\in\mathcal {G}$ with asymptotic expansion (\[Gdef\]), then (\[Hthm\]) is the termwise Fourier transform of (\[Gdef\]). \(2) Let $K$ be a $p$-field. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite set of complex numbers$\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$ with positive real part, and $\{ n_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ a sequence of positive integers. Then the space $\mathcal {G}^*$ of Fourier transforms of functions in $\mathcal {G}$ consists precisely of all complex-valued functions $H$ on $K$ such that \(i) $H$ is locally constant; \(ii) we have the expansion $$H\left( x\right) = \sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \sum_{m=1}^{n_\lambda} c_{\lambda,m}\left( ac(x)\right) \left\vert x\right\vert _{K}^{-\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert x\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ for sufficiently large}\left\vert x\right\vert _{K},\label{Hthmp}$$ where the $c_{\lambda,m}$ are locally constant functions on $R_K^\times$. Furthermore, if $H$ is the Fourier transform $G^*$ of $G\in\mathcal {G}$ satisfying (\[Gdefp\]), then (\[Hthmp\]) is the termwise Fourier transform of (\[Gdefp\]). \(3) For all $K$ the inverse of the map $\mathcal {G}\to\mathcal {G}^*:G\mapsto G^*$ is given by the generalized Fourier transform $H\mapsto H^*(-x)$, where $$H^*(x)=\lim_{r\to \infty} \int_{|y|_K \leq r} H(y)\Psi(xy)\, |dy|_K .$$ In order to describe the relation between the coefficients $b$ and $c$ above, we first introduce some notation. Let $\chi$ be a character of $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\} $. We first assume that $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-field. For $\chi=\chi_l$, we denote $$w_{\chi}\left( s\right) =i^{\left\vert l\right\vert }\left( \pi\left[ K:\mathbb{R}\right] \right) ^{\frac{1}{2}\left[ K:\mathbb{R}\right] \left( 1-2s\right) }\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{1}{2}\left[ K:\mathbb{R}% \right] s+\frac{\left\vert l\right\vert }{2}\right) }{\Gamma\left( \frac {1}{2}\left[ K:\mathbb{R}\right] \left( 1-s\right) +\frac{\left\vert l\right\vert }{2}\right) }\, ,$$ where $\Gamma(s)$ is the complex Gamma function. When $K$ is a $p$-field, we put $$w_\chi(s)= \frac{1-q^{s-1}}{1-q^{-s}} \quad\text{if } \chi=1 \qquad\text{ and }\qquad w_\chi(s)= g_\chi q^e \chi^s \quad\text{if } \chi\neq 1 ,$$ where $e$ is the conductor of $\chi$ and $g_{\chi}$ is a (non-zero) Gaussian sum (see [@I3 page 57]). [[@I3 II Remark 1 page 67]]{}\[Prop Igusa\] (1) For all $\lambda$ and $m$, let $b_{\lambda,m,\chi}$ be the Fourier coefficients of $b_{\lambda,m}\left( u\right) $ in Definitions \[functionclassreal\] and \[functionclasspadic\], that is, we have the expansion $$b_{\lambda,m}(u) = \sum_{\chi} b_{\lambda,m,\chi}\chi(u),$$ and similarly $$c_{\lambda,m}(u) = \sum_{\chi} c_{\lambda,m,\chi}\chi(u)$$ for $c_{\lambda,m}(u)$ in Theorem \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\]. Here, when $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-field, $\chi$ runs over the $\chi_l$ with $l\in\{0,1\}$ or $l\in \mathbb{Z}$, according as $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, and when $K$ is a $p$-field, $\chi$ runs over the characters of $R_K^\times$. These Fourier coefficients are related as follows: $$\label{relatebtoc} c_{\lambda,m,\chi^{-1}} = \left( -1\right) ^{m-1} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=m}^{n_{\lambda}}} \left( \begin{array} [c]{c} j-1\\ m-1 \end{array} \right)\left( \frac{d^{j-m}}{ds^{j-m}}w_{\chi}\left( \lambda\right) \right) b_{\lambda,j,\chi}.$$ Fixing $\lambda$ and $\chi$, the equation (\[relatebtoc\]) expresses, for $1\leq m \leq n_\lambda$, the $c_{\lambda,m,\chi^{-1}}$ linearly in terms of the $b_{\lambda,m,\chi}$ with a coefficient matrix that is upper triangular of size $n_\lambda$, with everywhere $w_{\chi}(\lambda)$ on the diagonal, and nonzero multiples of $w'_{\chi}(\lambda)$ just above the diagonal. \(2) If $w_{\chi}(\lambda)\neq 0$, then the rank of that matrix is $n_\lambda$ and then the $b_{\lambda,m,\chi}$ can conversely be expressed in and are determined by the $c_{\lambda,m,\chi^{-1}}$. On the other hand, if $w_{\chi}(\lambda)= 0$, then $w'_{\chi}(\lambda)\neq 0$, and hence the rank of that matrix is $n_\lambda-1$. In this case, $c_{\lambda,n_\lambda,\chi^{-1}}=0$, the coefficient $b_{\lambda,1,\chi}$ does not appear in the expression for the $c_{\lambda,m,\chi^{-1}}, 1\leq m \leq n_\lambda -1$, and the $b_{\lambda,m,\chi}, 2\leq m \leq n_\lambda,$ can be expressed in and are determined by the $c_{\lambda,m,\chi^{-1}}, 1\leq m \leq n_\lambda -1$. \(3) For an $\mathbb{R}$-field $K$ and $\chi=\chi_l$, we have that $w_{\chi}(s)= 0$ if and only if $s\in 1+\frac{1}{[K:\mathbb{R}]}( |l| + 2\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0})$. For a $p$-field $K$, we have that $w_{\chi}(s)= 0$ if and only if $\chi=1$ and $s= 1 \mod 2\pi i / \ln q$. \[conductor\]In the classical case of a polynomial/analytic function $f$ (when $g=1$), an important result in [@I3] is that $Z_\Phi(\omega;f)$ belongs to the space $\mathcal {Z}$, assuming that $C_f \cap \supp \Phi \subset f^{-1}\{0\}$. Then Theorems \[Thm\_Igusa\_ZF\] and \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\] lead to the relations between asymptotic expansions of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f\right)$ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow+\infty$, asymptotic expansions of $F_{\Phi}\left( t;f\right)$ as $\left\vert t\right\vert_{K}\rightarrow0$, and poles of $Z_\Phi(\omega;f)$. Now for meromorphic functions $f/g$, the zeta function $Z_\Phi(\omega;f/g)$ is in general [*not*]{} in $\mathcal {Z}$, and restricting the support of $\Phi$ will not remedy that. As an illustration we indicate the problem when $K$ is a $p$-field: in general $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ is [*not*]{} identically zero when the conductor of $\chi=\omega \mid_{R_{K}^{\times}}$ is large enough. A crucial point in the proof of this result in the classical case is namely that an integral of the form $ \int_{p^e\mathbb{Z}_p} \chi(1+x) \, |dx|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$ vanishes as soon as the conductor of $\chi$ is large enough. In our case, due to the new feature in Remark \[units\], one also has to deal for instance with integrals of the form $$\int_{p^e\mathbb{Z}_p} \chi(1+x) \, |x|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{\nu-1} \, |dx|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$$ with $\nu > 1$. And those do [*not*]{} vanish for $\chi$ with large enough conductor, as is shown by a straightforward computation. In order to derive asymptotic expansions for $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$, we need a new strategy. We do use Theorems \[Thm\_Igusa\_ZF\] and \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\] in the sequel, but in an appropriate different setting. Set-up on the resolution space {#subsection set-up resolution} ------------------------------ From now on we fix an adapted embedded resolution $\sigma:X_K\to U$ of $D_K$, obtained by resolving the indeterminacies of the map $f/g$, we use the notation of Theorem \[thresolsing\] and the classical notation $\sigma^* \Phi=\Phi \circ \sigma$. We denote by $\rho: X_K\to \mathbb{P}^1$ the [*morphism*]{} $(f/g) \circ \sigma$. Analogously as in Remarks \[altern\] and \[alternreal\], we can describe $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)= \int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1} D_K} (\sigma^* \Phi)(y)\, \Psi \big(z\cdot \rho(y)\big)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K$$ as a complex linear combination of local contributions, described by elementary oscillating integrals in local coordinates around appropriately chosen points $b\in X_K$. We first stress the following fact. A point $b \in X_K$ for which $N_i=N_{f,i}-N_{g,i}>0$ for at least one $i \in \{1,\dots,r\}$, satisfies $\rho(b)=0$. Similarly, when $N_i<0$ for at least one $i$, we have that $\rho(b)=\infty$. And if all $N_i=0$, then $\rho(b)\in K^\times$. As already mentioned in Remark \[units\], this last case also occurs for points $b$ in $\sigma^{-1}(D_K)$. These three possibilities for $\rho(b)$ yield the following three types of local contributions. We use local coordinates $y_1,\dots,y_n$ around $b$, and $\Theta$ denotes the characteristic function of a small polydisc $B$ around the origin, or a smooth function supported in the polydisc $$B=\left\{ y\in K^{n}\mid\left\vert y_{j}\right\vert_K <1\text{ for }j=1,\ldots ,n\right\} ,$$ according as $K$ is a $p$-field or an $\mathbb{R}$-field. When $\rho(b)=0$ and $\rho(b)=\infty$, we have respectively the types $$E_{1}\left( z\right) :=% {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right) \Psi\left( z \cdot c {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^r} y_{i}^{M_{i}}\right) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K} \label{E_1}%$$ and $$E_{2}\left( z\right) := {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}\smallsetminus\cup_{i=1}^r\left\{ y_{i}=0\right\} }} \Theta\left( y\right) \Psi\left( z \cdot (c {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^r} y_{i}^{M_{i}})^{-1}\right) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K}, \label{E_2}%$$ where $r$, all $M_i$ and all $v_i$ are positive integers (and $r\leq n$), and $c$ is a nonzero constant (that can be taken to be $1$ if $K=\mathbb{C}$, and $1$ or $-1$ if $K=\mathbb{R}$). Note that possibly some $v_i=1$. When $\rho(b)\in K^\times$, we have the type $$E_{3}\left( z\right) := {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right) \Psi\big( z \cdot u(y) \big) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K}, \label{E_3}$$ where $u(y)$ is invertible on the support of $\Theta$. Some auxiliary expansions {#subsection auxexpansions} ------------------------- In order to study $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)= \int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1} D_K} (\sigma^* \Phi)(y) \, \Psi \big(z\cdot \rho(y)\big)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K$$ via local contributions, we now fix an appropriate decomposition of $\sigma^* \Phi$. We cover the (compact) support of $\sigma^* \Phi$ by finitely many polydiscs $B_j, j\in J,$ as above (all disjoint in the case of $p$-fields), making sure that the (compact) fibres $\rho^{-1}\{0\}\cap \supp (\sigma^* \Phi)$ and $\rho^{-1}\{\infty\}\cap \supp (\sigma^* \Phi)$ are completely covered by certain $B_j, j\in J_0 \subset J,$ and $B_j, j\in J_\infty \subset J,$ with centre $b_j$ mapped by $\rho$ to $0$ and $\infty$, respectively. When $K$ is a $p$-field, we define $\Phi_0$ and $\Phi_\infty$ as the restriction of $\sigma^* \Phi$ to $\cup_{j\in J_0}B_j$ and $\cup_{j\in J_\infty}B_j$, respectively. When $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-field, $\Phi_0$ and $\Phi_\infty$ are these restrictions, modified by the partition of the unity that induces the functions $\Theta$ on the local charts $B_j$. We now define $$E_{0}\left( z\right)= \int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1} D_K} (\Phi_0)(y) \,\Psi \big(z\cdot \rho(y)\big) \,|\sigma^* dx|_K$$ and $$E_{\infty}\left( z\right)= \int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1} D_K} (\Phi_\infty)(y)\, \Psi \big(z\cdot \rho(y)\big)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K .$$ We first treat the case of oscillatory integrals over $\mathbb{R}$-fields. \[propE0\] Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. We denote by $m_{\lambda}$ the order of a pole $\lambda $ of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $. \(1) Then $E_{0}\left( z\right) $ has an asymptotic expansion of the form $$E_{0}\left( z\right) \approx% {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda <0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}}} A_{\lambda,m}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow \infty, \label{AsimE0}$$ where $\lambda$ runs through all the negative poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $ (for all $\omega$), and each $A_{\lambda,m}$ is a smooth function on $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\}$. \(2) Writing $\omega=\omega_s\chi_l(ac)$, we have that $A_{\lambda,m_\lambda}=0$ if $|\lambda| \in 1+\frac{1}{[K:\mathbb{R}]}( |l| + 2\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0})$. \(1) We apply the ideas of Igusa’s theory in [@I3 III] to the function $\rho$ on $X_K$ (in fact rather to the $K$-valued restriction of $\rho$ to $X_K\setminus \rho^{-1}\{\infty\}$) and the smooth function with compact support $\Phi_0$. Actually, Igusa formulates everything for polynomial functions, but his results are also valid for analytic functions on smooth manifolds, since his arguments are locally analytic on an embedded resolution space. A crucial condition for his arguments to work is that $C_\rho \cap \operatorname{supp} \Phi_0 \subset \rho^{-1}\{0\}$, where $C_\rho$ denotes the critical locus of $\rho$. This condition is satisfied by our choice of $\Phi_0$ and because $\rho$ is locally monomial. [Claim.]{} [*The function $Z_0$ on $\Omega(K^\times)$, defined by $$Z_0(\omega;\rho) = \int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1}D_K} \Phi_0(y)\, \omega\big(\rho(y)\big)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K$$ for $\omega \in \Omega_{(0,\infty)}(K^\times)$, and extended to $\Omega(K^\times)$ by meromorphic continuation, belongs to the class $\mathcal {Z}$ of Definition \[functionclassreal\].*]{} [*Proof of the claim.*]{} The integral defining $Z_0(\omega;\rho)$ is locally of the form $${\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right) \omega\left( c {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^r} y_{i}^{M_{i}}\right) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K}.$$ This is precisely the local form that Igusa used to prove the analogue of the claim in [@I3 III §4], up to one important difference. In his case $M_i>0$ as soon as $v_i>1$. In our case it is possible that $M_i=0$ while $v_i>1$. This is however not a problem here because, in the polydiscs $B_j, j\in J_0,$ that we consider, always $M_i>0$ for [*at least one*]{} $i$, and this is precisely what is needed in Igusa’s argument. We now relate in the usual way $Z_0(\omega;\rho)$ to $E_0(z)$ through the fibre integral $$F_0(t):= \int_{\rho(y)=t} \Phi_0(y) \left|\frac{\sigma^* dx}{d\rho}\right|_K,$$ for $t\in K^\times$. We have that $$Z_0(\omega;\rho) = \int_{K^\times} |t|_K F_0(t) \omega(t) \frac{|dt|_K}{|t|_K}$$ is the Mellin transform of $m_K |t|_K F_0(t)$, where $m_K=2$ for $K=\mathbb{R}$ and $m_K=2\pi$ for $K=\mathbb{C}$. On the other hand, $E_0(z)=\int_{K^\times} F_0(t) \Psi(z\cdot t) |dt|_K$ is the Fourier transform of $F_0(t)$. Now, since $Z_0(\omega;\rho)$ belongs to $\mathcal {Z}$, we have by Theorems \[Thm\_Igusa\_ZF\] and \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\] that the asymptotic expansion for $E_0(z)$ at infinity is obtained from the asymptotic expansion of $F_0(t)$ at zero, by computing its Fourier transform termwise. Here however the $\lambda\in \Lambda$ are the poles of $Z_0(\omega;\rho)$ (for all $\omega$). But by the definition of $\Phi_0$ and the explanation in Remark \[altern\], these are precisely the negative poles of $Z_\Phi(\omega;f/g)$ (for all $\omega$). \(2) As in the classical case, this follows from [@I3 I Theorems 4.2 and 4.3] and Proposition \[Prop Igusa\]. \[PropEinfty\] Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field; we put $d_K:=1$ if $K=\mathbb{R}$ and $d_K:=1/2$ if $K=\mathbb{C}$. We denote by $m_{\lambda}$ the order of a pole $\lambda $ of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $. Then $E_{\infty}\left( z\right) $ has an asymptotic expansion of the form $$E_{\infty}\left( z\right) -C\approx {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda >0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}+\delta_{\lambda}}} A_{\lambda,m}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow0, \label{Asim_E_1}$$ where $C=E_\infty(0)$ is a constant, $\lambda$ runs through $d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and all the positive poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $ (for all $\omega$) that are not in $d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$; furthermore $\delta_{\lambda}=0$ if $\lambda \notin d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and $\delta_{\lambda}=1$ if $\lambda\in d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$. When $\lambda$ is not a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $, we put $m_{\lambda}=0$. Finally, each $A_{\lambda,m}$ is a smooth function on $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\}$. Firstly, we note that the positive poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $ are precisely the poles of $$\int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1}D_K} \Phi_\infty(y)\, \omega\big(\rho(y)\big)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K = \int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1}D_K} \Phi_\infty(y)\, \omega^{-1}\big((1/\rho)(y)\big) \, |\sigma^* dx|_K.$$ We consider $1/\rho$ as a $K$-valued function on $X_K\setminus \rho^{-1}\{0\}$, and we apply the intermediate results in the proof of Proposition \[propE0\] to it. More precisely, replacing in that proof $\rho$ by $1/\rho$, $\Phi_0$ by $\Phi_\infty$ and $\omega$ by $\omega^{-1}$, we derive that the function $$F^{\#}(t):= \int_{(1/\rho)(y)=t} \Phi_\infty(y) \left|\frac{\sigma^* dx}{d(1/\rho)}\right|_K,$$ for $t\in K^\times$, belongs to the class $\mathcal {G}$, and that it is related by the Mellin transformation to the function $Z_\infty$ on $\Omega(K^\times)$, defined by $$Z_\infty(\omega;1/\rho) = \int_{X_K} \Phi_\infty(y) \, \omega\big((1/\rho)(y)\big)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K$$ for $\omega \in \Omega(K^\times)$, which belongs to the class $\mathcal {Z}$. In particular, $F^{\#}$ has the termwise differentiable and uniform asymptotic expansion $$F^{\#}\left( t\right) \approx \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} \sum_{m=1}^{m_\lambda} b_{\lambda,m}\left( \frac{t}{\left\vert t\right\vert }\right) \left\vert t\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda-1}\left( \ln\left\vert t\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ as }\left\vert t\right\vert_{K}\rightarrow0,\label{Fsharp}$$ where the $b_{\lambda,m}$ are smooth functions on $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\} $, and where $\{-\lambda \mid \lambda\in \Lambda\}$ is the set of poles of $Z_\infty(\omega;1/\rho)$ (for all $\omega$). Note that if $-\lambda$ is a (necessarily negative) pole of $Z_\infty(\omega;1/\rho)$, it corresponds to the (positive) pole $\lambda$ of $Z_\infty(\omega^{-1};1/\rho)$, and thus to the positive pole $\lambda$ of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g \right) $. Next, we consider the fibre integral $$F_\infty(u) :=\int_{\rho(y)=u} \Phi_\infty(y) \left|\frac{\sigma^* dx}{d\rho}\right|_K,$$ for $u\in K^\times$. Clearly, $$\label{Einfty-Finfty} E_\infty(z) =\int_{K^\times} \Psi(z\cdot u)\, F_\infty(u)\,|du|_K,$$ and hence it is the Fourier transform of $F_\infty(u)$. Also, we have, with the change of coordinates $t=1/u$, that $F_\infty(u)=|u|_K^{-2} F^{\#}(1/u)$. Indeed, since $\sigma^* dx$ is equal to both $$\frac{\sigma^*dx}{d\rho} \wedge d\rho \qquad\text{and}\qquad \frac{\sigma^*dx}{d(1/\rho)} \wedge d(1/\rho) = -\frac{1}{\rho^2}\frac{\sigma^*dx}{d(1/\rho)} \wedge d\rho ,$$ and the restriction of the Gel’fand-Leray form to any fibre $\rho=u$ is unique, we have $$|-\rho^2|_K \left|\frac{\sigma^* dx}{d\rho}\right|_K = \left|\frac{\sigma^* dx}{d(1/\rho)}\right|_K .$$ Since $F^{\#}$ is a Schwartz function at infinity, we can extend $F_\infty$ to a function on $K$ by declaring $F_\infty(0):=0$, satisfying $\left. \frac{d^{k}}{du^{k}}F_\infty(u)\right\vert _{u=0}=0$ for any $k$. So \(i) $F_\infty\in C^{\infty }\left( K\right) $; \(ii) we have the termwise differentiable and uniform asymptotic expansion $$\begin{aligned} F_\infty(u)&\approx |u|_K^{-2}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda}} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}}} b_{\lambda,m}\left( \left( \frac{u}{\left\vert u\right\vert }\right) ^{-1}\right) \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}^{-\lambda +1}\left( \ln\left\vert u^{-1}\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\\ &\approx {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda}} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}}} \left( -1\right) ^{m-1}b_{\lambda,m}\left( \left( \frac{u}{\left\vert u\right\vert }\right) ^{-1}\right) \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}^{-\lambda -1}\left( \ln\left\vert u\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\label{Fkey_Exp} \end{aligned}$$ as $\left\vert u\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow+\infty$. Hence $F_\infty$ belongs to the space $\mathcal {G}^*$ of Theorem \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\]. Then, by (\[Einfty-Finfty\]), Theorem \[Thm\_Igusa\_2\] and Proposition \[Prop Igusa\], we obtain \(i) $E_{\infty}\in C^{\infty }\left( K^{\times}\right) $; \(ii) $E_{\infty}$ behaves like a Schwartz function of $z$ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}$ tends to infinity; \(iii) we have the asymptotic expansion $$E_{\infty}(z)\approx {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda}} \text{ } {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}+\delta_{\lambda}}} A_{\lambda,m}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1}\text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow0,\label{E2Exp}$$ where $\lambda$ runs over $\Lambda \cup d_K\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. More precisely, we have the following. By Proposition \[Prop Igusa\](3), $w_\chi(\lambda+1)$ can only be zero if $\lambda\in d_K\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. Hence, if $\lambda \notin d_K\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, or if $\lambda \in d_K\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $m\leq m_\lambda$, the coefficients $A_{\lambda,m}$ in (\[E2Exp\]) are explicitly determined by the coefficients $b_{\lambda,m}$ in (\[Fkey\_Exp\]). But for $\lambda \in d_K\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, the coefficients $A_{\lambda,m_\lambda+1}$ are not determined by (\[Fkey\_Exp\]), and can be nonzero. In particular, $|z|_K^0$ can appear with nonzero coefficient $A_{0,1}$ in (\[E2Exp\]). We claim that this coefficient must be a constant. Indeed, again by Proposition \[Prop Igusa\](3), $w_{\chi_l}(1)=0$ if and only if $1=1+\frac1{[K:\mathbb{R}]}(|l|+2k)$ for some $k\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. This can only occur when $l=0$. Hence, writing $A_{0,1,\chi_l}$ for the Fourier coefficients of $A_{0,1}$, i.e., $$A_{0,1}= \sum_l A_{0,1,\chi_l} \chi_l ,$$ we obtain from (\[relatebtoc\]) that $A_{0,1,\chi_l}=0$ for $l\neq 0$. Since $\chi_0$ is the trivial character, we conclude that $A_{0,1}$ is the constant function $A_{0,1,\chi_0}$. This is consistent with the fact that we should have a constant in the expansion of $E_{\infty}(z)$: from its definition it should be $E_{\infty}(0)=\int_{X_K\setminus \sigma^{-1} D_K} (\Phi_\infty)(y)\, |\sigma^* dx|_K$. Note that, in the formulation of the theorem, we put this constant on the left hand side; for this reason we must consider only $\lambda>0$ in the asymptotic expansion. Related to the last part of the proof above: according to [@I3 II Theorem 3.1], $E_{\infty}(0)$ exists if and only if $F_{\infty}\in L^1(K)$. This last assertion is indeed true, since the powers of $|u|_K$ in the expansion (\[Fkey\_Exp\]) are (strictly) smaller than $-1$. The treatment of oscillatory integrals over $p$-fields is completely similar. \[Prop1p\] Let $K$ be a $p$-field. We denote by $m_{\lambda}$ the order of a pole $\lambda $ of $Z_\Phi\left( \omega;f/g\right)$. \(1) Then $E_0\left( z\right) $ has an expansion of the form $$E_0\left( z\right) = {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda <0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}}} A_{\lambda,m}\left( ac\ z\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1} \label{Asim_E_1}$$ for sufficiently large $|z|_K$, where $\lambda$ runs through all the poles$\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$ with negative real part of $Z_\Phi\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ (for all $\omega$), and each $A_{\lambda,m}$ is a locally constant function on $R_K^\times$. \(2) Writing $\omega=\omega_s\chi(ac)$, we have that $A_{\lambda,m_\lambda}=0$ if $\chi=1$ and $\lambda= -1\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$. This can be shown using the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[propE0\]. The refinement now follows from [@I3 I Theorem 5.3] and Proposition \[Prop Igusa\]. \[Prop2p\] Let $K$ be a $p$-field. We denote by $m_{\lambda}$ the order of a pole $\lambda $ of $Z_\Phi\left( \omega;f/g\right)$. Then $E_\infty\left( z\right) $ has an expansion of the form $$E_{\infty}\left( z\right) -C= {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\lambda >0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\lambda}}} A_{\lambda,m}\left( ac\ z\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\lambda}\left( \ln\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right) ^{m-1} \label{Asim_E_1}$$ for sufficiently small $|z|_K$, where $C=E_\infty(0)$ is a constant, $\lambda$ runs through all the poles$\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$ with positive real part of $Z_\Phi\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ (for all $\omega$), and each $A_{\lambda,m}$ is a locally constant function on $R_K^\times$. This can be shown using the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[PropEinfty\]. For $p$-fields however, Proposition \[Prop Igusa\](3) is easier, saying that $w_\chi(\lambda+1)=0$ only if $\chi=1$ and $\lambda=0$$\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$, yielding as only extra term the constant $C=E_\infty(0)$. Expansions for oscillatory integrals {#section expansions} ==================================== Expansion for $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) $ as $z$ approaches zero ------------------------------------------------------------------- We start with an obvious lemma, and show explicitly the result for $\mathbb{R}$-fields. The proof for $p$-fields is analogous. \[Lemma4\] With the notation of Subsection \[subsection set-up resolution\], we have that $$\lim_{z\rightarrow0}E_{1}\left( z\right) =\lim_{z\rightarrow0}E_{3}\left( z\right)= {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right)\left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K}.$$ This follows from the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem. \[Esmallz\] Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field; we put $d_K:=1$ if $K=\mathbb{R}$ and $d_K:=1/2$ if $K=\mathbb{C}$. We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. If $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ has a positive pole for some $\omega$, then $$\begin{aligned} E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) -% {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K} & \approx\\% {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\gamma>0}} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma}+\delta_\gamma}} e_{\gamma,m}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\gamma}\left( \ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right)^{m-1} \text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} & \rightarrow0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ runs trough $d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and all the positive poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $, for all $\omega\in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$, that are not in $d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$, with $m_{\gamma}$ the order of $\gamma$, and with $\delta_{\gamma}=0$ if $\gamma \notin d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and $\delta_{\gamma}=1$ if $\gamma\in d_K\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$. Finally, each $e_{\gamma,m}$ is a smooth function on $\left\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid \left\vert u\right\vert _{K}=1\right\}$. By the definitions in Subsections \[subsection set-up resolution\] and \[subsection auxexpansions\], we have that $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) $ is the sum of $E_{\infty}\left( z\right)$ and a linear combination of elementary integrals of types $E_{1}\left( z\right)$ and $E_{3}\left( z\right) $. By Lemma \[Lemma4\], the contributions of integrals of type $E_{1}\left( z\right) $ and $E_{3}\left( z\right) $ are constants. The asymptotic expansion of $E_{\infty}\left( z\right)$ was calculated in Proposition \[PropEinfty\]. Finally, the sum of all constants that appear in the calculations equals $\int_{K^{n}}\Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K}$, by the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem. \[Esmallz-p\] Let $K$ be a $p$-field. We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. If $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ has a pole with positive real part for some $\omega$, then $$\begin{aligned} E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) - {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K} & =\\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\gamma>0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma}}} e_{\gamma,m}\left( ac \, z\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\gamma}\left( \ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right)^{m-1} & \text{ for sufficiently small }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ runs trough all the poles$\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$ with positive real part of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $, for all $\omega\in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$, and with $m_{\gamma}$ the order of $\gamma$. Finally, each $e_{\gamma,m}$ is a locally constant function on $R_K^\times$. Expansion for $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) $ as $z$ approaches infinity ----------------------------------------------------------------------- We start with two useful preliminary facts. \[finitecriticalvalues\] Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field or a $p$-field. Let $h: V\to K$ be a non-constant $K$-analytic function on an open set $V$ in $K^n$, and $D$ a compact subset of $V$. Then the restriction of $h$ to a small neighborhood of $D$ has only finitely many critical values. This is well known to the experts. For $K=\mathbb{R}$, it follows from an appropriate version of the curve selection lemma, see e.g. [@O Corollary 1.6.1]. We sketch an alternative argument that also works for $p$-fields $K$. Consider the restriction of $h$ to a small neighborhood of $D$. Because $D$ is compact, the image of the critical set of this restriction is globally subanalytic in $K$ (we refer to [@D-vdD],[@vdD-H-M],[@C] for $p$-fields). Since, by Sard’s theorem, this image is also of measure zero, it can only consist of a finite set of points. For $K=\mathbb{C}$, the statement follows from the real case by considering $h$ as a map from $V\subset \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$ and by the Cauchy-Riemann equations. As before, let $\Theta$ be the characteristic function of a small polydisc around the origin, or a smooth function supported in the polydisc $$\left\{ y\in K^{n}\mid\left\vert y_{j}\right\vert_K <1\text{ for }j=1,\ldots ,n\right\} ,$$ according as $K$ is a $p$-field or an $\mathbb{R}$-field. We consider a special case of the integral $E_3$ of (\[E\_3\]), namely $$\begin{aligned} E'_{3}\left( z\right) :&= {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right) \Psi\big( z \cdot (1+y_1)\big) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=2}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K} \\ &= \Psi(z) {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right) \Psi( z \cdot y_1) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=2}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K}. \label{E'_3} \end{aligned}$$ Note that $y_1$ does not occur in the product in the integrand. \[Lemma4bis\] (1) Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. Then $E'_{3}\left( z\right) =O\left( \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{-k}\right) $ as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow \infty$, for any positive number $k$. \(2) Let $K$ be a $p$-field. Then $E'_{3}\left( z\right)=0$ for sufficiently large $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}$. [*Note.*]{} This can be considered as a special case of (the proof of) Proposition \[propE0\](ii) and Proposition \[Prop1p\](ii), but we think that it is appropriate to mention an explicit elementary proof. \(1) If $K=\mathbb{R}$, we can rewrite $E'_{3}\left( z\right) $ by a standard computation as $$e^{2\pi \sqrt{-1}z} {\displaystyle\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}}} \Omega\left( y_{1}\right) e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} zy_{1}}\left\vert dy_{1}\right\vert _{\mathbb{R}},$$ where $\Omega\left( y_{1}\right) $ is a smooth function supported in $\left\{ y_{1}\in\mathbb{R}\mid\left\vert y_{1}\right\vert _{\mathbb{R} }<1\right\} $ (by Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem). The result follows by using repeated integration by parts. If $K=\mathbb{C}$, we take $y_{1}=y_{11}+\sqrt{-1}y_{12}$ with $y_{11},y_{12}\in\mathbb{R}$, and $z=z_{1}+\sqrt{-1}z_{2}=|z|_{\mathbb{C}}(\widetilde{z}_{1}+\sqrt{-1}\widetilde{z}_{2})$, with $z_{1},z_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$. Then $E'_{3}\left( z\right) $ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} &e^{4\pi \sqrt{-1}z_{1}} {\displaystyle\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}} \Omega\left( y_{11},y_{12}\right) e^{4\pi \sqrt{-1}\left( y_{11}z_{1}-y_{12} z_{2}\right) }\left\vert dy_{11}dy_{12}\right\vert _{\mathbb{R}}\nonumber\\ =&\ e^{4\pi \sqrt{-1}z_{1}} {\displaystyle\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}} \Omega\left( y_{11},y_{12}\right) e^{4\pi \sqrt{-1}\left\vert z\right\vert _{\mathbb{C}}\left( y_{11}\widetilde{z}_{1}-y_{12}\widetilde{z}_{2}\right) }\left\vert dy_{11}dy_{12}\right\vert _{\mathbb{R}}, \label{osc_integral}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is a smooth function with support in $\left\{ \left( y_{11},y_{12}\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{2}\mid y_{11}^{2} +y_{12}^{2}<1\right\} $. Since we are interested in the behavior of (\[osc\_integral\]) for $\left\vert z\right\vert _{\mathbb{C}}$ big enough, we may assume that $z_{1}$ or $z_{2}$ is big enough; we consider for example the case that $z_{1}$ is big enough. Fixing $\widetilde{z}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{z}_{2}$, we perform the change of variables $y_{11}=\frac{u_{1}}{\widetilde{z}_{1}}+\frac{u_{2}\widetilde{z}_{2}% }{\widetilde{z}_{1}}$, $y_{12}=u_{2}$, reducing the asymptotics of (\[osc\_integral\]) to the asymptotics of the integrals considered in the case $K=\mathbb{R}$. \(2) Say $\Theta$ is the characteristic function of $(P^eR_K)^n$. Then $$E'_{3}\left( z\right) = C \Psi(z)\int_{P^eR_K} \Psi\big( z \cdot y_1)\big) \left\vert dy_1\right\vert _{K},$$ with $C$ a constant, and this integral vanishes when $|z|_K > q^{-e}$. \[diffform\]In Lemma \[Lemma4bis\], it is crucial that the integrand in (\[E’\_3\]) does not contain a factor $\left\vert y_{1}\right\vert_K ^{v_{1}-1}$ with $v_1 >1$. Indeed, for example in the $p$-field case we have that an integral like $$\int_{\mathbb{Z}_p} \Psi \big( z(1+y)\big) |y|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{v-1} |dy|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$$ does not vanish for sufficiently large $|z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$. (A straightforward computation shows that it equals $$\Psi(z) \, \frac{1-p^{v-1}}{1-p^{-v}} \, |z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{-v}$$ when $|z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \geq p$.) Similarly, when $K=\mathbb{R}$, consider the integral $$\int_{\mathbb{R}} \Phi(y) \Psi \big( z(1+y)\big) |y|_{\mathbb{R}}^{v-1} |dy|_{\mathbb{R}}$$ with $v$ even, $\Phi$ positive and $\Phi(0)>0$. Then in the asymptotic expansion of this integral as $\left\vert z\right\vert_{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \infty$, we have that the term $\Psi(z) |z|_{\mathbb{R}}^{-v}$ appears with non-zero coefficient, see e.g. [@AVG p. 183]. In particular, the assertion of Lemma \[Lemma4bis\](1) cannot be true. For an analytic function $f$, the only relevant expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f\right) $ is as $|z|_K \to \infty$. It depends on all critical points of $f$, but typically one assumes that $$\label{critical} C_f \cap \operatorname{supp} \Phi \subset f^{-1}(0) .$$ This assumption is not really restrictive, because, by Lemma \[finitecriticalvalues\], $f$ has only finitely many critical values on the support of $\Phi$. Hence, one can reduce to the situation (\[critical\]) by partitioning the original support of $\Phi$ and applying a translation. Note however that, when $c\in K^\times$ is a critical value of $f$ and $C_f \cap \operatorname{supp} \Phi \subset f^{-1}(c)$, we have that $$E_{\Phi}( z;f) =E_{\Phi}( z;c+(f-c))= \Psi(c\cdot z) E_{\Phi}( z;f-c).$$ Therefore, in expansions like in Proposition \[propE0\], all terms will contain an additional factor $\Psi(c\cdot z)$. The explicit expansion of $E_{\Phi}( z;f)$ as $|z|_K \to \infty$, without any assumption on $C_f \cap \operatorname{supp} \Phi$, and hence involving factors $\Psi(c\cdot z)$ for all critical values $c$ of $f$, was treated for $p$-fields in [@D-V Proposition 2.7] (when $f$ is a polynomial). Now for our object of study $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) $, one [*cannot*]{} reduce the problem to a case like (\[critical\]) by pulling back the integral $E_{\Phi}( z;f/g)$ to the manifold $X_K$ and by restricting the support of $\Phi$. Indeed, suppose that $f$ and $g$ have at least one common zero in $K^n$, say $P$ (this is of course the interesting situation). Fixing an adapted embedded resolution $\sigma$ of $D_K$, it turns out that, as soon as $P\in \supp \Phi$, one must take into account factors $\Psi(c\cdot z)$, where $c$ is a critical value of $\rho=(f/g) \circ \sigma$ or another special value of $\rho$, defined below. We keep using the notation of Subsection \[subsection set-up resolution\]. In particular we consider around each $b\in X_K$ local coordinates $y$ in a small enough polydisc $B$, such that $|\sigma^*dx|_K$ is locally of the form $\prod_{i=1}^n |y_i|_K^{v_i-1}|dy|_K$, and $\rho$ is locally in $y$ a monomial, the inverse of a monomial, or invertible, according as $\rho(b)$ is $0$, $\infty$, or in $K^\times$. \[specialpoints\]We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. We fix an adapted embedded resolution $\sigma$ of $D_K$, for which we use the notation of Subsection \[subsection set-up resolution\]. For a point $b\in \sigma^{-1}D_K$ that is not a critical point of $\rho$ and for which $c=\rho(b)\in K^\times$, we have in local coordinates $y$ that $\rho$ is of the form $c+\ell(y)+h(y)$, where $\ell(y)$ is a non-zero linear form and $h(y)$ consists of higher order terms. We define $\mathcal {S} \subset X_K$ as the set of [*special points*]{} of $\rho$, being the union of the critical points of $\rho$ and the non-critical points $b$ as above for which $\ell(y)$ is linearly dependent on the $y_i$ with $v_i>1$. \[examplecritical\] With notation as before, we take $U=K^2$ and $\Phi$ such that $\Phi(0)\neq 0$. Let $$\begin{aligned} &(1)\quad f=x^2-y^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad g=x^2, \quad\text{or} \\ &(2)\quad f=x^2+x^3-y^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad g=x^2.\end{aligned}$$ In both cases we obtain an adapted embedded resolution $\sigma:X_K\to K^2$ simply by blowing up at the origin of $K^2$. Consider the chart $V$ of $X_K$ with coordinates $x_1,y_1$ given by $x=x_1, y= x_1y_1$. On $V$ the exceptional curve $E_1$ is given by $x_1=0$ and $\rho= (f/g)\circ \sigma$ is given by $$(1)\quad \rho = 1-y_1^2 \qquad\text{or} \qquad (2)\quad \rho = 1+x_1-y_1^2,$$ respectively. The point $(x_1,y_1)=(0,0)$ is a critical point of $\rho$ in case (1) and a non-critical special point of $\rho$ in case (2). One easily verifies that in both cases there are no other special points. Note that in the classical theory of Igusa, studying expansions of polynomial/analytic functions $f$, a non-critical special point cannot occur. Indeed, with the notation of Definition \[specialpoints\], then all $v_i=1$ for a point $b\in X_K$ satisfying $\rho(b)\in K^\times$. The set $\rho\big(\mathcal {S}\cap\supp(\sigma^*\Phi)\big)$ is finite. In order to simplify notation, we assume for each point $b\in \supp(\sigma^*\Phi)$ that exactly $y_{k+1},\dots,y_n$ satisfy $v_i>1$, where $k\geq 0$. (This can be achieved after a permutation of the coordinates $y$ in $B$.) We consider in $B$ the subset $$\mathcal {S}_b := \{a\in B\cap \mathcal {S} \mid a \text{ has local coordinates } (a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k,0,\dots,0)\} . %$$\_b := {aB a = (a\_1,a\_2,…,a\_k,0,…,0) a\_1a\_2a\_k 0} . $$ The union of all these $\mathcal {S}_b$ contains $\mathcal {S}\cap\supp(\sigma^*\Phi)$. Hence, by compactness of $\supp(\sigma^*\Phi)$, it is enough to show that each $\rho(\mathcal {S}_b)$ is finite. Note that there are only finitely many points $b\in X_K$ for which all $v_i>1$, because they correspond to the (finitely many) intersection points of exactly $n$ of the components $E_j, j\in T,$ for which $E_j \cap \supp(\sigma^*\Phi) \neq \emptyset$. Therefore, we may take $k\geq 1$ above. Assume first that $\rho(b)\in K^\times$, and write $\rho$ in the local coordinates $y$ as $$w(y_1,\dots,y_k) + w'(y_1,\dots,y_n),$$ where $w$ depends only on $y_1,\dots,y_k$ and $w'$ belongs to the ideal generated by $y_{k+1},\dots,y_n$. (In particular the constant term of $w$ is precisely $\rho(b)$.) By definition of $\mathcal {S}$, the points $a=(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k,0,\dots,0)$ in $\mathcal {S}_b$ satisfy $$0=\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial y_i}(a) = \frac{\partial w}{\partial y_i}(a_1,\dots,a_k)$$ for all $i=1,\dots, k$. Hence, these are critical points of the function $w$, and then, by Lemma \[finitecriticalvalues\], we conclude that $w(\mathcal {S}_b) = \rho(\mathcal {S}_b)$ is finite. When $\rho(b)=0$, the function $\rho$ is monomial in the local coordinates $y$, and hence $\rho(B\cap\mathcal {S})$ is $\{0\}$ or empty. Similarly, when $\rho(b)=\infty$, we have that $\rho(B\cap\mathcal {S})$ is $\{\infty\}$ or empty. \[specialvalues\]We denote $\mathcal {V} := \rho\big(\mathcal {S}\cap\supp(\sigma^*\Phi)\big) \setminus \{\infty\}$, the set of [*special values*]{}. Here we discard $\infty$ in order to simplify the notation for the summation set in the theorems below. In Example \[examplecritical\], we have twice $\mathcal {V} = \{1\}$. \[thmEinfty\] Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. Let $\mathcal {V}$ be the set of special values as in Definition \[specialvalues\]. \(1) If $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g - c\right)$ has a negative pole for some $c\in \mathcal {V}$ and some $\omega$, then $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) \approx \sum_{c\in \mathcal {V}} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\gamma_c<0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma_c}}} e_{\gamma_c,m,c}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \Psi(c\cdot z) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\gamma_c}\left( \ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right)^{m-1} \text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} \rightarrow \infty,$$ where $\gamma_c$ runs trough all the negative poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g-c\right) $, for all $\omega\in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$, and with $m_{\gamma_c}$ the order of $\gamma_c$. Finally, each $e_{\gamma_c,m,c}$ is a smooth function on $\{ u\in K^{\times}\mid$ $\left\vert u\right\vert_{K}=1\}$. \(2) Writing $\omega=\omega_s\chi_l(ac)$, we have that $e_{\gamma_c,m_{\gamma_c},c}=0$ if $|\gamma_c| \in 1+\frac{1}{[K:\mathbb{R}]} (|l| + 2\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0})$. We construct an embedded resolution $\tilde \sigma: X'_K \to X_K$ of $$D'_K:= \sigma^{-1}(D_K) \cup (\cup_{c\in \mathcal {V}\setminus\{0\}} \rho^{-1}\{c\}),$$ where we assume that $\tilde \sigma$ is a $K$-analytic isomorphism outside the inverse image of $D'_K$. Since $c\neq 0,\infty$ above, we have in particular that $\tilde \sigma$ is an isomorphism on sufficiently small neighborhoods of $\rho^{-1}\{0\}$ and $\rho^{-1}\{\infty\}$. Instead of working with $\sigma$ and $\rho$, we now work with the compositions $\sigma'=\sigma \circ \tilde \sigma: X'_K \to U$ and $\rho'= \rho \circ \tilde \sigma: X'_K \to \mathbb{P}^1$. We also use now $y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ as local coordinates on $X'_K$. Again, we study $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)= \int_{X'_K\setminus (\sigma')^{-1} D_K} \big((\sigma')^* \Phi\big)(y)\, \Psi \big(z\cdot \rho'(y)\big)\, |(\sigma')^* dx|_K$$ via local contributions, similarly as in Subsection \[subsection auxexpansions\], but now fixing a more refined appropriate decomposition of $(\sigma')^* \Phi$. We cover the (compact) support of $(\sigma')^* \Phi$ by finitely many polydiscs $B_j, j\in J,$ as before, making sure that the (compact) fibres $(\rho')^{-1}\{c\}\cap \supp ((\sigma')^* \Phi)$, for all $c\in \mathcal {V}\cup\{0,\infty\}$, are completely covered by certain $B_j, j\in J_c \subset J,$ with centre $b_j$ mapped by $\rho$ to $c$. (Note that possibly $0 \notin \mathcal {V}$, as in Example \[examplecritical\].) We define $\Phi_c$, for $c\in \mathcal {V}\cup\{0,\infty\}$, as the restriction of $(\sigma')^* \Phi$ to $\cup_{j\in J_c}B_j$, modified by the partition of the unity that induces the functions $\Theta$ of Subsection \[subsection set-up resolution\] on the local charts $B_j$. Besides the contributions $E_0(z)$ and $E_\infty(z)$ as in Subsection \[subsection auxexpansions\], we now define also for $c\in \mathcal {V}\setminus\{0\}$ the contribution $$E_{c}\left( z\right)= \int_{X'_K\setminus (\sigma')^{-1} D_K} (\Phi_c)(y)\, \Psi \big(z\cdot \rho'(y)\big)\, |(\sigma')^* dx|_K .$$ Then we have that $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) $ is the sum of $E_{\infty}\left( z\right)$, $E_{0}\left( z\right)$, the $E_{c}\left( z\right)$ with $c\in \mathcal {V}\setminus\{0\}$, and of a linear combination of elementary integrals of type $E_{3}\left( z\right) $ as in (\[E\_3\]) for which $c=\rho'(b)\notin\mathcal{V}$. We first consider this last type of contributions. We rewrite $$E_{3}\left( z\right) = \Psi\big( z \cdot c \big){\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Theta\left( y\right) \Psi\big( z \cdot (u(y)-c) \big) \left( {\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n} \left\vert y_{i}\right\vert_K ^{v_{i}-1}\right) \left\vert dy\right\vert _{K}. \label{problemintegral}$$ Then, maybe after restricting the support of $\Theta$, the integral above can be rewritten in the form (\[E’\_3\]) by a change of coordinates. By Lemma \[Lemma4bis\], there is no contribution to the asymptotic expansion as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow \infty$. Next, we saw in the proof of Proposition \[PropEinfty\] that $E_{\infty}\left( z\right)$ behaves like a Schwartz function as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow \infty$, and hence also does not contribute to the asymptotic expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$. The expansion of $E_{0}\left( z\right)$ was calculated in Proposition \[propE0\]. Finally, we apply (the proof of) Proposition \[propE0\] to obtain for $c\in \mathcal {V}\setminus\{0\}$ the similar expansion $$\Psi(c\cdot z) {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\gamma_c<0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma_c}}} e_{\gamma_c,m,c}\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }\right) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\gamma_c}\left( \ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right)^{m-1} \text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} \rightarrow \infty$$ of $E_{c}\left( z\right)$, together with the vanishing property in (2). All together, this yields the expansion in the statement, summing over all $c\in \mathcal {V}$. Note that indeed, in the special case where $0 \notin \mathcal {V}$, also $E_{0}\left( z\right)$ behaves like a Schwartz function as $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\rightarrow \infty$ and does not contribute to the total asymptotic expansion (by Proposition \[propE0\](ii) or Lemma \[Lemma4bis\]). The following similar result in the $p$-field case is proven analogously, now invoking Propositions \[Prop1p\] and \[Prop2p\] instead of their real versions. \[thmEinfty-p\] Let $K$ be a $p$-field. We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. Let $\mathcal {V}$ be the set of special values as in Definition \[specialvalues\]. \(1) If $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g - c\right)$ has a pole with negative real part for some $c$ and some $\omega$, then $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) = \sum_{c\in \mathcal {V}} {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\gamma_c<0}}\ {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=1}^{m_{\gamma_c}}} e_{\gamma_c,m,c}\left( ac\ z \right) \Psi(c\cdot z) \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{\gamma_c}\left( \ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\right)^{m-1}$$ for sufficiently large $\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}$, where $\gamma_c$ runs trough all the poles$\mod 2\pi\sqrt{-1}/\ln q$ with negative real part of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g-c\right) $, for all $\omega\in\Omega\left( K^{\times}\right)$, and with $m_{\gamma_c}$ the order of $\gamma_c$. Finally, each $e_{\gamma_c,m,c}$ is a locally constant function on $R_K^\times$. \(2) Writing $\omega=\omega_s\chi(ac)$, we have that $e_{\gamma_c,m_{\gamma_c},c}=0$ if $\chi=1$ and $\gamma_c= -1\mod 2\pi i / \ln q$. The form of our expansions in Theorems \[Esmallz-p\] and \[thmEinfty-p\] is consistent with the results in [@CGH] and [@CL], where a similar form of such expansions is derived for $p$ big enough, in a more general setting, but without information on the powers of $|z|_K$ and $\ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}$. Examples -------- \[examplecritical1\]We continue the study of case (1) of Example \[examplecritical\] when $K$ is a $p$-field. In that case the map $\sigma$ is also an embedded resolution of $\rho^{-1}\{1\}$. The exceptional curve $E_1$ has datum $(N_1,v_1)=(0,2)$. \(1) The fibre $\rho^{-1}\{0\}$ is the strict transform of $f^{-1}\{0\}$ and consists of two (disjoint) components with datum $(1,1)$. Hence the only possible negative real part of a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ is $-1$. Moreover, by Remark \[remarkpoles-p\], such a pole occurs only if $\chi$ is trivial, and it must be of the form $-1+\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{\ln q} k, k\in \mathbb{Z}$. The fibre $\rho^{-1}\{1\}$ is given (as a set) by $y_1=0$ in the chart $V$ and it has datum $(2,1)$, with respect to the function $\rho -1$. Then the only possible negative real part of a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g-1\right) $ is $-\frac 12$. By Theorem \[Theorem1\] and Remark \[remarkpoles-p\], it can only occur if the order of $\chi$ is $1$ or $2$, and it must be of the form $-\frac 12 +\frac{\pi\sqrt{-1}}{\ln q} k, k\in \mathbb{Z}$. (Clearly all poles are of order $1$.) Hence Theorem \[thmEinfty-p\] predicts the following possible terms in the expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$ for sufficiently large $|z|_K$: $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{-1/2}$ and $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{-1/2} (-1)^{ord (z)}$. Note that there should be no term $|z|_K^{-1}$ because of part $(2)$ of that theorem. As an illustration, we consider the concrete case $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$ with $p\neq 2$, and $\Phi$ the characteristic function of $\mathbb{Z}_p^2$. Then, using Theorem \[TheoremDenef\] or with elementary calculations, one can verify that $$\label{Zinfirstexample} Z_{\Phi}\left(\omega;f/g\right)= \frac{p^{1+s}+p^2(p-2)p^{-s}+p^{2-2s}-2p+1}{(p+1)(p^{1+s}-1)(p^{1-2s}-1)}$$ and $$Z_{\Phi}\left(\omega;f/g-1\right)= \frac{(p-1)^2}{(p^{1+2s}-1)(p^{1-2s}-1)}.$$ And with some more effort, one can compute the following explicit expression for $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$ in this case: $$E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)= \frac{p}{p+1} \Psi(z) \eta_p(-z)\, |z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{-1/2}$$ for sufficiently large $|z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$. Here $$\eta_p(a) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{lll} 1 & \text{if} & ord(a) \text{ is even} \\ & & \\ \left(\frac{a_0}p\right) & \text{if} & ord(a) \text{ is odd and } p\equiv 1\!\mod 4 \\ & & \\ \sqrt{-1} \left(\frac{a_0}p\right) & \text{if} & ord(a) \text{ is odd and } p\equiv 3\!\mod 4 , \end{array} \right.$$ where $a=p^{ord(a)}(a_0+a_1p+a_2p^2+\dots)$ and the $a_i \in \{0,\dots, p-1\}$. At first sight, this may seem different from the description above, but $\eta_p(-z) |z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{-1/2}$ can be written as a combination of $|z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{-1/2}$ and $|z|_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{-1/2} (-1)^{ord (z)}$. \(2) The fibre $\rho^{-1}\{\infty\}$ is the strict transform of $g^{-1}\{0\}$ and has datum $(-2,1)$. Hence the only possible positive real part of a pole of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ is $\frac 12$. Then Theorem \[Esmallz-p\] predicts the following possible terms in the expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$ for sufficiently small $|z|_K$: $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{1/2}$ and $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{1/2} (-1)^{ord (z)}$. In the concrete case above, one can analogously verify that this is precisely what happens. \[examplecritical2\]We continue similarly the study of case (2) of Example \[examplecritical\] when $K$ is a $p$-field. In that case the fibre $\rho^{-1}\{1\}$ is given by $x_1 -y_1^2=0$ in the chart $V$ and it has datum $(1,1)$, with respect to the function $\rho -1$. We need to perform two more blow-ups to obtain an embedded resolution of $\rho^{-1}\{1\}\cup E_1$. The two extra exceptional curves $E_2$ and $E_3$ have data $(N_2,v_2)=(1,3)$ and $(N_2,v_2)=(2,5)$, respectively, with respect to the function $\rho -1$. \(1) The fibre $\rho^{-1}\{0\}$ is again the strict transform of $f^{-1}\{0\}$ and consists now of one component with datum $(1,1)$. Then again the only possible poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) $ with negative real part must be of the form $-1+\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{\ln q} k, k\in \mathbb{Z}$, occurring only if $\chi$ is trivial. It is well known that $E_2$ does not contribute to poles of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g-1\right) $ (since it intersects only one other component); see for example [@D0], [@Lo1]. Then, by Theorem \[Theorem1\] and Remark \[remarkpoles-p\], the only possible poles with negative real part of $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g-1\right) $ are $-1+\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{\ln q} k, k\in \mathbb{Z}$, occurring only if $\chi$ is trivial, and $-\frac 52 +\frac{\pi\sqrt{-1}}{\ln q} k, k\in \mathbb{Z}$, occurring only if the order of $\chi$ is $1$ or $2$. (Clearly all poles are of order $1$.) Hence Theorem \[thmEinfty-p\] predicts the following possible terms in the expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$ for sufficiently large $|z|_K$: $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{-5/2}$ and $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{-5/2} (-1)^{ord (z)}$. Note again that there should be no terms $|z|_K^{-1}$ and $\Psi(z) |z|_K^{-1}$ because of part $(2)$ of that theorem. As an illustration, we consider now the concrete case $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$ with $p\neq 2$, and $\Phi$ the characteristic function of $(p\mathbb{Z}_p)^2$. The same computation as in (\[Zinfirstexample\]) yields $$Z_{\Phi}\left(\omega;f/g\right)= \frac{p^{1+s}+p^2(p-2)p^{-s}+p^{2-2s}-2p+1}{p^2(p+1)(p^{1+s}-1)(p^{1-2s}-1)} .$$ With a more elaborate computation, using Theorem \[TheoremDenef\], one can verify that $Z_{\Phi}\left(\omega;f/g-1\right)$ is $$%\begin{aligned} %&Z_{\Phi}\left(\omega;f/g-1\right)= \\ & \frac{(p-1)\big(-p^{4+2s} + (p^2-p+1)p^{4+s} + (-p^2+p-1)p^{2-s} +p^4-p^3+p^2-p+1 \big)}{p^2(p^{5+2s}-1)(p^{1+s}-1)(p^{1-2s}-1)}. %\end{aligned}$$ \(2) The terms in the expansion of $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$ for sufficiently small $|z|_K$ are as in Example \[examplecritical1\](2). Estimates --------- Our main theorems on asymptotic expansions for oscillatory integrals imply estimates for them, for large and small $|z|_K$, in terms of the largest negative pole $\beta$ and the smallest positive pole $\alpha$ of Definition \[defalphabeta\], respectively. In order to formulate them, we first introduce the orders of these poles. \[deforderalphabeta\] We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. \(1) Take $\alpha, \beta$ as in Definition \[defalphabeta\](1), depending on (the support of) $\Phi$. When $\alpha\neq+\infty$, we put $$\tilde m_{\alpha}:=\max_{\omega}\left\{ \text{order of }\alpha\text{\ as pole of }Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) \right\},$$ and when $\beta\neq-\infty$, we put $$\tilde m_{\beta}:=\max_{\omega}\left\{ \text{order of }\beta\text{\ as pole of }Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) \right\} .$$ (2) Whenever $T$ is finite, in particular when $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, we can take $\alpha, \beta$ as in Definition \[defalphabeta\](2), independent of $\Phi$. When $\alpha\neq+\infty$, we put $$\tilde m_{\alpha}:=\max_{\omega,\Phi}\left\{ \text{order of }\alpha\text{\ as pole of }Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) \right\},$$ and when $\beta\neq-\infty$, we put $$\tilde m_{\beta}:=\max_{\omega,\Phi}\left\{ \text{order of }\beta\text{\ as pole of }Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right) \right\} .$$ In both cases we call these numbers the [*order*]{} of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively. Note that they are less than or equal to $n$. Taking into account Theorem \[Theorem3\], the estimates for small and large $|z|_K$ below follow directly from Theorems \[Esmallz\] and \[Esmallz-p\], and Theorems \[thmEinfty\] and \[thmEinfty-p\], respectively. \[estimate0\] We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. \(1) Let $K$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-field. We put $\delta_{\alpha}=0$ if $\alpha \notin \frac1{[K:\mathbb{R}]}\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and $\delta_{\alpha}=1$ if $\alpha\in \frac1{[K:\mathbb{R}]}\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$. If $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ has a positive pole for some $\omega$, then there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\left\vert E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) - {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K}\right\vert \leq C\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{_{\alpha}}\big|\ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\big|^{\tilde m_{\alpha}+\delta_\alpha-1} \text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} \rightarrow0.$$ \(2) Let $K$ be $p$-field. If $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g\right)$ has a pole with positive real part for some $\omega$, then there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\left\vert E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) - {\displaystyle\int\limits_{K^{n}}} \Phi\left( x\right) \left\vert dx\right\vert _{K}\right\vert \leq C\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{_{\alpha}}\big|\ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\big|^{\tilde m_{\alpha}-1} \text{ for sufficiently small }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} .$$ Here in general $\alpha$ and $\tilde m_{\alpha}$ must be interpreted in the sense of Definitions \[defalphabeta\](1) and \[deforderalphabeta\](1), that is, depending on $\Phi$. Then also $\delta_{\alpha}$ and $C$ depend on $\Phi$. Whenever $T$ is finite, in particular when $f$ and $g$ are polynomials, one can consider $\alpha$ and $\tilde m_{\alpha}$ in the sense of Definitions \[defalphabeta\](2) and \[deforderalphabeta\](2). Then $C$, $\alpha$, $\delta_{\alpha}$ and $\tilde m_{\alpha}$ are independent of $\Phi$. A similar remark applies to the next theorem. \[estimateinfty\] We take $\frac{f}{g}:U\to K$ and $\Phi$ as in Section \[section preliminaries\]. Denote for $c\in \mathcal {V}$ the corresponding number $\beta$, associated in Definition \[defalphabeta\] to $f/g -c$, by $\beta_c$. We define $\beta_{\mathcal {V}}:= \max_{c\in \mathcal {V}} \beta_c$ and its associated order $\tilde m_{\beta_{\mathcal {V}}}$ as in Definition \[deforderalphabeta\]. Assume that for some $\omega$ and some $c\in \mathcal {V}$, the zeta function $Z_{\Phi}\left( \omega;f/g-c\right)$ has a negative pole or a pole with negative real part, according as $K$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-field or a $p$-field, for some $\omega$. Then there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\left\vert E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert z\right\vert _{K}^{_{\beta_{\mathcal {V}}}}\big|\ln \left\vert z\right\vert _{K}\big|^{\tilde m_{\beta_{\mathcal {V}}}-1}\qquad \text{ as }\left\vert z\right\vert _{K} \rightarrow \infty.$$ Let $K$ be a $p$-field. In the classical case, i.e., with $g=1$ and with $\Phi$ the characteristic function of $R_K^n$, the oscillatory integral $E_{\Phi}\left( z;f/g\right)$ becomes a traditional exponential sum. This fact is not true for a general $g$. Consider however the particular case of a non-degenerate Laurent polynomial $h(x) = \frac{f(x)}{x^m}$, where $f\in R_K [x_1,\dots,x_n]\setminus R_K$ and $x^m= \prod_{i=1}^n x_i^{m_i}$ (all $m_i\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$), and the associated exponential sum $$S_{\ell,u}(h) := q^{-\ell n} \sum_{\bar x \in \left((R_K/P_K^\ell)^\times\right)^n} \Psi\big( u\mathfrak{p}^{-\ell} h(\bar x)\big) ,$$ where $\ell \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and $u\in R_K^\times$. Then we have $$S_{\ell,u}(h) = \int_{(R_K^\times)^n} \Psi\big( u\mathfrak{p}^{-\ell} h(x)\big) |dx|_K . \label{lastformula}$$ Indeed, decompose $(R_K^\times)^n$ as $$(R_K^\times)^n = \coprod_{\bar x \in \left((R_K/P_K^\ell)^\times\right)^n} \tilde x + \mathfrak{p}^\ell R_K^n ,$$ where $\tilde x$ is a representative of $\bar x$. Then on each piece of the decomposition we have for all $y\in R_K^n$ that $h(\tilde x + \mathfrak{p}^\ell y)$ is of the form $$\frac{f(\tilde x + \mathfrak{p}^\ell y)}{(\tilde x + \mathfrak{p}^\ell y)^m} = \frac{f(\tilde x) + \mathfrak{p}^\ell A}{\tilde x^m + \mathfrak{p}^\ell B} = \frac{f(\tilde x) + \mathfrak{p}^\ell A}{\tilde x^m (1+ \mathfrak{p}^\ell B')} = \frac{f(\tilde x) + \mathfrak{p}^\ell C}{\tilde x^m}= \frac{f(\tilde x)}{\tilde x^m} + \mathfrak{p}^\ell D,$$ where $A,B,B',C,D \in R_K$, and the second and last equalities are valid because the components of $\tilde x$ are units. Hence $h(\tilde x + \mathfrak{p}^\ell y)$ is of the form $h(\tilde x) + \mathfrak{p}^\ell D$. This implies (\[lastformula\]). We can apply Theorem \[estimateinfty\] to the meromorphic function $h$ on $R_K^n$ and the characteristic function of $(R_K^\times)^n$ to obtain the estimate $$|S_{\ell,u}(h)| \leq C q^{\ell\beta_{\mathcal {V}}} {\ell}^{\tilde m_{\beta_{\mathcal {V}}} -1} \qquad \text{ for sufficiently large } \ell , \label{lastestimate}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant, and $\beta_{\mathcal {V}}$ and $m_{\beta_{\mathcal {V}}}$ are as in Theorem \[estimateinfty\]. Note however that this result can already be obtained using Igusa’s classical method for estimating exponential sums $\operatorname{mod}p^{\ell}$, due to the fact that $h$ is a regular function on $(R_K^\times)^n$. The estimation (\[lastestimate\]) can be considered as a $p$-adic (or $\operatorname{mod}p^{\ell}$) counterpart of the estimations for exponential sums attached to Laurent polynomials over finite fields, due to Denef and Loeser [@D-L-1]. [99]{} Adolphson A. and Sperber S., Exponential sums and Newton polyhedra: cohomology and estimates, Ann. of Math. 130 (1989), no. 2 367–406. Arnold V. I., Gussein-Zade S. M. and Varchenko A. N., Singularités des applications différentiables, Vol II, Éditions Mir, Moscou, 1986. Atiyah M. F., Resolution of singularities and division of distributions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 23 (1970), 145–150. Barlet D. and Maire, H.-M., Asymptotique des intégrales-fibres, Ann. Inst. Fourier 43 (1993), 1267–1299. Belkale P. and Brosnan P., Periods and Igusa local zeta functions, Int. Math. Res. Not. 49 (2003), 2655–2670. Bernstein I. N., Modules over the ring of differential operators; the study of fundamental solutions of equations with constant coefficients, Functional Analysis and its Applications 5 (1972), no. 2, 1–16. Bogner C. and Weinzierl S., Periods and Feynman integrals, J. Math. Phys. 50 (2009), no. 4, 042302, 16 pp. Bravo A., Encinas S. and Villamayor O., A simplified proof of desingularization and applicatons, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 21 (2005), 349–458. Brekke L., Freund P. G. O., Olson M. and Witten E., Non-Archimedean string dynamics. Nuclear Phys. B 302 (1988), no. 3, 365–402. Cluckers R., Analytic $p$-adic cell decomposition and integrals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), 1489–1499. Cluckers R., Gordon J. and Halupczok I., Motivic functions, integrability, and uniform in $p$ bounds for orbital integrals, Electronic Research Announcements in Math. (ERA) 21 (2014), 137–152. Cluckers R. and Loeser F., Constructible motivic functions and motivic integration, Inv. Math. 173 (2008), 23–121. Cluckers R. and Loeser F., Constructible exponential functions, motivic Fourier transform and transfer principle, Ann. Math. 171 (2010), 1011–1065. Denef J., Report on Igusa’s Local Zeta Function, Séminaire Bourbaki 43 (1990-1991), exp. 741; Astérisque 201-202-203 (1991), 359–386. Denef J., On the degree of Igusa’s local zeta function, Amer. J. Math. 109 (1987), 991–1008. Denef J. and van den Dries L., $p$-adic and real subanalytic sets, Ann. Math. 128 (1988), 79–138. Denef J. and Loeser F., Weights of exponential sums, intersection cohomology, and Newton polyhedra, Invent. Math. 106 (1991), no. 2, 275–294. Denef J. and Loeser F., Caractéristiques d’Euler-Poincaré, fonctions zêta locales et modifications analytiques, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1992), 705–720. Denef J. and Loeser F., Motivic Igusa zeta functions, J. Alg. Geom. 7 (1998), 505–537. Denef J. and Loeser F., Germs of arcs on singular algebraic varieties and motivic integration, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), 201–232. Denef J. and Veys W., On the holomorphy conjecture for Igusa’s local zeta function, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 123 (1995), 2981–2988. Encinas S., Nobile A. and Villamayor O., On algorithmic equi-resolution and stratification of Hilbert schemes, Proc. London Math. Soc. 86 (2003), no. 3, 607–648. Gel’fand  I. M. and Shilov G.E., Generalized Functions, vol 1., Academic Press, New York and London, 1977. Gonzalez Villa M. and Lemahieu A., The monodromy conjecture for plane meromorphic germs, Bull. London Math. Soc. 46 (2014), 441–453. Gusein-Zade S., Luengo, I. and Melle Hernández A., Bifurcations and topology of meromorphic germs. New developments in singularity theory (Cambridge, 2000), 279–304, NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., 21, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2001. Gusein-Zade S., Luengo I. and Melle-Hernández A, On the topology of germs of meromorphic functions and its applications. (Russian) Algebra i Analiz 11 (1999), no. 5, 92–99; translation in St. Petersburg Math. J. 11 (2000), no. 5, 775–780. Gusein-Zade S., Luengo, I. and Melle-Hernández A, Zeta functions of germs of meromorphic functions, and the Newton diagram. (Russian) Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 32 (1998), no. 2, 26–35, 95; translation in Funct. Anal. Appl. 32 (1998), no. 2, 93–99. Hironaka H., Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero, Ann. Math. 79 (1964), 109–326. Igusa J.-I., Forms of higher degree. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Lectures on Mathematics and Physics, 59. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay; by the Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, 1978, iv+175 pp. Igusa J-I., Some aspects of the arithmetic theory of polynomials. Discrete groups in geometry and analysis (New Haven, Conn., 1984), 20–47, Progr. Math., 67, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1987. Igusa J.-I., An introduction  to the theory of local zeta functions, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 14, 2000. Jacobs Ph., The distribution $|f|^{\lambda}$, oscillating integrals and principal value integrals, J. Anal. Math., 81 (2000), 343–372. Langlands R. P., Orbital integrals on forms of SL(3). I, Amer. J. Math., 105 (1983), 465–506. León-Cardenal E. and Zuniga-Galindo W. A., Local zeta functions for non-degenerate Laurent polynomials over $p$-adic fields, J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 20 (2013), no. 4, 569–595. Loeser F., Fonctions d’Igusa $p$-adiques et polynômes de Bernstein, Amer. J. Math. 110 (1988), 1–21. Loeser F., Fonctions zêta locales d’Igusa à plusiers variables, intégration dans les fibres, et discriminants, Ann. Sc. Ec. Norm. Sup. 22 (1989), no. 3, 435–471. Marcolli M., Feynman motives. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2010. Oka M., Non-Degenerate Complete Intersection Singularity, Herman, Paris, 1997. Raibaut M., Motivic Milnor fibers of a rational function, Rev. Mat. Complutense 26 (2013), 705–734. van den Dries L., Haskell D. and Macpherson D., One-dimensional $p$-adic subanalytic sets, J. London Math. Soc. 59 (1999), 1–20. Veys W., Arc spaces, motivic integration and stringy invariants, Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics , Proceedings of Singularity Theory and its applications, Sapporo (Japan), 16-25 September 2003 (to appear), 43p. Veys W. and Zuniga-Galindo W.A., Zeta functions for analytic mappings, log-principalization of ideals and Newton polyhedra, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), 2205–2227. Weil A., Sur la formule de Siegel dans la théorie des groupes classiques, Acta Math. 113 (1965), 1–87. Weil A., Basic Number Theory, Springer-Verlag 1967. Włodarczyk J., Simple Hironaka resolution in characteristic zero, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (2005), 779–822. Włodarczyk J., Resolution of singularities of analytic spaces, Proceedings of Gökova Geometry-Topology Conference 2008, 31–63, Gökova Geometry/Topology Conference (GGT), Gökova, 2009. [^1]: The first author was partially supported by the KU Leuven grant OT/11/069 [^2]: The second author was partially supported by the ABACUS Project, EDOMEX-2011-C01-165873

--- author: - | [Jesse Carlsson]{}\ \ Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements\ of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy\ \ School of Physics\ The University of Melbourne date: 'April 2003\' title: '[**Improvement and Analytic Techniques in Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theory**]{}\' ---

--- abstract: 'For the model electronic spectrum in the tight-binding approximation it is shown that the finite homogeneous deformation essentially increases the quantity of pairs of electronic states which are active in generation of atoms displacement waves. This conclusion gives additional possibilities for the explanation of features of the process of martensitic transformation.' --- INFLUENCE OF THE FINITE DEFORMATIONS CHANGING THE SYMMETRY OF AN INITIAL LATTICE ON A GENERATION OF ATOMS DISPLACEMENTS WAVES BY NON-EQUILIBRIUM ELECTRONS M.P.Kashchenko, N.A.Skorikova, V.G.Chashchina The process of generation of atomic displacement waves is energized by stimulated emission of phonons during transitions of the non-equilibrium 3d-electrons between the inversely occupied states. The microscopic theory of generation of waves controlling the martensite crystal growth (without taking into account deformation of a lattice) is in detail stated in [@bib:1]. The interphase region is characterized by the considerable chemical-potential gradient $\nabla \mu$. It is considered that chemical-potential gradient $\nabla \mu$ of electrons is defining the non-equilibrium degree. For simplicity of analysis it is assumed that $\nabla \mu$ exists in all volume. At the analysis of generation conditions such assumption is comprehensible inasmuch as the interphase region width (on the stage of growth of crystal) exceeds the lattice parameter on two or three order [@bib:1]. The initial inverse of population of pairs of electronic states $\sigma_{0}$ is proportional to $\nabla \mu$. The condition of generation is resulted in a reference view: $$\sigma_{0} > \sigma_{th},\quad \quad \sigma_{th} = \frac{\Gamma \varkappa}{\vert W \vert^{2}R_{ef}}. \label{eq1}$$ In (\[eq1\]) $\sigma_{th}$- threshold value of an inverse populations difference, which is proportional to the inherent attenuation $\Gamma$ of radiating electrons, as well as to the rate of damping $\varkappa$ of generation phonons and inversely proportional to the square of the matrix-element $W$ of electron-phonon interaction, as well as to the number of pairs of equidistant electronic states $R_{ef}$. The calculation of $R_{ef}$ has an important significance as the execution (\[eq1\]) is possible only for the large values of $R_{ef}$. In the quasi-momentum space s-surfaces separate pairs of inversely populated electronic states, on which convert in a zero projections of group speed of electrons with quasi-momentum k on a direction of spatial heterogeneity [@bib:2]. The equation for the s - surfaces is specified by the condition of conversion in zero of the scalar product of velocity and chemical-potential gradient vectors $$(\mathbf{v}, \nabla \mu)=0. \label{eq2}$$ It is interesting to calculate the $R_{ef}$ in an actual region of energies $\Delta$ of the order $0,1$eV in a vicinity of Fermi-level $\mu$. Hence it is necessary to find the area $\Delta S$ of s-surface portions located between the isoenergetic surfaces $\varepsilon = \mu \pm \Delta$ and to take into account that $R_{ef} \sim \Delta S$. An important stage that provides qualitative consideration and required estimation is the case of an electron energy spectrum in the tight-binding approximation for BCC and FCC lattices [@bib:3]. The point is that an analytical form of a spectrum allows to immediately establish an analytical form for an electron velocity field. Knowing the field one can find the s - surfaces. It is clear, that usage of electronic spectrum of a non-deformed (ideal) lattice is possible for small deformations and, basically, such usage is excused at the description of threshold deformation $\le 10^{-3}$ (about an elastic limit). However the question about an evolution of $R_{ef}$ during transformation is open. Let’s notice, that the large values of $R_{ef}$ are connected to electronic states having the energies $\varepsilon \approx \varepsilon_{p}$ where $\varepsilon_{p}$ is a peak of the density of states (DOS). The deformation should lead to displacement of a position $\varepsilon_{p}$ relatively of the Fermi-level $\mu$. For the symmetric peak of DOS not changing the form during deformation it would be possible to expect that the value $R_{ef}$ will increase at the decreasing of $\vert \varepsilon_{p} - \mu \vert$, whereas the value $R_{ef}$ will decrease at the increasing of $\vert \varepsilon_{p} - \mu \vert$. It is easy to present a non-monotonic behavior of $R_{ef}$, when during deformation the peak of DOS is displaced from a position above (below) the Fermi-level in a position below (above) the Fermi-level. Then $R_{ef}$ achieves a maximum at $\varepsilon_{p} \approx \mu$. Let’s remind that $\gamma-\alpha$ (fcc - bcc) martensitic transformation is a classical example of reconstructive transformation. This transformation is characterized by finite deformation (Bein’s deformation [@bib:4]) which onto two order exceeds the threshold deformation. Therefore it is interesting to consider the influence of deformation $\varepsilon \sim 0,1$. The threshold deformation at $\gamma-\alpha$ martensitic transformation as the basic components contains deformation of a stretching along an axis of symmetry of the fourth order initial fcc lattice. Therefore it is expedient to consider influence on $R_{ef}$ of the one-axis deformations of a stretching. Let’s designate deformation value $\varepsilon_{1}$, then we can write the elementary modified electron energy spectrum in the tight-binding approximation: $$\begin{gathered} E({\bf k}) = E_0-4 E_1\Big{(}\cos{\eta_1}\cos{\eta_2}+{}\\ {}+\frac{2}{1+(1+\varepsilon_1)^2} \cos{\eta_3(1+\varepsilon_1)} [\cos{\eta_1} +\cos{\eta_2}]\Big{)}, \label{eq3}\end{gathered}$$ where $E_{0}$ is the atomic energy level; $E_{1}$ is the parameter characterizing interaction with the first neighbors without strain; $\eta_{i}=\mathit{a}k_{i}/2$; $\mathit{a}$ is the lattice parameter; and $i = 1, 2, 3$. It is considered also, that, according to [@bib:5], $E_{1}$ is inversely proportional to a square of distance between the nearest neighbours. In (\[eq3\]) a change of these distances at deformation is taken into account. The direction $\mathbf{e}$ is collinear to axis of a stretching. The given case is the most simple for an interpretation of dependence $R_{ef}$ on deformation. Really, in the density of states corresponding to a spectrum, there is a unique peak. Displacement and change of the form of this peak during deformation are automatically calculated. Also all sheets of s - surfaces at the specified direction $\mathbf{e}$ are flat and their contribution in $\Delta S$ can be calculated in an actual region of energy. Fig.\[fig1\] demonstrates the change of peak of DOS during deformation. ![Evolution of peak of DOS during deformation for a spectrum (\[eq3\]) at $E_{0} = 0$ and $E_{1} = 0,3125$eV: a) $\varepsilon_{1} = 0$; b) $\varepsilon_{1} = 0,1$; c) $\varepsilon_{1} = 0,12$; d) $\varepsilon_{1} = 0,2$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig.1.eps){width="90.00000%"} From fig.\[fig1\] it is visible, that: the peak of DOS is asymmetrical; the peak height decreases at the growth of $\varepsilon_{1}$; the peak of DOS localized near the zone top is displaced in a direction to the center of the zone and is broadened. Let’s note, that during deformation Fermi-level $\mu$ also experiences the displacement to centre of a zone, however the rate of change of $\mu$ is noticeably lower, than the rate of change of $\varepsilon_{p}$. ![The dependence on deformation of dimensionless area $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$ for the case when $\Delta = 0,2$eV and $\mu = 0,8$eV.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig.2.eps){width="85.00000%"} On fig.\[fig2\] the dependence on deformation of dimensionless area $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$ of a s - surface portion is demonstrated for an energy interval $(0,6 \div 1,0)$eV, i.e. for the case when $\Delta = 0,2$eV and $\mu = 0,8$eV (without taking into account of the dependence of $\mu$ on $\varepsilon_{1}$). The analysis shows that the essential increment of area $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$ in the strain interval $(0,06 \div 0,4)$ (the greatest growth of rate of $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$ is achieved in narrow region $0,103 < \varepsilon_{1} < 0,116$) is caused by the states located on square planes of Brillouin zone (orthogonal to $\mathbf{e}$). The area of this square planes increases during deformation. At $\varepsilon_{1} < 0,06$ the states on these planes have a weak dispersion and lay above an interval $(\mu - \Delta , \mu + \Delta)$. For $\varepsilon_{1} > 0,06$ a part of states starts to get into an energy interval $(\mu - \Delta , \mu + \Delta)$. Their quantity achieves of a maximum at $\varepsilon_{1} \approx 0,3$. Let’s notices that the peak lays above the Fermi-level at $\varepsilon_{1} < 0,26$ $(\varepsilon_{p} - \mu > 0)$ and at $\varepsilon_{1} > 0,26$ lays under the Fermi-level $(\varepsilon_{p} - \mu < 0)$. The non-monotone behavior of $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$ as a whole is compounded with expected behavior. Really without taking into account of dependence of $\mu$ on $\varepsilon_{1}$ the condition $\varepsilon_{p} \approx \mu$ is realized at $\varepsilon_{1} \approx 0,25$ and $\varepsilon_{1} \approx 0,3$ corresponds to a maximum of $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$. Taking into account the lowering of $\mu$ during deformation the condition $\varepsilon_{p} \approx \mu$ can be executed for $\varepsilon_{1} > 0,44$. The maximum $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0)$ corresponds to value $\varepsilon_{1} \approx 0,46$. Thus, taking into account of dependence of $\mu$ on $\varepsilon_{1}$ we obtain that the difference of values of $\varepsilon_{1}$ corresponding to condition $\varepsilon_{p} \approx \mu$ and the requirement $\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/\Delta S(0) = (\Delta S(\varepsilon_{1})/ \Delta S(0))_{max}$ decreases (this difference does not access in a zero, as the peak of DOS is not symmetric). **Final remarks** 1. [As it was discussed in [@bib:1], the interphase region width has value that is approximately equal $\lambda/2$, where $\lambda$ is the wave length corresponding to a characteristic interval $(0,1\div 1)\,\mu$m in a hypersound range. It is clear, that electronic states being active in wave generation should have a weak dispersion. It is possible to consider [@bib:3] that velocity $\mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{k}}$ of such electrons is close to their velocity of drift vd and approximately is equal to $10^{4}$km/s. Then the possible contribution to attenuation $\Gamma$ in (\[eq1\]) caused by occurrence of additional heterogeneity scale of, does not exceed (in units of frequency) $\sim 10^{12}$s$^{-1}$. Inasmuch as such $\Gamma$ is being in the consent with the experimental data for samples in absence of the deformation [@bib:1] it is natural to expect that deformations is influenced, mainly, on $R_{ef}$. It is clear that in this case a dependence $R_{ef}(\varepsilon_{1})$ gives dependence $\sigma_{th}(\varepsilon_{1})$.]{} 2. [The considered example testifies about an opportunity of essential decrease of threshold value $\sigma_{th}$ during deformation. This conclusion is important for the description of a stage of growth of the crystal of martensite (when the lattice experiences the significant deformation after loss of stability) as well as for the description of the nucleation stage of martensitic crystals. It is gives additional arguments in favor of the mechanism of rigid excitation of initial fluctuations at reconstructive martensitic transformations ($\sigma_{th}$ is decreasing when the amplitudes of fluctuations are increasing).]{} 3. [It is possible to assume, that most intensive martensitic transformations take place in alloys of such composition for which the decreasing of $\sigma_{th}$ is typical during increasing deformation.]{} [5]{} M.P. Kashchenko, The wave model of martensite growth for the $\gamma-\alpha$ transformation of iron-based alloys, arXiv: cond-mat/0601569 v3, 2006. V.P. Vereshchagin, M.P. Kashchenko, FMM [**61**]{}, 237 (1986). M.P. Kashchenko, N.A. Skorikova, V.G. Chashchina, FMM [**99**]{}, 3 (2005). G.V. Kurdyumov, L.M. Utevski[i]{}, R.I. Entin, Prevrashcheniya v zheleze i stali, 1977, M.: Nauka. U. Harrison, Electronnaya struktura i svo[i]{}stva tverdih tel, 1983, M.: Mir.

--- abstract: 'In 2006, a final result of a measurement of the gravitational constant $G$ performed by researchers at the University of Zürich was published. A value of $G={\ensuremath 6.674\,252(122)\times 10^{-11}}\,{\ensuremath \mbox{m}^3\,\mbox{kg}^{-1}\,\mbox{s}^{-2}}$ was obtained after an experimental effort that lasted over one decade. Here, we briefly summarize the measurement and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.' author: - 'S. Schlamminger$^{1}$, R.E. Pixley$^{2}$, F. Nolting$^3$, J. Schurr$^4$ and U. Straumann$^{2}$' title: Reflections on a Measurement of the Gravitational Constant Using a Beam Balance and 13 Tons of Mercury --- Introduction ============ The existence of the Zürich $G$ experiment is due to an article published in 1986 by Fischbach et al.  [@Fischbach86] analyzing old data taken by von Eötvös [@eot22] to test the universality of free fall. A deviation was found in the intermediate-range (about 200m) coupling, giving rise to the so-called fifth force. The existence of such a fifth force at the strength conjectured in [@Fischbach86] was quickly found to be in error [@Stubbs87]. However, Fischbach’s article started a renaissance of gravity experiments at universities world wide. Walter Kündig at the University of Zürich started an experiment aimed at measuring the gravitational attraction between water in a storage lake (Gigerwald lake) and two masses suspended from a balance [@Cornaz94]. The experiment was conducted in two different configurations. First, the test masses were vertically separated by 63m, later by 104m. The magnitude of the gravitational attraction was measured as the water level varied seasonally over the course of several years. As a result of the experiment, two measurements of $G$ for an interaction range of 88 m and 112 m were obtained with relative standard-uncertainties of $1\times 10^{-3}$ and $7\times 10^{-4}$, respectively [@Hubler95]. The results were consistent with each other and consistent with the value of $G$ from laboratory determinations. Even today, 20 years after this experiment, its results place the most stringent limit on a possible violation of the inverse square law at distances ranging from 10m to 100m. The largest contribution to the uncertainty of each result came from the ambiguous mass distribution of the lake. It was unclear how far the lake water penetrated the shore composed mostly of scree. It was immediately recognized that one could use the same method for a precise determination of the gravitational constant if only one had a better defined lake. From this line of thinking, the concept of measuring $G$ in the laboratory was conceived and the design of the experiment started in 1994. Conceptually the experiment is similar to the Gigerwald experiment with one difference: the ”lake” was confined to two well characterized stainless-steel vessels each holding 500L of liquid. In a first experiment, water was used; later, the water was replaced with mercury yielding a much larger signal. The Zürich big $G$ experiment ended officially in 2006, when a final report [@Schlamminger06] on the experiment was published. The relevant details of the experiment have been summarized in the final report, two theses [@Nolting98; @Schlamminger02] and several shorter reports [@Schurr98a; @Schurr98b; @Nolting99a; @Nolting99b; @Nolting00; @Schlamminger02b]. The experiment’s principle ========================== The principle of the experiment is shown in figure \[fig:principle\]. A gravitational field is generated by two large cylinders labeled field masses (FMs). The gravitational field can be modulated by moving the FMs. During measurement, the FMs are in either one of two positions, labeled T for together and A for apart. Two test masses (TMs) are used to probe the gravitational field. The two test masses are alternately, but never concurrently, connected to a mass comparator (balance) at the top of the experiment each by a set of two wires and a mass exchanger. While the mass comparator is calibrated in units of kg, it is used as an instrument to measure vertical force with high accuracy. The balance is calibrated by adding calibration masses to the mass pan. The reading of the balance can be converted into a force by multiplying with the value of the local acceleration, $g=9.807\,233\,5(6)\,$m/s$^2$ which was measured at the site. ![Principle of the Zürich $G$ experiment. Either of the two test masses is suspended from the balance. The field masses are either in the position T (together) or A (apart) as shown on the left and right side of the figure respectively. The graphs to the side of the field masses show the vertical part of the gravitational field generated by the field masses along the symmetry axis in the center of the hollow cylinders. A downward force corresponds to a positive sign.[]{data-label="fig:principle"}](fig1_principle.pdf){width="5.25in"} In the together/apart state, the difference in the force on the upper and lower test mass are given by $$\begin{aligned} \Delta F_\mathrm{T} &=& m_\mathrm{u} g(z_\mathrm{u}) + F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{u}) - m_\mathrm{l} g(z_\mathrm{l}) - F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{l}) \\ \Delta F_\mathrm{A} &=& m_\mathrm{u} g(z_\mathrm{u}) + F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{u}) - m_\mathrm{l} g(z_\mathrm{l}) - F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{l}),\end{aligned}$$ where $F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{T},\mathrm{u}/\mathrm{l})$ denotes the vertical gravitational force between the complete field mass assembly in the A/T position and the upper/lower test mass. The difference, $\Delta F_\mathrm{T}-\Delta F_\mathrm{A}$ is the second difference or gravitational signal and is given by $$s = \Delta F_\mathrm{T}- \Delta F_\mathrm{A} = F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{u})-F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{u})-F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{l})+F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{l}) = G \Gamma.$$ It can be seen that the mass difference between the upper and lower test masses, as well as the value of local gravity and its gradient on the test masses vanish. In our convention a positive force points downward (increasing balance reading). With this convention, $F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{u})$ and $F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{l})$ are positive, but $F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{l})$ and $F_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{u})$ are negative. The second difference can be written as a product of $G$ and a mass integration constant $\Gamma$. The mass integration constant has units of kg$^2$/m$^2$ and depends solely on the mass distributions within the field masses, the test masses, and their relative positions in the two states. The size of the gravitational signal $s/g \approx 785\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g was determined with an accuracy of 14.3ng using a modified commercial mass comparator (Mettler Toledo AT1006[^1]). Off the shelf, this type of mass comparator is used at national metrology institutes to compare 1 kg weights with each other using the substitution method. The mass comparator is essentially a sophisticated beam balance, where a large fraction of the load on the mass pan is compensated by a fixed counter mass. Only a small part of the gravitational force on the mass pan is compensated by an electromagnetic actuator consisting of a stationary permanent magnet system and a current carrying coil attached to the balance beam. The current in the coil is controlled such that the beam remains in a constant position. The coil current is precisely measured and converted into kg. This value is shown on the display and can be transferred to a computer. Typically, the dynamic range of such a comparator is 24g around 1000g with a resolution of 100ng. The comparator used in the present experiment was modified in two ways: First, the mass comparator was made vacuum compatible by stripping it of all plastic parts and separating the electronics from the weighing cell. The electronics outside the vacuum vessel was connected to the balance via vacuum feed throughs. Second, the dynamic range was reduced to 4g thereby decreasing the resolution to 16.7ng by simply reducing the number of turns of the coil by a factor of six. Hence, for the same applied current to the coil, the force was reduced by a factor six. Since the coil current was measured with the same electronics, the mass resolution decreased by a factor six. An additional decrease to 12.5ng was achieved by modifying software in the balance controller. The field masses are cylindrical vessels made from stainless steel, each with an inner volume of 500L. The lower right panel of figure \[fig:tank:setup\] shows a drawing of one vessel. Each vessel was filled with 6760 kg of mercury. A liquid was  used to ensure a homogeneous density and mercury was chosen due to its high density of 13.54g/cm$^3$. The gravitational signal produced by the liquid is proportional to its density. Therefore, the gravitational signal due to the mercury is 13.5 times larger than that of water. However, since the contribution of the stainless steel vessels needs to be taken into account, the mercury filled vessels produce only 4.1 times the signal of the water filled vessels. The vessels contribute about $60\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g to the signal, which is about 7.6% of the signal obtained with the mercury filled vessels, but 55% of the signal obtained with water filled vessels. The vessels were evacuated prior to filling them with mercury to avoid trapping air. The mercury was delivered in 395 flasks, each weighing about 36.5kg (34.5kg mercury and 2 kg due to the steel flask). Each flask was weighed before and after its content was transferred to one of the two vessels using an evacuated transfer system. This painstakingly careful work led to a relative standard uncertainty of the mercury mass of $1.8\times 10^{-6}$ and $2.2\times 10^{-6}$ for the upper and lower vessel, respectively. The mercury for this experiment was leased, i.e., after the experiment was dismantled in December 2002 the mercury was sent back to the supplier in Spain. The upper right panel in figure \[fig:tank:setup\] shows a cross sectional drawing of the lower test mass. The test masses were made from oxygen free, high-conductivity (OFHC) copper and were coated with a thin layer of gold to prevent oxidation; no ferromagnetic adhesion layer was used in this coating process. Copper was the material of choice to avoid magnetic forces on the masses. Each test mass was a few grams less than 1100g. The test masses were 100g heavier than the nominal 1kg load of the balance. This was possible, because 100g was removed from the mass pan of the mass comparator to make it vacuum compatible. The stability of the two gold plated copper masses was acceptable during the course of the experiment. Over the five years of usage, the value of each mass was determined eight times at a calibration laboratory. The mass of each test mass varied by less than $440\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g or in relative terms less than $4\times10^{-7}$. The mass exchanger allows either one of the two test masses to be connected to the balance. Each test mass is suspended by two wires from an aluminum cross bar. The two cross bars are perpendicular to each other and vertically displaced. Each cross bar can either be suspended from a stirrup that is suspended from the mass pan of the balance or to a hydraulic actuated arm. Each arm can be moved vertically by a few millimeters. Lowering the arm places the crossbar onto the stirrup and hence connects the test mass to the balance. The mass exchange algorithm was programmed such that there was always a 1100 g load on the balance. During mass exchange one arm was lowered, while the other was simultaneously raised. To avoid buoyancy and other gas pressure forces, the vessel containing the balance and a tube surrounding the test masses were evacuated to pressures around $10^{-4}\,$Pa. The upper right panel in figure \[fig:tank:setup\] shows a drawing of the lower test mass, the vacuum tube surrounding it and its position relative to the lower field mass in the apart position. A view of the experiment described above is given in the left panel of figure \[fig:tank:setup\]. The experiment was located in a pit at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in Villigen, Switzerland. The pit was divided into an upper and a lower room separated by a false floor. The lower room contained the TM’s and FM’s. The upper room contained a thermally insulated chamber housing the vacuum vessel with the balance. The vacuum vessel rested on a granite plate that sat on two steel girders spanning the pit. This mounting ensured that the balance was decoupled from the field mass assembly which was anchored to the bottom of the pit. The upper room of the pit housed the control electronics, the computers and the vacuum pumps. The temperature inside the thermally insulated chamber surrounding the balance was actively controlled; the temperature was stable within 0.01K. The air temperature of the lower part of the pit was actively controlled to within $\approx0.1\,$K. Thirteen tons of mercury make a great thermometer. A temperature rise of only a few kelvin would have been enough to bring the mercury level to the top rim of the compensation vessel. ![ On the left is a side view of the experiment. Legend: 1=measuring room enclosure, 2=thermally insulated chamber, 3=balance, 4=concrete walls of the pit, 5=granite plate, 6=steel girder, 7=vacuum pumps, 8=gear drive, 9=motor, 10=working platform, 11=spindle, 12=steel girder of the main support, 13=upper TM, 14=FM’s, 15=lower TM, 16=vacuum tube. On the lower right, a drawing of one of the vessels holding the liquid mercury. On the upper right, a cross-sectional view of the lower test mass in the vacuum tube.[]{data-label="fig:tank:setup"}](fig2_tank_and_setup.pdf){width="5.25in"} Linearity and calibration of the mass comparator {#sec:cal} ================================================ A large amount of time was spent understanding and improving the calibration procedure of the mass comparator that was employed in the first measurement [@Schurr98a] of $G$ made with this apparatus. However, questions remained about the linearity of the balance, i.e., is the calibration of the mass comparator that was performed with a 1g mass valid at a signal level of 785${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g (see top panel of Fig. 3)? Nonlinearity measurements on a laboratory balance (AT261) with a measuring range of 200g were performed by engineers at Mettler Toldeo. By scaling their results to the mass comparator used in the $G$ experiment, an upper limit for a possible bias due to the nonlinearity was estimated to be $200\times 10^{-6}$ of the result. In the 1998 result, the nonlinearity of the balance was the largest entry in the uncertainty budget. Calibrating a balance in the range of 800${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g is not a simple problem. The obvious solution of using a calibration mass of approximately 1mg does not work for the present $G$ measurement as the uncertainty of such a small mass relative to the international prototype of the kilogram is of the order of $500\times 10^{-6}$, i.e., more than an order of magnitude larger than the desired accuracy of the $G$ measurement. E. Holzschuh suggested the principle that was finally used to solve this problem. The basic idea is the following: The nonlinearity of a balance can be averaged away by measuring the gravitational signal, not just at one point of the transfer function, but at many points equally spaced within a calibration range defined by a calibration mass having a sufficiently accurate absolute mass. A deeper rational for this method comes from the fundamental theorem of analysis which basically says that the average of the local slopes of a Riemann integrable function is the same as the slope of a line connecting the start and the end points of the averaging interval. The different points of the measurement are easily obtained by adding small masses to the balance pan having roughly equal weights. Their masses need to be known only relative to one another. For the implementation of this calibration method, we employed 256 mass steps of approximately 785${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g over a calibration range of 200mg. Although the basic principle of this method is based on equal mass steps over a calibration range, it is difficult to make small masses with exactly equal mass. In addition, it was not always possible to make all mass steps due to malfunction of the auxiliary mass handler. A somewhat more general analysis method was developed to overcome these problems. For this purpose, a series of Legendre polynomials with an arbitrary highest order $L_\mathrm{max}$ was chosen. Hence, the calibrated reading of the balance $f(u)$ as a function of the mass $u$ on the mass pan can be written as $$f(u)=\sum_{\ell=0}^{L_\mathrm{max}} a_\ell P_{\ell} (\xi),$$ where $P_{\ell}$ is a Legendre polynomial of order $\ell$ and $\xi=2u/u_\mathrm{max}-1$. Two constraints, $f(0)=0$ and $f(C)=C$, reduce the number of degrees of freedom from $L_\mathrm{max}+1$ to $L_\mathrm{max}-1$ where $C$ is the sum of the two calibration masses. Thus, the values of $a_0$ and $a_1$ are given by $$a_0=C/2-\sum_{\mathrm{even} \; \ell=2}^{L_\mathrm{max}} a_\ell \;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\; a_1=C/2-\sum_{\mathrm{odd} \; \ell=3}^{L_\mathrm{max}} a_\ell.$$ The remaining $L_\mathrm{max}-1$ parameters $a_\ell$, and the size of the signal $s/g$, were obtained by minimizing $$\chi^2=\sum_{n=1}^N \left [f(u_n+s/g) -f(u_n)-y_n\right]^2 \sigma_n^{-2},$$ where $y_n$ is the calibrated reading obtained with offset $u_n$ and $\sigma_n$ is the statistical standard deviation of the reading. The minimization of $\chi^2$ is straightforward. Since $s/g$ is the only nonlinear parameter, a one parameter search for a minimum is all that is required. The $a_\ell$ parameters are linear and can be solved by a trivial matrix inversion. The number of parameters required for a reasonable fit can be determined from the value of $\chi^2$. The small masses used for shifting the measuring point are referred to as auxiliary masses (AM). Two sets of AMs were employed. One set (AM-1) contained 16 masses with an average value of $783\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g and a standard deviation of $1.5\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g. The other set (AM-2) contained 16 masses with an average mass of 16 times $783\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g and a standard deviation of $2.3\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g. With combinations of these two sets of masses it is possible to have 256 approximately equal mass steps in the calibration interval from 0 to 200mg . The masses of AM-1 and AM-2 were made from stainless steel wire with a diameter of 0.1mm and 0.3mm, respectively. ![The upper panel schematically illustrates the effect of a nonlinearity in the balance on the measurement. The top graph shows the transfer function of the balance, i.e. reading on the vertical axis as a function of load on the horizontal axis. Since the calibration weight is over 250 times larger than the signal it is not clear that the slope of transfer function at the working point is identical to that of the calibration. The figure in the lower left panel is a schematic drawing of the mass handler with the following legend: 1=pivoted lever pair holding a CM, 2=narrow strip to receive the CM, 3=double stair case pair holding AM’s, 4=narrow strip to receive AM’s, 5=balance pan, 6=flexure strip, 7=frame, 8=rack and pinion, and 9=coil spring. The lower right panel shows a photograph of the mass handler during installation.[]{data-label="fig:nonlin"}](fig3_nonlin.pdf){width="5.25in"} The device for loading the masses on the balance is shown in the lower left panel of figure \[fig:nonlin\]. Initially, each set of masses rests on one of the two separately controlled double staircases bracketing a narrow metal strip attached to the balance pan. The steps are 2mm high and 2mm wide. They are arranged in the form of a “V”. The vertical position of each staircase is controlled by a rack and pinion device driven by a stepper motor. Lowering the staircase places alternately a mass from the right side of the “V” and then one from the left side on the balance pan. This keeps the off-center loading of the balance pan small. Very little nonlinearity was observed. The value of $s/g$ obtained from the $\chi^2$ minimization above changed from $784.899\,4\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g for a linear transfer function, i.e., $L_\mathrm{max}=1$ to a value of $784.900\,5\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g for $59\le{\ensuremath L_\mathrm{max}}\le66$. For the final published result the latter value was used, yielding a value for $G$ that is only $1.4\times 10^{-6}$ larger than the value we would have obtained with no correction. The numbers above are a reflection of the good design of the balance and provide increased confidence in the measurement result, since the value of $G$ is independent of the subtleties of the data analysis. In the end, it was worth tracking down this problem and putting the specter of nonlinearity in this experiment to rest, once and for all. The mass handler also doubles as a device to place either of two calibration masses (CMs) on the balance pan. Each rested on a spring-loaded double lever. By raising each staircase, one of the CMs is placed on the balance pan. Each calibration mass had a nominal value of 100mg and was made from stainless steel wire. The CMs were calibrated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Metrology (METAS) before and after each measurement campaign. In total, three measurement campaigns were performed. Unfortunately in the last two campaigns problems with the mass handler rendered the data unsuitable for a $G$ determination. Hence, only data from the first campaign were used to determine the final value of $G$. Water adsorption on the calibration masses is a concern. The three calibrations made by METAS were performed in air, i.e., with an ubiquitous water film on the steel wires. In the experiment, however, the weight in vacuum was important. To experimentally investigate this effect, wires with two different diameters, 0.96mm and 0.5 mm, were used to make the CMs. Hence, the surface area of the CM with the thinner wire was almost twice that of the thicker wire. It was found that the weight difference of the two CMs in vacuum was consistent with their difference measured by METAS in air. Hence, no sorption effect could be detected. We placed an upper limit on the sorption effect using sorption coefficients from the literature [@Schwartz94]. Since the vacuum environments are difficult to compare, a generous relative standard uncertainty of 100% was assigned to these values. Having two calibration masses made the calibration process more robust. The mass difference between the CMs determined in the first and second calibrations made by METAS changed by $1.0\pm 0.5\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g, i.e., $5\pm 2.5\times 10^{-6}$ of their combined weight. Their weight difference in vacuum was found to be consistent with the first METAS calibration. Since in the second and third measurements in vacuum, the CM weight difference was consistent with the second and third METAS calibration, only one viable hypothesis could explain these observations: One wire lost a small dust particle or even a part of the wire itself during transfer from the measurement at PSI to the calibration measurement at METAS. Note that the wire that lost the particle was the thicker wire that had jagged edges from being cut by a wire cutter. Based on this hypothesis we used the values obtained by METAS during the first calibration to analyze our data. From these measurements, we are confident that our result for G is based on an SI traceable calibration of the measured gravitational signal. In the end, a relative standard uncertainty of $7.3\times 10^{-6}$ was assigned to calibration and nonlinearity. We acknowledge that the observed mass change of $1\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g in one of the calibration masses was not desirable. However, after careful review of the mass differences obtained in air and in vacuum we have found the only possible explanation. The nonlinearity of the balance has a small effect on the result and was certainly not as large as the conservative uncertainty given in 1998. Measurements and Result {#sec:result} ======================= The data used in the final $G$ result were measured during 44 days in the late summer of 2001. Figure \[fig:tmdiff\] shows the measured weight difference between the two test masses for the two field-mass positions. One can see a balance drift and other disturbances, e.g., a jump on day 222 most likely caused by loss or gain of a dust particle. However, all these effects are common mode, i.e., they cancel in the second difference. ![On the left, the measured weight difference in ${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g between TM’s for the FM’s positions apart and together. Note the break in the vertical axis. On the right, the average signal for each of the eight cycles. Cycles with increasing load are shown as circles. Cycles with decreasing load are shown as squares. The dashed line is the average of all eight series. The error bars give the type A uncertainties of the weighings.[]{data-label="fig:tmdiff"}](fig4_signal_both.pdf "fig:"){width="2.6in"} ![On the left, the measured weight difference in ${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g between TM’s for the FM’s positions apart and together. Note the break in the vertical axis. On the right, the average signal for each of the eight cycles. Cycles with increasing load are shown as circles. Cycles with decreasing load are shown as squares. The dashed line is the average of all eight series. The error bars give the type A uncertainties of the weighings.[]{data-label="fig:tmdiff"}](fig5_cycles_new.pdf "fig:"){width="2.6in"} The data shown in figure \[fig:tmdiff\] consists of eight nearly complete cycles. A cycle is a measurement of $G$ with all 256 possible load values that can be achieved with the two sets of auxiliary masses, two test masses and the apart and together positions of the field masses. There are 2304 individual weighings in one complete cycle. The load was either applied in an increasing (from 0mg to 200mg) or decreasing (from 200mg to 0mg) fashion. Of the eight cycles, five were taken in increasing order. The measured value of the gravitational signal is shown on the right panel of figure \[fig:tmdiff\]. The uncertainty budget is shown in table \[tab:relerrs\]. The largest contribution is from the statistical scatter of the weighing data contributing a relative uncertainty of $11.6\times 10^{-6}$. The next largest effect is water sorption on the test masses. Combining type A and type B uncertainties in this category yields a relative uncertainty of $10.5\times 10^{-6}$. This effect is due to a different air flow around the vacuum tube for the FMs in position A and T. Hence, the temperature of the vacuum tube changes slightly; about 0.04K and 0.01K for the regions around the upper and lower test mass respectively. This temperature change will result in a redistribution of the adsorbed water layers on the vacuum tube and the test masses. Changing the water layer on the test masses coherently with the field mass position will introduce a bias into the gravitational signal. The effect of the temperature change was measured in a dummy experiment. The FM’s were not moved, but the vacuum tube surrounding the test masses was heated while the weight variation was recorded. The heating of the vacuum tube produced a temperature variation about 10 times that observed in the $G$ experiment. Scaling the result of the dummy measurement to the experimental conditions yielded the result that the measured signal of $784.899\,4\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g needed to be corrected by $-0.0168(82)\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g. This correction resulted in a type A relative standard uncertainty of $7.4\times 10^{-6}$. An additional $7.4\times 10^{-6}$ was assigned as a type B relative uncertainty to reflect the uncertainty in scaling the temperature conditions to those of the actual $G$ measurement. This result supersedes the $49\times 10^{-6}$ relative uncertainty listed in the 1998 experiment. That value was an estimate based on a measurement in which the temperature change of the vacuum tube near the upper test mass was approximately 200 times the amplitude of the temperature variation in the $G$ experiment. ------------------ ------ ----- [Description]{} Weighings 11.6 TM-sorption 7.4 7.4 Linearity 6.1 Calibration 4.0 0.5 Mass Integration 5.0 3.3 Total 16.3 8.1 ------------------ ------ ----- : Relative type A and type B uncertainties of $G$ as determined in this experiment. All numbers are relative standard uncertainties $(k=1)$.[]{data-label="tab:relerrs"} The final result of the Zürich $G$ experiment is $$G={\ensuremath 6.674\,252(122)\times 10^{-11}}\,{\ensuremath \mbox{m}^3\,\mbox{kg}^{-1}\,\mbox{s}^{-2}}.$$ Figure \[fig:Gcomp\] shows this result in relationship to other results. It is noteworthy that the Zürich $G$ experiment is only one of four experiments that do not use torsion balances. Of the three other experiments, two employed simple pendula and one experiment used an atom interferometer. Out of these four experiments only two, the Zürich experiment and the experiment by Parks and Faller [@Parks10] have reached a relative standard uncertainty below $10^{-4}$. ![The result of the Zürich $G$ experiment in relation to the results of other experiments. The experiments denoted by open circles were using torsion balances to measure $G$. The four data points denoted solid squares were obtained by different methods. One measurement was performed using an atom interferometer, two measurements with a pair of pendula, and ours utilized a beam balance. The shaded area in the center of the graph denotes the $1-\sigma$ confidence interval of the CODATA adjusted value from the 2010 adjustment [@CODATA10]. The years indicate when the results were published. The values and uncertainties can be found in the references [@Rosi14; @Quinn13; @Parks10; @Tu10; @Armstrong03; @Kleinevoss02; @Quinn01; @Gundlach00; @Bagley97; @Karagioz96; @Luther82].[]{data-label="fig:Gcomp"}](fig6_glabel2014new.pdf){width="5.8in"} Discussion of the experiment ============================ Almost a decade has past since the final report of the Zürich $G$ experiment was published. In this decade, our experience and views evolved and in hindsight we would like to give an honest assessment of certain features of the experiment. From this vantage point, different aspects seem more important than in the past when all of us were immersed in performing or analyzing the experiment. Calibration ----------- The strongest point of the experiment is that it has a traceable and credible calibration. In section \[sec:cal\] most details on the calibration of the balance are given. The calibration was performed in situ. Furthermore, unlike in most torsion balance experiments, the calibration was performed in the same mode, i.e., the configuration of the experiment remained the same. Another interesting aspect of this experiment is the fact that the calibration takes advantage of gravitation itself. The gravitational force between a known mass and the earth was used. This is in contrast to torsion balances, which are often calibrated using electrostatic forces. Nonlinearity ------------ In 1995 Kuroda pointed out [@Kuroda95] a nonlinear effect in torsion balances that could lead to a significant systematic bias in the so-called time of swing method. This nonlinearity arises from anelasticity [@Speake99] in the torsion fiber, i.e., the torsional spring constant is a function of frequency and can add a relative systematic bias up to $10^{-4}$ to these experiments. With Kuroda’s publication nonlinearity became a prime concern in experiments determining the gravitational constant. Unfortunately, most of the effort is spent on anelasticity of torsion fiber. This is certainly an important, but not the only source, of nonlinearity. Nonlinearity can occur in any instrument. Linearity of an experimental apparatus should never be taken for granted. After obtaining a first result with the Zürich $G$ experiment in 1998, the experimenters were unable to ascertain the linearity of the mass comparator and a generous relative uncertainty of $200\times 10^{-6}$ was assigned to it. Subsequently the nonlinearity was investigated, see section \[sec:cal\]. The result showed a remarkably small contribution due to nonlinearity of the mass comparator. The relative standard uncertainty due to nonlinearity was only $6.1\times 10^{-6}$. Although the nonlinearity of the balance was not a large effect in our experiment, it was a good investment of time and effort to know this for certain. Large gravitational signal -------------------------- The gravitational signal in this experiment is large, i.e., the second difference corresponds to $7.7\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$N. For comparison with the torsion-pendulum measurements of [@Quinn13] and [@Gundlach00], the corresponding gravitational forces are approximately $0.3\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$N and $1.5\times 10^{-4}\,{{\ensuremath \upmu}}$N, respectively. Thus, the force producing the signals in these two measurements are a factor of 25 and 50,000 times smaller than that of the Zürich experiment. Having a large gravitational force acting on the test masses reduces the relative size of parasitic forces that arise due to surface potentials, gas pressure forces, and other disturbances. Symmetry and geometry --------------------- The experiment has beautiful symmetry. This symmetry is one of the key points enabling the precision that the experiment finally achieved. The center of mass of the field masses remains at one point. The field masses are supported by three spindles that have a right-hand thread on the upper part and a left-hand thread on the lower part. Thus, as one field mass moves down it pushes the other field mass up. Other than friction, no mechanical work is performed in moving from position A to position T. Therefore, a relatively small motor was used to move the field masses. As an example, to overcome the potential energy of raising one field mass in the five minutes that it takes to change from position A to T, 180W of power would be required. Besides motor power vs. temperature, the symmetric setup has another advantage: The system does not tilt. The support structure that connects the field-mass assembly to the ground of the experiment has to take up the same force and torques independent of the field mass position. The gravitational field on axis of a hollow cylinder centered at the origin with inner diameter $R_1$, outer diameter $R_2$, height $2B$, and density $\rho$ is given by $$V^{(1)} = g_z(0,0,z) = 2 \pi \rho G \left(r_2^+ - r_2^- + r_1^- - r_1^+ \right)\; \mbox{with}\; r_{1,2}^{\pm} = \sqrt{R_{1,2}^2 + \left( z \pm B \right)^2}.$$ The potential off axis can be found easily by using a Taylor expansion of $g_z(r,0,z)$ for small $r$. Assuming azimuthal symmetry will yield non-zero coefficients only for even exponents of $r$. From the above equation, it can be seen that the vertical component of the gravitational field near the end of the hollow cylinder ($r=0, z\approx B$) has the shape of a saddle surface, i.e., it has a maximum along the axial direction and a minimum in the radial direction. Since the test masses are located at the saddle points, the accuracy required to measure their position can be achieved with only moderate effort. The vertical and horizontal positions of both test masses relative to the field masses were obtained with an accuracy of about 0.1mm in the horizontal direction and 0.035mm in the vertical direction. The measurements were performed using surveyors’ tools: a theodolite for horizontal positions and a leveling instrument for vertical positions. While we only had to measure the positions of the test masses with moderate precision, the mass distribution of the inner parts of the vessels had to be known with high accuracy. Hence, these parts were machined with tight tolerances and measured on a coordinate measuring machine with small uncertainties. For example, the central bores of the hollow cylinders were honed to achieve the required standard uncertainty of 1${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$m on the inner diameter. The uncertainties of the dimensions of the test masses, of the dimensions of the field masses, and of their relative positions sum up to relative standard uncertainty in the final result of $4.95\times 10^{-6}$. This number includes the mercury density and mass via the constraint fit, see \[sec:const\]. This uncertainty is part of the $5.0\times 10^{-6}$ listed under Type A and mass integration. The remainder is due to uncertainties in the mass measurements of the steel components of the vessels. Vertical system --------------- From an objective viewpoint, measuring along the direction of local gravity is a terrible thing to do. One has to measure the minuscule gravitational signal (785${{\ensuremath \upmu}}$g) on top of a large background (1kg). The ratio of background to signal is $1.3\times 10^6$. Since the sensitivity of the experiment is $10^{-5}$ times the signal, the ratio of sensitivity to background is $1.3\times 10^{11}$. This is a really large ratio for a mechanical experiment. From these numbers it is obvious that a vertical experiment needs a much higher ratio of sensitivity to background than a horizontal experiment. This is one of the reasons why several attempts in this geometry achieved uncertainties of $10^{-3}$ or larger [@Schwarz99; @Lamporesi08]. Two factors mediate this disadvantage in the Zürich $G$ experiment: First, the mass comparator is constructed such that a large fraction of the applied force is balanced by a built in counter mass and only a small part of the force ($4\times 10^{-3}$) has to be produced by an electromagnetic actuator. Second, state of the art mass comparators have a fantastic sensitivity. The commercial version of the AT1006 has a relative resolution of $10^{-10}$. Liquid field masses {#sec:const} ------------------- The experiment employs two liquid field masses, i.e., 90% of the gravitational signal is contributed by liquid mercury and only about 10% by both vessels. A liquid minimizes density inhomogeneities at the expense of requiring a vessel that can hold the liquid. Indeed, the uncertainty in the density inhomogeneity of the mercury was only a small contribution to the total uncertainty of the experiment. The absolute value of the density of mercury was determined at the Physikalisch Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany with a relative uncertainty of $3\times 10^{-6}$. From this measurement, the known temperature, thermal expansion and isothermal compressibility a density profile of the mercury in the vessels could be calculated. Modeling the vessels for the mass integration was cumbersome. Both vessels were broken up in 1200 objects, with positive and negative density. Simple rotational shapes with rectangular, triangular or circular cross sections were used. Negative density was employed to take away from previously modeled space. This was used, e.g., for bolt holes, and O-ring grooves. While mercury had a known density gradient due to its compressibility, density variations in the stainless steel used to manufacture the vessels were unknown. This was especially problematic for the parts that were close to the test masses. A density variation in these parts could have affected the result of the experiment. In order to investigate this, the inner pieces of the vessels were cut into rings after the experiment ended (three rings near the top and three near the bottom of each central tube). The density of each ring was determined by weighing each ring and measuring its dimensions with a coordinate measuring machine. With this method, a standard uncertainty of 0.001gcm$^{-3}$ was achieved. The average density of the rings was 7.908gcm$^{-3}$ . The largest variation of the density was only 0.1%, which had only a negligible effect on the mass-integration constant. Another interesting issue arose from deformation after loading the vessels with mercury. The four main parts used to assemble each vessel were carefully measured on a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). However, the load and hydrostatic pressure deformed the vessels. To take this into account, the shape of the top and bottom of the full vessels were measured with a laser tracker (LT). From the CMM and LT measurements combined with equations describing the bending of thin cylindrical shells [@Timo87] the final shape of the vessels could be determined. The liquid field masses had one, originally not anticipated, advantage: Since the geometrical dimensions of one mercury volume (inner radius $r$, outer radius $R$, height $h$), the mass of the mercury $m$, and the density of the mercury was known, one could set up a system of equations with a constraint on the volume, mass and density. By using a least squares adjustment of $\chi^2$ given by $$\chi^2=\left(\frac{r-r_0}{\sigma_r}\right)^2 +\left(\frac{R-R_0}{\sigma_R}\right)^2 +\left(\frac{h-h_0}{\sigma_h}\right)^2 +\left(\frac{m-m_0}{\sigma_m}\right)^2 +\left(\frac{\rho-\rho_0}{\sigma_\rho}\right)^2$$ the uncertainties on the four parameters can be substantially improved. Here, the quantities with subscript denote measured values or their standard uncertainties and those without subscript refer to the adjusted values. This procedure introduces correlations between the adjusted parameters, but this is a small price to pay compared to the improvement in uncertainty: By using the constraint the uncertainty component caused by the geometric uncertainties in the mass integration could be reduced by a factor of 7. Summary ======= From 1994 to 2006 seven scientists worked on the Zürich $G$ experiment with various degrees of overlap. Their combined work resulted in the value $G={\ensuremath 6.674\,252(122)\times 10^{-11}}\,{\ensuremath \mbox{m}^3\,\mbox{kg}^{-1}\,\mbox{s}^{-2}}$. The relative standard uncertainty of the measurement is $18\times 10^{-6}$. In recent history this experiment is only one of two experiments that have not used a torsion balance and have produced a result with a relative uncertainty smaller than $100\times 10^{-6}$. Torsion balances are very sensitive instruments and are well adapted to the measurement of small forces such as gravitational forces. However, calibrating a torsion balance is difficult and error-prone [@Michaelis04]. Furthermore, nonlinearities can be a significant effect in measurements using torsion balances [@Kuroda95]. Although the calibration of a beam balance is simple and robust, the gravitational signal has to be measured in the presence of a very large background due to the weight of the test mass. However, as we have demonstrated, it is possible to obtain a relative statistical accuracy of several parts in $10^6$ with this method. Considering the differences and difficulties of the various approaches, only more data will finally help to resolve the debate concerning the true value of $G$. We hope to see many different experimental approaches in the future and we encourage the researchers to invest in a credible and traceable calibration scheme. [9]{} [^1]: Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose

--- abstract: 'The main assumption of the model is that in soft processes mesons behave like systems made of valence quarks and an effective vacuum-like field. The 4-momentum of the latter represents the relativistic generalization of the potential energy. The electromagnetic form factors are expressed in terms of the overlap integral of the initial and final meson wave functions written under the form of Lorentz covariant distribution of quark momenta. The calculation is fully Lorentz covariant and the form factors of the charged mesons are normalized to unity at $t$=0. 0.5cm [*Key words: electromagnetic form factors; quark models*]{}' --- 16.cm -0.cm 21.cm 1.5cm **Meson electromagnetic form factors** 0.5cm **in a relativistic quark model** 1.cm L. Micu[^1] [Department of Theoretical Physics\ National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering Horia Hulubei\ Bucharest POB MG-6, 76900 Romania]{} 0.5cm In the lowest approximation of the standard model, the elastic electron-meson scattering is the result of the spontaneous one photon exchange between the electron and one of the elementary constituents of the meson. The Lorentz covariant, model independent parametrization of the hadronic matrix element entering the expression of the scattering amplitude is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{def} &&<M(P')\vert~U(+\infty,0)~J_{em}^\mu(0)~U(0,-\infty)~ \vert M(P)>\nonumber\\ &&=~{\cal T}^\mu~=~\kappa_M~f_{em}(t)~(P+P')^\mu~\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_M$ is the electric charge of the meson, $U_s(\tau,\tau')$ is the time translation operator describing the evolution of the meson under the action of strong forces, $t=(P-P')^2$ is the momentum transfer and the Lorentz invariant function $f_{em}(t)$ is the electromagnetic form factor which contains the whole information one can obtain on the meson structure from elastic electron scattering. Due to the local, elementary charcater of the electromagnetic current $J^\mu_{em}(0)$ the matrix element (\[def\]) is usually related to the probability of finding the recoiling quark in a meson with a momentum different from the initial one. It may be said that the form factor shows to what extent the initial system, where one of the quarks has been replaced by the recoiling quark, is a meson with another momentum. A natural consequence, strongly supported by the experimental data, is that the form factor decreases with $t$, because the larger is the momentum transfer, the harder is to incorporate the recoiling quark in a bound system. According to this picture the calculation of the form factors resorts to the evaluation of a kind of overlap integral and the main problem is to find a Lorentz covariant internal wave function for a system made out of independent constituents. This is not an easy matter, because as shown by the well known example of the Bethe Salpeter equation [@bs] it is hard to solve this problem without introducing some unphysical degrees of freedom. Up to now, the most reliable results concerning the form factors -weak or electromagnetic-have been obtained by alternative methods, like, for instance, QCD sum rules [@ball], lattice calculations [@latt], chiral perturbation theory (CPT) [@ghl]. There have also been proposed methods to calculate the overlap integral by making use of potential models [@isgw], [@fgm], or of some particular reference frames, where the explicit form of the binding potential can be ignored [@bsw], [@jaus]. The model we use in this paper is an effective model for hadrons as bound states of quarks, and, just like the chiral perturbation theory [@hl], it is intended to complete the low energy picture of QCD. Its basic features do not follow from the symmetry properties of the underlying theory, as in the case of CPT, but from the general properties of the ground states. The fundamental assumption of the model is that at low energy hadrons reveal a stable strucure which looks as being made of valence quarks [*and*]{} of a vacuum-like field $\Phi$. The 4-momentum carried by $\Phi$ is the relativistic generalization of the potential energy in the quark system. The main reason for introducing this effective description is suggested by the examples taken from the relativistic field theory, where a bound state is not the instantaneous effect of an elementary process, but of an infinite series of elementary interactions [@bs]. We conjecture therefore that the binding forces will never be “seen” on an instantaneous picture of a bound state because they are the result of a time average. Our specific assumption is that the effective component $\Phi$ represents the average over a time $T_0$ of the elementary quantum fluctuations generatig the binding. The time $T_0$ depends on the underlying dynamics and must be sufficiently long in order to assure a stable result. Another reason for introducing the effective field $\Phi$ besides the valence quarks is that a system made only of on-mass-shell particles having a continuous distribution of relative momenta does not behave like a single particle because it does not have a definite mass [@isgw]. In agreement with these remarks, we work in momentum space where the mass shell constraints and the conservation laws can be easily expressed. The specific assumption of the model is that the generic form of a single meson state is [@micu]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{meson} &&\left.\vert M_i(P)\right\rangle=\nonumber\\ &&~{i\over(2\pi)^3} \int~d^3~p~{m_1\over e_p} d^3~q{m_2\over e_q}~d^4Q~ \delta^{(4)}(p+q+Q-P) \varphi(p,q;Q) \nonumber\\ &&\times\bar u(p)\Gamma_Mv(q)~\chi^+\lambda_i\psi~\Phi^\dagger(Q)~ \left.a^\dagger(p)b^\dagger(q) \vert 0 \right\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $a^+, b^+$ are the creation operators of the valence $q\bar q$ pair; $u,v$ are Dirac spinors and $\Gamma_M$ is a Dirac matrix ensuring the relativistic coupling of the quark spins. The quark creation and annihilation operators satisfy canonical commutation relations and commute with $\Phi^+(Q)$, which represents the mean result of the elementary excitations responsible for the binding. Their total momentum $Q_\mu$ is not subject to any mass shell constraint and, in some sense, it is just what one needs to be added to the quark momenta in order to obtain the real meson momentum. This is in agreement with our assumption that $Q$ is the relativistic generalization of the potential energy. We shall suppose accordingly that $Q$ is time like and, from stability reasons, $Q_0\leq0$. The internal function of the meson is the Lorentz invariant momentum distribution function $\varphi(p,q;Q)$ which is supposed to be time independent, because it describes an equilibrium situation. This means that it does not change under the action of internal strong forces and hence the time evolution operators $U_s(\tau,\tau')$ in eq. (\[def\]) can be replaced by unity. The main rôle of $\varphi$ is to ensure the single particle behaviour of the whole system, by cutting off the large relative momenta. In the evaluation of the matrix element (\[def\]) we shall use the cannonical commutation relations of the quark operators $$\label{cr} \{a_i(k),a^\dagger_j(q)\}=\{b_i(k),b^\dagger_j(q)\}= (2\pi)^3 {e_k\over m}~\delta_{ij} \delta^{(3)}(k-q).$$ and the expression of the vacuum expectation value of the effective field which is defined as follows [@micu]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{vev} &&\left\langle 0\right\vert~\Phi(Q_1)~\Phi^+(Q_2)~\left\vert 0 \right\rangle~=\nonumber\\ &&(VT_0)^{-1}~\int d^4~X~{\rm e}^{i~(Q_2-Q_1)_\mu~X^\mu}~=\nonumber\\ &&(2\pi)^4~(VT_0)^{-1}~\delta^{(4)}(Q_1-Q_2)\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the volume of a large box and $T_0$ is the characteristic time involved in the definition of the mean field $\Phi$. It is important to remark that the definition (\[vev\]) is compatible with the norm of the vacuum state if one takes $\Phi(0)=1$. We notice also that the relation (\[vev\]) has the character of a conservation law, just like the commutation relations (\[cr\]), both of them being necessary for the fullfilement of the overall energy momentum conservation in the process. As a first test of the model we evaluate the norm of the single meson state (\[meson\]) according to the usual procedure. The factor $\int_T~dX_0~{\rm e}^{i(E(P)-E(P'))X_0}$ coming from the $\delta^{(4)}$ functions in eqs. (\[meson\]) and (\[vev\]) shall be put equal with $T$, because we assume that the incertitude in the meson mass is much smaller than $T^{-1}$. A short comment concerning this question will be given at the end. Observing that $T$ is nothing else than the time involved in the definition of the effective field $\Phi$ for a moving meson, we write it as $T={E\over M}~T_0$ and get: $$\label{norm} \left\langle~{\cal M}(P')~\vert {\cal M}(P)~\right\rangle~= 2E~(2\pi)^3~\delta^{(3)}(P-P')~{\cal J}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} {\cal J}&=&{\pi\over MV}~\int d^3~p~{m_1\over e_p}~d^3~q~{~m_2\over e_q}~d^4~Q\nonumber\\ &\times&~\delta^{(4)}(p+q+Q-P)\vert \varphi(p,q;Q)\vert^2~ Tr\left({\hat p+m_1\over 2m_1}~\gamma_5~ {\hat q-m_2\over2m_2}~\gamma_5\right)=1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This a remarkable result because it shows that the wave function of the many particle system representing the meson can be normalized like that of a single particle if the integral $\cal J$ converges. As a matter of consistency, we also remark the disappearance of the rather arbitrary time constant $T$ from the expression (\[norm\]) of the norm. We evaluate now the matrix element (\[def\]) proceeding in the same manner as before. By introducing the expression of the electromagnetic current written in terms of free quark fields $$J_{em}^\mu(x)={1\over(2\pi)^3}\sum_i~\kappa_i\bar\psi_i(x) \gamma^\mu\psi_i(x)$$ between the meson states (\[meson\]) and using the relations (\[vev\]) and (\[cr\]) to eliminate some integrals over the internal momenta, we obtain after a straightforward calculation: $$\begin{aligned} \label{tmu} &&{\cal T}_\mu~={\cal T}_\mu^{(1)}+{\cal T}_\mu^{(2)}~=\nonumber\\ &&{2\pi\over VT}~\int d^4Q~ {d^3p\over2e_p} ~{d^3q\over2e_q}~{d^3k\over2e_k}~\delta^{(4)}(p+q+Q-P) ~\varphi_i(p,q;Q)~ (t_\mu^{(1)}+t_\mu^{(2)})\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{t12} t_\mu^{(1)}&=&\kappa_1\delta^{(4)}(k+q+Q-P')~\varphi_f(k,q;Q) \nonumber\\ &\times&Tr\left[\gamma_5(\hat k+m_1)\gamma_\mu(\hat p+m_1) \gamma_5(-\hat q+m_2)\right]\\ t_\mu^{(2)}&=&\kappa_2~\delta^{(4)}(p+k+Q-P')~\varphi_f(p,k;Q) \nonumber\\ &\times&Tr\left[\gamma_5(-\hat k+m_2)\gamma_\mu(-\hat q+m_2) \gamma_5(\hat p+m_1)\right].\end{aligned}$$ The two terms in (\[tmu\]) represent the contributions of the valence quarks, $k$ is the momentum of the quark after the absorbtion of the virtual photon, $P'$ is the final meson momentum and $\varphi_{i,f}$ are the momentum distribution functions of the initial and final mesons respectively. In the next we shall work in the reference frame where the momenta of the initial and final mesons are $P~=~(E,~0,~0, P)$ and $P'~=~(E,~0,~0,-P)$ respectively and the electromagnetic form factor expresses as: $$\label{ff} f_{em}(t)~=~{1\over\kappa_M}~{1\over\sqrt{4M^2-t}}~{\cal T}_0.$$ In this frame it is an easy matter to show that $f_{em}(0)$=1. The demonstration makes use of $\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}+\vec{q}+\vec{Q})$ to eliminate the integrals over $\vec{k}$ in ${\cal T}_0^{(1)}$ and of the identity $(\hat p+m) \gamma_0(\hat p+m)=2e_p~(\hat p+m)$ to reduce the number of projectors. Performing a similar operation on ${\cal T}_0^{(2)}$ and proceeding like in the case of the norm, one gets $${\cal T}_0~=~2M~(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)~{\cal J}$$ which means $$\label{qnorm} f_{em}(0)=1$$ if the meson wave function is properly normalized. In the calculation of the form factor at $t\ne 0$ we start by using the $\delta^{(3)}$ functions to eliminate the integrals over the momenta $\vec{q}$ and $\vec{k}$ in the expression of ${\cal T}_\mu^{(1)}$ and over $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{k}$ in the expression of ${\cal T}_\mu^{(2)}$. After performing the traces over $\gamma$ matrices we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{t1} {\cal T}^{(1)}_\mu&=&{4\pi\kappa_1\over VT}\int~de_p~dp_z~d\phi_p~d^4Q~{1\over8e_p e_k e_q}~ \delta(e_p+e_q+Q_0-E)~\delta(e_p-e_k)\nonumber\\ &\times&\varphi_i(p,q;Q)~\varphi_f(k,q;Q) \{q_\mu~t+2\vec{P}\cdot\vec{Q}~(k_\mu-p_\mu) \nonumber\\ &+&(k_\mu+p_\mu)[(E-Q_0)^2 +{1\over4}t-\vec{Q}^2-(m_1-m_2)^2]\}\end{aligned}$$ and a similar result for ${\cal T}_\mu^{(2)}$. Next, by writing $${1\over 2e_k}\delta(e_k-e_p)={1\over4P}\delta(p_z-P)$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &&{1\over2e_q}\delta(e_p+e_q+Q_0-E)=\nonumber\\ &&{1\over2p_TQ_T}\delta\left(\cos\phi_p-{(E-Q_0)^2-2e_p(E-Q_0)+ \vec{P}^2- \vec{Q}^2+m_1^2-m_2^2\over2p_TQ_T}\right)\end{aligned}$$ we perform the integrals over $p_z$ and $\phi_q$ in eq. (\[t1\]). Then the term ${\cal T}^{(1)}_0$ becomes: $$\begin{aligned} \label{final} &&{\cal T}^{(1)}_0={2\pi\kappa_1\over VT}~{1\over\sqrt{4M^2-t}} \int d^4Q~\int_{e_{pm}}^{e_{pM}}de_p~\varphi_i(p,q;Q)~ \varphi_f(k,q;Q)\nonumber\\ &&\times{1\over2p_T Q_T\sqrt{1-\cos^2\phi_p}}\{2e_p\left[(E-Q_0)^2-{1\over4}t-\vec{Q}^2 -(m_1-m_2)^2\right]\nonumber\\ &&+(E-Q_0)~t\}.\end{aligned}$$ The integration limits over $e_p$ result from the kinematical constraints $e_p^2\geq m_1^2+P^2$ and cos$^2\phi_p\leq 1$ which give: $$\begin{aligned} \label{elim} &&e_{pM}= {(E-Q_0){\cal S}+ Q_T\sqrt{{\cal S}^2-4[(E-Q_0)^2-\vec{Q}_T^2](m_1^2+\vec{P}^2)}\over 2[(E-Q_0)^2-\vec{Q}_T^2]}\nonumber\\ &&e_{pm}={\rm Max}[0,{(E-Q_0){\cal S}- Q_T\sqrt{{\cal S}^2-4[(E-Q_0)^2-\vec{Q}_T^2] (m_1^2+\vec{P}^2)}\over2[(E-Q_0)^2-\vec{Q}_T^2]}.\end{aligned}$$ where $${\cal S}=(E-Q_0)^2+\vec{P}^2-\vec{Q}^2+m_1^2-m_2^2. \nonumber$$ The term ${\cal T}_0^{(2)}$ can be proccessed in the same manner, giving a similar expression. Using the above results it is possible to calculate the electromagnetic form factors for any momentum transfer, by choosing an appropriate function $\varphi$. In principle, the calculation does not imply any other approximations, but it is hard to believe that the multiple integral entering the expression of the form factor can be performed exactly. The numerical results quoted in this paper have been obtained in the approximation $\vert\vec{Q}\vert<<\vert Q_0\vert$ in the meson rest frame, in agreement with the assumption we made about the signification of $Q_\mu$. We used the particular Lorentz invariant distribution function $\varphi$ defined as $$\label{phi} \varphi(p,q;Q)=N~\exp\left[-{(P\cdot Q)^2-M^2~Q^2\over\beta^2~M^2}\right]~\exp\left[{(P\cdot Q)\over M\alpha}\right]$$ and performed the approximation $$\label{approx} \varphi(p,q;Q)\varphi(k,q;Q)\approx\beta^3 \left({\pi\over2}\right)^{3/2} N^2 {M\over E}\delta^{(3)}(\vec{Q}) \exp\left[-{2P^2Q_0^2\over M^2\beta^2}\right]~\exp\left[{2EQ_0\over M\alpha}\right]$$ expected to be valid for a small parameter $\beta$. The approximation (\[approx\]) allows one to do immediately the integration over $\vec{Q}$ and $e_{p}$ in ${\cal T}_0^{(1)}$ leaving only the integral over $Q_0$ to be performed. The integration limits (\[elim\]) generated by the kinematical constraints become now: $$\begin{aligned} \label{newc} e_p^2&=&\left[{(E-Q_0)^2+\vec{P}^2+m_1^2-m_2^2\over2(E-Q_0)}\right]^2 \geq m_1^2+\vec{P}^2\\ e_q&=&{(E-Q_0)^2+\vec{P}^2-m_1^2+m_2^2\over2(E-Q_0)}\geq m_2,\end{aligned}$$ leading to a single condition for the integral over $Q_0$ in ${\cal T}_0^{(1)}$, namely: $$Q_0~\leq Q^{(1)}_{0M}={\rm Min}[0,\sqrt{M^2+\vec{P}^2}-m_2- \sqrt{\vec{P}^2+m_1^2}].$$ Performing the same operation in ${\cal T}_0^{(2)}$ and using the normalization condition (\[norm\]) to eliminate the constant $N$, we finally get: $$\begin{aligned} \label{fin} &&f_{em}(t)={\pi\over {\cal J}PT}~{M^2\over E^2} \nonumber\\ &&\times\left\{\kappa_1\int_{-\infty}^{Q_{0M1}}dQ_0~{\rm exp}\left( {tQ_0^2\over 4M^2\beta^2}\right)\exp\left[{2EQ_0\over M\beta}\right] {1\over(E-Q_0)}\right. \nonumber\\ &&\times\left[2e_p\left((E-Q_0)^2-{1\over4}t-(m_1- m_2)^2\right)+t(E-Q_0)\right]\nonumber\\ &&-\kappa_2\int_{-\infty}^{Q_{0M2}}dQ_0~{\rm exp}\left[{tQ_0^2\over 4M^2\beta^2}\right] \exp\left[{2EQ_0\over M\beta}\right] {1\over(E-Q_0)}\nonumber\\ &&\left.\times\left[2e_q\left((E-Q_0)^2- {1\over4}t-(m_1-m_2)^2\right)+t(E-Q_0)\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $t=-4\vec{P}^2,~e_{p,q}={(E-Q_0)^2-{1\over4}t\pm m_1^2\mp m_2^2\over2(E-Q_0)}$ and $${\cal J}=\int_{-\infty}^0 dQ_0\left[1-{(m_1-m_2)^2\over(M-Q_0)^2}\right]~\exp\left({2Q_0\over \alpha}\right) \sqrt{\left[(M-Q_0)^2-m_1^2-m_2^2\right]^2-4m_1^2m_2^2}. \nonumber$$ It is easy to see that $f_{em}^{\pi^0,\eta,\eta'}(t)\equiv0$, while $f_{em}^{K^0,\tilde K^0}(t)\sim (m_s-m_d)$ and in principle it does not vanish. The expression (\[fin\]) is, of course, valid for $t\ne0$, but the infinite value one gets in the limit $t\to0$ seems to contradict the normalization of the electric charge (\[qnorm\]) which has been demonstrated previously. This is a disturbing question which deserves a careful examination. Looking back, we remark that the contradiction comes from the evaluation of some $\delta$ functions: $$\begin{aligned} &&\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}+\vec{q}+\vec{Q}-\vec{P})\delta(e_p+e_q+Q_0- E(P))\nonumber\\ &&\times\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}+\vec{q}+\vec{Q}'-\vec{P}')\delta(e_k+ e_q+Q_0-E(P'))\delta^{(4)}(Q-Q')\end{aligned}$$ which have been written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{td0} &&\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}+\vec{q}+\vec{Q}-\vec{P})\delta(e_p+e_q+Q_0- E(P))\nonumber\\ &&\times\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k}-2\vec{P})\delta(e_p-e_k) \delta^{(3)}(\vec{Q}-\vec{Q}')\delta(Q_0-Q'_0)\end{aligned}$$ at $t\ne$0, while at $t$=0 they have been written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{te0} &&\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}+\vec{q}+\vec{Q})\delta(e_p+e_q+Q_0-M) \nonumber\\ &&\times\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k})\delta(Q_0-Q'_0-M+M')\delta^{(3)} (\vec{Q}-\vec{Q}'){1\over2\pi}\int {\rm e}^{i(M-M')X_0} dX_0\end{aligned}$$ and the integral has been replaced by $T$ because it was assumed that the uncertainty in the meson mass is much smaller than $T^{-1}$. The problem comes from the fact that $T$ is finite and hence it is illegal to put $\delta(Q_0-Q'_0)$ in the expression of the vacuum expectation value (\[vev\]). This means that instead of (\[td0\]) we ought to write $$\begin{aligned} &&\delta(e_p+e_q+Q_0-E(P))\delta(e_p-e_k+Q_0-Q'_0-E(P)+E'(P')) \nonumber\\ &&\times\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}+\vec{q}+\vec{Q}-\vec{P}) \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k}-2\vec{P}) {1\over2\pi}\int~{\rm e}^{i(E(P)-E'(P')-e_p+e_k)X_0} dX_0\end{aligned}$$ and perform the calculation with $T$ finite by also taking into account the indetermination of the meson mass. In the present calculation we do not follow this line because it is very cumbersome. Instead of this, we use the charge normalization condition (\[qnorm\]) in order to fix the parameter $T$, which is mainly the same thing. To this end we notice that $T$ is the overlapping time of the complex systems representing the initial and final mesons. Then, as resulting from a careful analysis of the relations (\[td0\]) and (\[te0\]), one must write $T={T_0\over v}$ where $v=\sqrt{{(P\cdot P')^2 \over M^4}-1}={2PE\over M^2}$ is the relative velocity of the two mesons. This solves the problem and the limit $t\to 0$ can now be freely performed in eq.(\[fin\]). By using different values for the cut-off parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we found that the charge radii increase with $\alpha$ and decrease when the parameter $\beta$ increases. We also found that the shape of the electromagnetic form factor $f(t)$ depends on the ratio $\rho={\alpha^2\over M\beta}$. For $\rho>1$ the shape is exponential, leading to large values for the charge radius, while for $\rho<1$ it changes and the radius can be as small as wanted. The dependence of the shape on the ratio $\rho$ is illustrated by the plots of the pion form factor in Fig.1. For the comparison with the experimental data we shall retain however only the cases with $\rho \ge1$, which fit the expected growth of the form factor at time-like $t$ and are also in agreement with our initial assumption $Q^2>0$. The quark masses used in the calculations have been determined together with the cut-off parameter $\alpha$ from the fit of the decay constants of pseudoscalar mesons [@micu]. We take: $m_u=7$MeV, $m_d=$10MeV, $m_s$= 400MeV and $\alpha=0.3~M$, which give $F_\pi:F_K:F_D:F_B:F_{D_s}= 130.:160:254:144:386.$, in agreement with the experimental data. We note that the values of the quark masses are rather close to the values suggested by chiral symmetry scheme [@leut]. Moreover, by using the normalization condition (\[qnorm\]) we get in the charged pion case $T_0\approx10^{-22}$s, which is in agreement with the low values for the quark masses we used. Taking now $\rho\approx1. (\beta=0.04$ GeV in the pion case), we find the following values for the charge radii: $r_{\pi^\pm}^2= 1.6$ fm$^2$, $r_{K^\pm}^2$=1.0 fm$^2$, $r_{K^0}$=-0.17 fm$^2$, which are much larger than the measured ones: $r_{\pi^\pm}$=0.44 fm$^2$, $r_{K^\pm}$=0.29 fm$^2$, $r_{K^0}$=-0.054 fm$^2$ [@data]. We notice, however, the negative sign of $r_{K^0}^2$ in agreement with the experimental result.This shows that the contribution of the heavy quark is dominant. The values we obtained for the charge radii suggest that the approximation (\[approx\]) is inadequate. A simple way to improve it is to replace the symmetry scheme based on the full Lorentz group with the symmetry under the collinear group which is equivalent with the flux tube model with frozen transverse degrees [@mb]. The longitudinal and the temporal degrees of freedom are then the only active and the multiple integral in eq.(\[final\]) reduces to a simple one. By using less drastic cuts of the internal momenta we expect to obtain a slower decrease of the form factors and a better agreement with the experimental data. The work on this line is in progress. 0.5cm [**Acknowledgements**]{} The author thanks Prof. H. Leutwyler for the kind hospitality at the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the University of Bern. This work was completed during author’s visit at ITP-Bern, which has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under Contract No. 7 IP 051219. The partial support of the Romanian Academy through the Grant No. 329/1997 is also acknowledged. 0.2cm [99]{} E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe Phys. Rev. 84 (1951) 1232; M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev. 84 (1951) 350; N. Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 43 (1969) 1. M. Neubert, Phys. Rep. 245 (1994) 259. R. C. Brower, M. B. Gavela, R. Gupta and G. Maturana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 1318; N. Cabibbo, G. Martinelli and R. Petronzio Nucl. Phys. B 244 (1984) 381. J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B 250 (1985) 465; 517; 539. B. Grinstein, M. B. Wise and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 298; N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 799. R. N. Faustov, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 78 (1973) 176. M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637. P. L. Chung, F. Coester and W. N. Polizou, Phys. Lett. B 205 (1988) 545; W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 3394. H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 235 (1994) 165. L. Micu, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 4151. H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B378 (1996) 313. S. R. Amendolia et al. (NA7 coll.) Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 168; W. R. Molzen et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978) 1213. M. Burkhardt, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 7501. [^1]: E-mail: lmicu@theor1.ifa.ro

--- abstract: 'A multi-scale meshfree particle method for macroscopic mean field approximations of generalized interacting particle models is developed and investigated. The method is working in a uniform way for large and small interaction radii. The well resolved case for large interaction radius is treated, as well as underresolved situations with small values of the interaction radius. In the present work we extend the approach from [@KT15] for porous media type limit equations to a more general case, including in particular hyperbolic limits. The method can be viewed as a numerical transition between a DEM-type method for microscopic interacting particle systems and a meshfree particle method for macroscopic equations. We discuss in detail the numerical performance of the scheme for various examples and the potential gain in computation time. The latter is shown to be particularly high for situations near the macroscopic limit. There are various applications of the method to problems involving mean field approximations in swarming, traffic, pedestrian or granular flow simulation.' author: - 'A. Klar' - 'S. Tiwari' title: 'A multi-scale particle method for mean field equations: the general case' --- [**Keywords.**]{} Meshfree methods, particle methods, asymptotic preserving methods, interacting particle systems, mean field and hydrodynamic approximations, nonlinear Fokker-Planck equations. [**AMS Classification.**]{} 82C21, 82C22, 65N06 Introduction ============ Interacting particle models are used in many applications ranging from engineering sciences to social sciences and biology. We refer to [@CFRT; @DM1; @Deg13; @Hel95; @HS09; @HS11] for recent work. In certain limits, for large numbers of particles, the solution of the microscopic model can be approximated by the solution of so-called mean field or macroscopic equations. For a mathematical investigation of these limits we refer to [@Golse; @BH; @CCR]. Microscopic interacting particle models require numerically the solution of large systems of ordinary differential equations. Many different numerical approaches can be employed for the numerical solution of the macroscopic approximations. In particular, meshless or particle methods are a popular way to solve these problems. We refer to [@BGLX00; @MR87] for the analysis of particle methods, to [@GM77] for a classical particle method and to [@Dil99; @TK03; @TKH09; @ZY02] for different developments of the original idea from [@GM77]. In the present work we extend a particle method developed in [@KT15] which is especially adapted to the solution of macroscopic mean field equations derived from interacting particle systems. The method can be viewed as a numerical transition between a DEM-type method for microscopic interacting particle systems and a meshfree particle method for macroscopic equations. For related approaches we refer to [@WTLB12; @ZY02]. In macroscopic mean-field models an interaction term appears, which is derived from the microscopic interaction term. Usually, this term has the form of a convolution integral. The particle method approximates these convolution integrals in an appropriate way not using a microscopically large number of macroscopic particles and thus allowing the use of an underresolved meshfree method. In the limit for small $R$ a method which is consistent with the asociated limit equation is obtained. For intermediate values of $R$ one obtains with this procedure an easily calculated correction term. In the present work more general particle systems and more general limit equations are considered compared to [@KT15] where only porous media type limits have been investigated. The present investigations include for example terms leading to hyperbolic limit equations and more general applications. The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:model\] contains a description of the models under investigation. In particular, the macroscopic hydrodynamic models and their scalar approximations are discussed. Examples range from non-local 1D Lightill Whitham type models to non-local 2D pedestrian flow models. Section \[sec:Approximation\] describes the numerical method and in detail the approximation of the convolution integral. Finally, Section \[sec:Numerics\] contains the numerical results and a comparison of the methods and their computation times for the above mentioned examples. The models {#sec:model} ========== We consider a hierarchy of models ranging from microscopic interacting particle systems and their mean field approximations to hydrodynamic and scalar macroscopic approximations. Microscopic and mean field equations for interacting particle system -------------------------------------------------------------------- The starting point for our model is a general microscopic model for $ N$ interacting particles [@Jou06]. We define the empirical density as $$\begin{aligned} \label{empirical} \rho^N_R (x) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N U_R (x - x_j )\end{aligned}$$ and consider systems of equations of the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{micro} dx_i &=& v_i dt \\ dv_i &=& - \left(\beta \left( \rho^N_R (x_i) \right) + \alpha\left( \rho^N_R (x_i) \right) \nabla_x \rho^N_R (x_i) + \gamma v_i \right) dt + A d W_t \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $i=1, \ldots, N$, $(x_i , v_i) \in {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^d \times {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^d$, $d \in \mathbb{N}$. $\alpha: {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^+\rightarrow {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^+,\beta: {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^+\rightarrow {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^d$, $ \gamma, A \ge 0$ and $W_t$ a d-dimensional Brownian motion. $U_R$ is a sufficiently smooth, repulsive potential with support in $B_R(0)$ and positive integral which is normalized to $1$, that means $$\int_{B_R(0)} U_R(x) dx = 1 .$$ We assume that $U_R$ approximates the delta distribution as $R$ goes to $0$, $U_R (x) = \frac{1}{R^d} U_1(\frac{x}{R})$. Possible extensions are given in the remarks below. We note that physically speaking $U_R$ is used here on the one hand to define the empirical density, which is used in the definition of the coefficients $\alpha$ and $ \beta$. On the other hand it is used as interaction potential in the term $\nabla_x \rho^N_R$. For the following calculations we could as well use different functions $U_R$ at the different places in the equation. \[quadratic\] As an example for a repulsive interaction potential we choose for $\Vert x \Vert \le R$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{potsymm} U_R = C_R \left( R - \Vert x \Vert\right)^2, \end{aligned}$$ where $$C_R = \frac{(d+1)(d+2) }{2 \tau_d R^{d+2}}$$ and $\tau_d$ is the volume of the unit sphere in ${\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^d$. The coefficients are chosen such that $$\int_{B_R(0)} U_R(x) dx = 1.$$ We note that non-symmetric potentials could be chosen as well. \[rem1\] In 1D the present formulation includes one sided interaction potentials $V_R$ approximating the Heaviside function, i.e. $\partial_x V_R = U_R$. An equation of the form $$\begin{aligned} dv_i &=& - \alpha\left(\rho^N_R (x_i ) \right) \left( \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j } \partial_x V_R (x_i - x_j ) \right) dt \end{aligned}$$ turns into $$\begin{aligned} dv_i &=& - \beta \left( \rho^N_R (x_i )\right) dt\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta(\rho) = \rho \alpha(\rho)$. Compare the systems considered in [@szn; @BV05]. \[unsymm\] For the potential $V_R$ in the remark above with $\partial_x V_R =U_R$ one might choose potentials,such that $U_R$ is given as in example 1 or non-anticipating examples like $$\begin{aligned} \label{potunsymm} U_R = 2 C_R \left( R - \vert x \vert\right)^2, \end{aligned}$$ if $x<0$ and $0$ otherwise. \[remmorse\] For the following considerations, one might also consider more general attractive-repulsive potentials. For example in 1-D the following class of potentials can be considered, compare [@LTB09; @BV05]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{morse} U(x) = G(\vert x \vert) - L \cdot F G\left(\frac{\vert x \vert}{L}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $G: {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}_+ \rightarrow {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}_+$ is a monotone decaying, integrable function, decaying to 0 as $x$ goes to infinity. This includes, for example, the Morse potential ($G(x) = exp(-x), x>0$) used among other applications for modelling the swarming behaviour of birds, see [@CDP]. However, for the following, the potential should lead to a spreading behaviour of the solutions goverened for long times by a diffusive equation, in our case a porous media type equation, see [@oehl; @BV05; @LTB09]. For the above class of potentials a purely repulsive potential is characterized by $F,L<1$, see [@LTB09]. However, this is not a necessary condition for the spreading behaviour of the solution. The analysis in [@LTB09] shows that one still observes a spreading behaviour, if $F<1$ and $1-F\cdot L^2 >0 $, i.e. also for $L>1$ with $L < 1/\sqrt{F}$. We note that in this case $$D = \int U(x) dx = 2 \int_0^\infty G(x) dx ( 1-F L^2 ) >0.$$ In $d$ dimensions the corresponding formula for a rotationally symmetric potential $U$ defined by (\[morse\]) is $$D = \int U(x) dx = d \tau_d \int_0^\infty G(r) r^{d-1} dx ( 1-F L^{d+1} ) .$$ This is larger than $0$, if $1-F L^{d+1}>0$. \[rem2\] Velocity dependent interactions $U_R = U_R(x_j-x_i,v_j-v_i)$ might be included, as well as further explicit dependence of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on $x_i,v_i$. For example, one could include an exterior potential $V(x)$ via $\beta (x) = \nabla_x V(x)$. For $N$ going to infinity, one can derive in the limit of a large number of particles the associated mean field equation [@CCR; @CDP; @BH; @neunzert]. One obtains for the distribution function $f=f(x,v,t)$ of the particles the mean field equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{pde} \partial_t f + v \cdot \nabla_{x} f = S f + L f \end{aligned}$$ with force term $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} S f &= \nabla_v \cdot \left( \beta( U_R \star \rho ) f\right) + \nabla_v \cdot \left( \alpha( U_R \star \rho ) \nabla_x U_R \star \rho f\right). \end{split} \end{aligned}$$ and diffusion term $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} L f &= \gamma \nabla_{v} \cdot \left(v f + \frac{A^2}{2 \gamma} \nabla_v f \right). \end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Here, the convolution is defined as $$\begin{aligned} F_R \star \rho (x) = \int F_R(x-y ) \rho(y) dy \end{aligned}$$ and the density as $$\begin{aligned} \rho(x,t) := \int f(x,v,t) d v . \end{aligned}$$ We normalize $$\begin{aligned} \int \rho(x,t) d x =1. \end{aligned}$$ Hydrodynamic and scalar macroscopic models ------------------------------------------ Multiplying the mean field equation with $1$ and $v$ and closing the equations by approximating the distribution function with a function having mean $u$ and variance $ \delta \rho $, one obtains the continuity and momentum equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{cont} \partial_t \rho + \nabla_{x} \cdot (\rho u) &= 0, \\ \partial_t u + (u \cdot \nabla_{x} ) u + \frac{\delta}{\rho} \nabla_x \rho &= - \gamma u - \beta (U_R \star \rho) - \alpha (U_R \star \rho) \nabla_x U_R \star \rho \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the momentum $$\begin{aligned} \rho u(x,t) := \int v f(x,v,t) d v . \end{aligned}$$ Neglecting time derivatives and inertia terms in the $u$-equation we approximate the velocity $u$ as $$u = -\frac{1}{\gamma} \left( \alpha(U_R \star \rho)\nabla_x U_R \star \rho + \beta(U_R \star \rho) + \frac{\delta}{\rho} \nabla_x \rho \right)$$ and obtain the following scalar equation for the density $$\begin{aligned} \label{diff1} \gamma \partial_t \rho = \nabla_{x} \cdot \left( \rho \left(\beta(U_R \star \rho) + \alpha(U_R \star \rho) \nabla_x U_R \star \rho \right) + \delta \nabla_{x} \rho\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Localized models ---------------- Since $U_R$ approximates for small values of $R$ a $\delta$ distribution, one obtains formally $$\int \nabla_x U_R(x-y) \rho(y) d y = - \int \nabla_y U_R(x-y) \rho(y) d y = \int U_R(x-y) \nabla_y \rho dy \sim \nabla_x \rho.$$ Thus, one obtains from the hydrodynamic equations the damped isentropic Euler equations with exterior potential $$\begin{aligned} \label{contdiff} \partial_t \rho + \nabla_{x} \cdot (\rho u) &= 0,\\ \partial_t u + (u \cdot \nabla_{x} ) u &= - \gamma u - \alpha( \rho) \nabla_x \rho - \beta( \rho) - \frac{\delta}{\rho} \nabla_x \rho. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ From the scalar equations one obtains with the same procedure as before a nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation of the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{diff2} \gamma \partial_t \rho = \nabla_{x} \cdot ( \beta( \rho) \rho ) + \nabla_{x} \cdot ( (\delta+ \rho \alpha(\rho)) \nabla_x \rho ) . \end{aligned}$$ A simple example with a solution which converges to a stationary distribution is given by the following \[examplebasic\] We consider for $d=1$ the following coefficients $\alpha(\rho,x) =\epsilon, \beta(\rho,x) = \partial_x V (x) + (1-{\epsilon}) \rho, \epsilon \in (0, 1]$, $A = 0, \delta =0$. This leads to the microscopic problem $$\begin{aligned} dx_i &=& v_i dt \\ dv_i &=& - \gamma \left( \partial_x V (x_i) + (1-{\epsilon}) \rho^N_R(x_i ) + \epsilon \partial_x \rho^N_R(x_i ) + v_i \right) dt \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and the scalar equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{basicnonlocal} \partial_t \rho = \partial_{x} \cdot ( \epsilon \rho \partial_x U_R \star \rho + \rho \partial_x V + (1-\epsilon) \rho U_R \star \rho ). \end{aligned}$$ The scalar localized macroscopic approximation is $$\begin{aligned} \label{basiclocal} \partial_t \rho = \partial_{x} \cdot ( {\epsilon}\rho \partial_x \rho + \rho \partial_x V + (1-\epsilon) \rho^2 ) . \end{aligned}$$ with the stationary solution $$\rho_{\infty} = \left(C_\epsilon \exp(-\frac{1-{\epsilon}}{{\epsilon}} x) - \int^x \frac{1}{\epsilon}\exp(-\frac{1-{\epsilon}}{{\epsilon}} (x-x^\prime)) \partial_x V (x^\prime) d x^\prime \right)_+$$ where $C_\epsilon \in {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}$ is determined by the normalization $\int \rho_{\infty}(x) d x =1$. $\epsilon =1$ gives the well known solution of the Fokker-Planck porous media equation $\rho_{\infty} = (C- V(x))_+$, see [@Aro97]. For $\epsilon $ tending to $0$ one approaches a stationary distribution function, which is for a convex potential $V$ given by $\rho_{\infty} = (-V^\prime (x))_+$ for $ C<x$ and $0$ otherwise. $C$ is in both cases chosen such that the normalization condition is fulfilled. We consider further examples from traffic and pedestrian flow in one- and two space dimensions. \[exampletraffic\] A simple microscopic traffic model is given as follows. We model the acceleration by choosing $\gamma >0$ and $\beta =- \gamma$. Breaking interactions are modelled by an interaction potential $V_R$ given by a smooth version of the Heaviside function such that $\partial_x V_R = U_R$, where $U_R$ is a smooth version of the $\delta$-function. $U_R$ is concentrated in the negative half plane to model the fact that the interaction is essentially restricted to an interaction with the predecessors. We call $V_R$ a downwind potential in this case. Finally, we choose $\alpha=\gamma$ and $A = 0$. We obtain with $x_i,v_i \in {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}, i= 1 \cdots N$ $$\begin{aligned} dx_i &=& v_i \\ dv_i &=& \gamma (1- v_i -\rho^N_R (x_i )) dt \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The corresponding mean field hydrodynamic equations are $$\begin{aligned} \label{trafficnonlocalhydro} \partial_t \rho + \partial_x(\rho u ) =0\\ \partial_t u + u \partial_x u + \frac{\delta \gamma}{\rho} \partial_x \rho= \gamma((1- U_R \star \rho) - u) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the associated scalar nonlocal viscous Lighthill-Whitham model is $$\begin{aligned} \label{trafficnonlocal} \partial_t \rho + \partial_x ((1- U_R \star \rho) \rho) = \delta \partial_{xx} \rho. \end{aligned}$$ We remark that nonlocal Lighthill-Whitam model has been investigated in [@GS15; @BG15]. There, for one-sided downwind monotone convolution kernels concentrated in the negative half plane existence and uniqueness of solutions have been shown as well as a maximum principle. In particular, the density is not exceeding the maximal density, which is in this case eqal to $1$ for suitable initial conditions. The local limits are $$\begin{aligned} \label{trafficlocalhydro} \partial_t \rho + \partial_x(\rho u ) =0\\ \partial_t u + u \partial_x u + \frac{\delta \gamma}{\rho} \partial_x \rho= \gamma(1- \rho - u) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the Lighthill Whitham equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{trafficlocal} \partial_t \rho + \partial_x ((1- \rho) \rho) =\delta \partial_{xx} \rho. \end{aligned}$$ We note that for the one-sided downwind kernel we obtain an approximation to order $\mathcal{O}(R^2)$ in the following way. Define $$D_R = - \int x U_R(x) dx = - R \int x U_1 (x) dx >0$$ using $U_R \star \rho = \rho + D_R \partial_x \rho $ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho + \partial_x ((1- \rho) \rho) =\delta \partial_{xx} \rho + R D_1 \partial_x ( \rho \partial_x \rho). \end{aligned}$$ This is a stable equation for $\delta \ge 0$. We note that using the potential defined in Example 2 we obtain $D_1 = \frac{1}{4}$. If instead of using a down-wind interaction potential we consider symmetric potentials we obtain $D_1 =0$ and the approximation to order $\mathcal{O}(R^3)$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{symmkern} \partial_t \rho + \partial_x ((1- \rho) \rho) =\delta \partial_{xx} \rho + \frac{R^2}{2} D_2 \partial_x ( \rho \partial_{xx} \rho). \end{aligned}$$ $$D_2 = \int x^2 U_R(x) dx = R^2 \int x^2 U_1 (x) dx >0.$$ In this case we need $\delta >0$ in order to obtain a stable convergence of the solutions of equation (\[symmkern\]) as $R$ goes to $0$, compare [@scho]. A numerical investigation of non-local Lighthill-Whitham type equations with symmetric or upwind potentials can be found in [@BG15]. In this case there is no maximum principle and the density might exceed the ’maximal density’. For the 2D case we consider a model for pedestrian flow. For $x_i,v_i \in {\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^2, i=1, \ldots, N$ and $W(\rho) = u_{max}(1-\frac{\rho}{\rho_{max}})$ we consider the microscopic model $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dx_i}{dt} &=& v_i dt\\ dv_i &=& - \gamma W \left( \rho_R^N (x_i ) \right) \hat e (x_i) dt - \gamma v_i dt- \alpha \nabla_x \rho^N_{R} (x_i ) dt + A dW_t \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with symmetric interaction kernel $U_R$ and with $$\hat e (x) = \frac{\nabla \phi (x)}{\vert \nabla \phi (x) \vert}$$ where $$\vert \nabla \phi (x_i) \vert = \frac{1}{W \left(\rho^N_R (x_i ) \right)}.$$ The hydrodynamic mean field limit is $$\begin{aligned} \label{pednonlocalhydro} \partial_t \rho + \nabla_x(\rho u ) =0\\ \partial_t u + u \nabla_x u + \frac{\delta}{\rho} \nabla_x \rho= - \gamma \left(W ( U_R \star \rho) \hat e(x) - u \right) - \alpha \nabla_x U_{{R}} \star \rho \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and the scalar limit is $$\begin{aligned} \label{pednonlocalscalar} \partial_t \rho - \nabla_x \cdot (W( U_R \star \rho) \hat e (x) \rho) = \frac{\delta }{\gamma} \Delta \rho + \nabla \cdot \left( \frac{\alpha}{\gamma} \rho \nabla_x U_{{R}} \star \rho \right) \end{aligned}$$ where $$\vert \nabla \phi \vert = \frac{1}{W(U_R \star \rho)}$$ The local limits are $$\begin{aligned} \label{pedlocalhydro} \partial_t \rho + \nabla_x(\rho u ) =0\\ \partial_t u + u \nabla_x u +\frac{\delta}{\rho} \nabla_x \rho = - \gamma \left(W( \rho)\hat e - u\right) - \alpha \nabla_x \rho \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{pedlocalscalar} \partial_t \rho - \nabla_x \cdot (W( \rho) \hat e \rho) = \nabla \cdot \left( \frac{\alpha \rho +\delta }{\gamma} \nabla_x \rho \right)\end{aligned}$$ together with $$\vert \nabla \phi \vert = \frac{1}{W(\rho)}.$$ which is a viscous form of the Hughes model. For a detailed modelling of the interactions between pedestrians we refer for example to [@Deg13]. For rigorous results on the Hughes model and the approximation of the model via particle systems we refer to [@di; @hughes1; @di2]. In the following, our goal will be to develop a meshfree particle method for equations (\[cont\]), (\[diff1\]) for different ranges of parameters and, in particular, for the limit equations (\[contdiff\]), (\[diff2\]). Numerical method ================ For a general description of the particle method used here and further references on the subject, we refer to [@KT15]. Here, we concentrate on the approximation of the interaction term. We follow the approach in [@KT15]. However, additionally to [@KT15] we have to treat here the terms leading to hyperbolic limit equations in a suitable way. Approximation of the interaction term using particle methods {#sec:Approximation} ------------------------------------------------------------ The key point of our method is to approximate the integrals $$\begin{aligned} \label{int1} F_R \star \rho (x) = \int F_R (x-y) \rho (y) dy\end{aligned}$$ with $F_R= U_R$ and $F_R = \nabla_x U_R$. We denote the Voronoi cell around particle $i$ given by the particle locations of the other particles by $V_i$. $\vert V_i \vert$ denotes the volume of this cell. Then, a naive or microscopic approximation of the integral terms would be to use $$\begin{aligned} \label{simple} F_R \star \rho (x_i) \sim \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N \rho_j \vert V_j \vert F_R(x_i-x_j) , \end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is now the number of macroscopic particles used in the particle method. For small values of $R$ this results in the following problem. We consider a situation where the method is underresolved, that means where one uses a small number of macroscopic particles in contrast to the large number of microscopic particles described by the macroscopic equations. Then, the value evaluated from (\[simple\]) will be zero due to the large distances between the macroscopic particles and the relatively small value of $R$. However, the actual value of the integral will not be zero even for very small $R$ due to the corresponding ’infinite’ number of microscopic particles described by the macroscopic equations. We resolve this problem using a higher order approximation of the integral. This yields in the limit for small $R$ a method for the limiting nonlinear Fokker-Planck equations, even if the number of macroscopic particles is still small. We use an approximation of the density given by $$\begin{aligned} \rho(y) = \sum_{j=1}^N \left[\rho_j + \sigma_j \cdot (y-x_j)\right] \chi_{V_j} (y),\end{aligned}$$ where $V_j$ denotes the Voronoi cell associated to particle/mesh point $x_j$ and $\chi$ denotes the characteristic function. The approximation $\sigma_j$ of the first derivative $\nabla_x \rho (x_j)$ is determined via a least squares approximation using the neighbouring points. Then, we obtain for the integral (\[int1\]) $$\begin{aligned} \label{int} & F_R \star \rho (x_i) \\ &\sim \sum_{j=1}^N \left[\rho_j \int_{V_j \cap B_R(x_i)} F_R(x_i-y) dy + \sigma_j \cdot \int_{V_j \cap B_R(x_i)} (y-x_j) F_R(x_i-y) dy \right] .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We approximate first the integral around the center point $x_i$. To approximate the integral we distinguish between the cases $\vert V_i \vert > \vert B_R \vert$ and $\vert V_i \vert < \vert B_R \vert$. For $\vert V_i \vert > \vert B_R \vert$, we proceed as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \int_{V_i \cap B_R(x_i)} F_R(x_i-y) dy \sim \int_{ B_R(x_i)} F_R(x_i-y) dy =1 \end{aligned}$$ This is equal to 1 for $F_R = U_R $ due to the normalization of the potential. For $F_R = \nabla_x U_R $ the expression is equal to 0, since $$\begin{aligned} \int_{ B_R(x_i)} \nabla_x U_R (x_i-y) dy = \int_{B_{R}(0)} \nabla_x U_R (y) dy = \int_{ \partial B_{R}(0)} \frac{y}{\Vert y \Vert} U_R(y) d S(y) =0. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{V_i \cap B_R(x_i)} \sigma_i \cdot (y-x_i) F_R(x_i-y) dy \sim \int_{ B_R(x_i)} \sigma_i \cdot (y-x_i) F_R(x_i-y) dy \\ = - \int_{ B_R(0)} \sigma_i \cdot y F_R(y) dy .\end{aligned}$$ This expression is for $F_R = U_R$ equal to $- \sigma_i \cdot \mu$, where $\mu = \int_{ B_R(0)} y U_R(y) dy $ is the mean value of $U_R$. For $F_R = \nabla_x U_R$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} - \int_{ B_R(0)} \sigma_i \cdot y \nabla_x U_R (y) dy = \int_{ B_R(0)} U_R(y) dy \sigma_i = \sigma_i. \end{aligned}$$ If $\vert V_i \vert < \vert B_R \vert$ then we first compute $R_{V_i}$ such that $\vert B_{R_{V_i}} \vert = \vert V_i \vert$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{V_i \cap B_R(x_i)} F_R(x_i-y) dy \sim \int_{V_i } F_R(x_i-y) dy \\\sim \int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(x_i)} F_R(x_i-y) dy = \int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} F_R(y) dy \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Thus we obtain $\int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} U_R(y) dy$ for $F_R = U_R$. For $F_R = \nabla_x U_R$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \int_{ \partial B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} \frac{y}{\Vert y \Vert} U_R(y) d S(y)\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we compute $$\begin{aligned} \int_{V_i \cap B_R(x_i)} \sigma_i \cdot (y-x_i) F_R(x_i-y) dy \sim \int_{V_i } \sigma_i \cdot (y-x_i) F_R(x_i-y) dy \\ \sim - \sigma_i \cdot \int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} y F_R(y) dy.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is equal to $- \sigma_i \cdot \int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} y F_R(y) dy$ for $F_R = U_R$. For $F_R = \nabla_x U_R$ we get $$\begin{aligned} &\sigma_i \int_{ B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} U_R(y) dy - \int_{ \partial B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} \sigma_i \cdot y \frac{y}{\Vert y \Vert} U_R(y) d S(y) . \end{aligned}$$ The integrals over the Voronoi cells with the points $x_j, j \neq i$ as centerpoints are approximated in the following way. A simple second order approximation is given by the midpoint rule $$\begin{aligned} \int_{V_j \cap B_R(x_i)} F_R(x_i-y) dy \sim \vert V_j \vert F_R(x_i-x_j)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \int_{V_j \cap B_R(x_i)} (y-x_j) \otimes F_R(x_i-y) dy \sim 0. \end{aligned}$$ Altogether, one obtains $$\begin{aligned} \label{approxu} U_R \star \rho (x_i) \sim \sum_{ j \neq i} \Big(\rho_j \vert V_j \vert U_R(x_i-x_j) \Big) + \alpha_i \rho_i + \alpha^\prime_i \cdot \sigma_i \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{approxf} \nabla_x U_R \star \rho (x_i) \sim \sum_{ j \neq i} \Big(\rho_j \vert V_j \vert \nabla_x U_R(x_i-x_j) \Big) + \beta_i \rho_i + \beta^\prime_i \sigma_i\end{aligned}$$ with the correction factors $$\begin{aligned} \label{alphaformula} \alpha_i = \int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} U_R(y) dy \\ \alpha^\prime_i = - \int_{B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} y U_R(y) dy\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{betaformula} \beta_i = \int_{ \partial B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} \frac{y}{\Vert y \Vert} U_R(y) d S(y) \\ \beta^\prime_i = \int_{ B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} U_R(y) dy I - \int_{ \partial B_{R_{V_i}}(0)} y \otimes y \frac{1}{\Vert y \Vert} U_R(y) d S(y) \end{aligned}$$ for $\vert V_i \vert < \vert B_R \vert$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{alphaformula2} \alpha_i = 1 \\ \alpha^\prime_i = - \int_{B_{R}(0)} y U_R(y) dy\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{betaformula2} \beta_i = 0 \\ \beta^\prime_i = I \end{aligned}$$ for $\vert V_i \vert < \vert B_R \vert$. We note that in order to obtain a stable approximation we have to guarantee that $\alpha_i^\prime$ and $\beta_i\prime$ are non-negative. Alltogether, we have the following algorithm 1. For each $x_i$ check for particles inside the interaction-region $B_R(x_i)$. 2. Compute for all particles inside this region the size of the Voronoi cells $ \vert V_j \vert , j = 1, \ldots, N. $ 3. Use the neighbouring particles inside the neighbourhood region of radius $h$ (not only the interaction region) to compute an approximation $\sigma_i$ of the first derivative $\nabla_x \rho(x_i)$. 4. Compute $ F_R \star \rho (x_i) $ according to the above formulas. For $\vert V_j \vert << \vert B_R \vert$ the approximation behaves like the microscopic interaction approximation, since $\alpha_i, \beta_i$ go to $0$. For $\vert V_j \vert >> \vert B_R \vert$, i.e. the underresolved situation, we have an approximation which behaves like a solution method for the macroscopic equations since $\alpha_i , \beta_i$ go to $1$ and the other terms vanish. More accurate approximations of the integrals are possible at the expense of a more complicated approximation, compare [@KT15]. In a situation as in the above remark with $\beta \ne 0$ we need an upwind procedure to stabilize the numerical approximation. A first order upwind procedure amounts to adding numerical diffusion proportional to $ \vert V_i \vert . $ In comparison, the above factor $\alpha_i^\prime$, describing the physical diffusion in case of an unsymmetric potential, is proportional to $R$. In case $\vert V_i \vert \sim R$, the two diffusion coefficients are of the same order. Thus, the physical diffusion is of the same order as the numerical diffusion. In order to capture the effects of the physical diffusion a higher order upwinding procedure would be necessary to reduce the numerical diffusion. Special cases ------------- The above formulas give for radially symmetric potentials $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i = d \tau_d \int_0^{R_{V_i}} U_R(r) r^{d-1} dr \rho_i \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \beta_i ^\prime = d \tau_d \int_0^{R_{V_i}} U_R(r) r^{d-1} dr \sigma_i - \tau_d R_{V_i}^d U_R (R_{V_i}) \sigma_i ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_d$ is the volume of the unit sphere in ${\mathrm{I\hspace{-0.5ex}R}}^d$. $\alpha_i^\prime$ and $\beta_i$ are $0$ in the radially symmetric case. Rewriting gives $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i = A \left(\frac{R_{V_i}}{R}\right) \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} A(z) = d \tau_d \int_0^z U_1(y) y^{d-1} d y \end{aligned}$$ for $z \in [0,1]$ and $A (z) =1, z \ge 1$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \beta_i^\prime = B^\prime \left(\frac{R_{V_i}}{R}\right) \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} B^\prime(z) = d \tau_d \int_0^z U_1(y) y^{d-1} d y - \tau_d z^d U_1(z) \end{aligned}$$ for $z \in [0,1]$ and $B^\prime (z) =1, z \ge 1$. We note that $\beta_i^\prime$ is positive, if the potential fulfills $$d \int_0^z U_1 (y) y^{d-1} d y - z^d U_1(z) \ge 0, z \in [0,1]$$ or $$\int_0^z y^d U_1^\prime (y) dy \le 0, z \in [0,1].$$ This is the case for any repulsive potential. Also potentials like the Morse potential fulfilling the condition in Remark \[remmorse\] fulfill the condition, since $$\begin{aligned} \int_0^z y^d U^\prime (y) dy & = \int_0^z y^d \left(G (y) -F LG (y/L)\right)^\prime dy\\ = \int_0^z y^d \left(G^\prime (y) -F G^\prime (y/L)\right) dy &= \int_0^z y^d G^\prime (y) dy - F L^{d+1} \int_0^{z/L} y^d G^\prime (y) dy .\end{aligned}$$ This expression is negative for all $z \in [0,\infty]$, if $F<1$ and $1-F L^{d+1} >0 .$ For the quadratic potential $U_R$ described in the first section in Remark \[quadratic\] the above formulas give the following expressions for $\alpha_i,\beta_i^\prime$: $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i = A \left(\frac{R_{V_i}}{R}\right) \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} A(z) = \frac{1}{2}(d+1)(d+2)z^{d} - d (d+2)z^{d+1}+ \frac{1}{2} d (d+1) z^{d+2} \end{aligned}$$ for $z \in [0,1]$ and $A (z) =1, z \ge 1$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \beta_i^\prime = B^\prime \left(\frac{R_{V_i}}{R}\right) \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} B^\prime(z) = (d+2) z^{d+1}- (d+1) z^{d+2} \end{aligned}$$ for $z \in [0,1]$ and $B^\prime (z) =1, z \ge 1$. We note that $B^\prime \ge 0$. Moreover, $\alpha_i^\prime= \beta_i=0$. In 1D this gives $$U_R = \frac{3 }{2 R^3} \left( R - \vert x \vert \right)^2, \vert x \vert \le R$$ and the following expressions $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i = A \left(\frac{\vert V_i \vert}{ 2 R}\right), \; A(z) = 3 z - 3 z^2+ z^3 \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \beta_i^\prime = B^\prime \left(\frac{\vert V_i \vert}{ 2 R}\right),\; B^\prime(z) = 3 z^2 - 2 z^3 \end{aligned}$$ for $z \in [0,1]$. In 2-D we have $$U_R = \frac{6 }{ \pi R^4} \left( R - \Vert x \Vert \right)^2, \Vert x \Vert< R$$ and the following expressions $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i = A \left(\sqrt{\frac{\vert V_i \vert}{ \pi R^2}}\right), \; A(z) = 6z^{2} - 8 z^{3}+ 3 z^{4} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \beta_i^\prime = B^\prime \left(\sqrt{\frac{\vert V_i \vert}{ \pi R^2}}\right), \; B^\prime(z) = 4 z^3- 3 z^4. \end{aligned}$$ for $z \in [0,1]$. Considering the 1-D case, the potential in Example \[unsymm\], i.e. $$U_R = \frac{3 }{ R^3} \left( R - \vert x \vert \right)^2$$ for $ -R <x< 0$ and $0$ otherwise, leads to the expressions $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i = A(\frac{\vert V_i \vert}{2R}) \end{aligned}$$ with $$A(z) = 3 z - 3 z^2 + z^3, z \in [0,1]$$ and $A(z)=1$ for $ z \ge 1$ and $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i^\prime = \frac{R}{4} A^\prime(\frac{\vert V_i \vert}{2R}) \end{aligned}$$ with $$A^\prime(z) = 6 z^2 - 8 z^3 + 3 z^4 , z \in [0,1]$$ and $A^\prime (z)=1$ for $z \ge 1 $. We note that $A^\prime \ge 0$. Numerical results {#sec:Numerics} ================= In this section we present a series of numerical experiments for the hydrodynamic (\[cont\]) and scalar equations (\[diff1\]) and their localized approximations (\[contdiff\]) and (\[diff2\]). In particular, we will investigate and compare the different schemes for the non-local equations for situations near the local limit. One observes the following: if a well resolved situation with a large number of particles compared to the interaction radius is considered, then the results of the multi-scale and the naive or microscopic approximation coincide. In this case the multiscale method behaves similiar to a microscopic (DEM-type) simulation. If, however, a strongly underresolved situation is considered, i.e. the number of grid particles is small compared to the interaction radius, then the numerical solution using the microscopic approximation of the integral deviates strongly from the correct solution. On the contrary, using the multi-scale method with the correction factors introduced above, a good approximation of the correct solution is obtained. In this case the multi-scale method is essentially a meshfree numerical method for macroscopic equations. Since all methods require approximately the same amount of computation time per grid-particle, the above observations can be rephrased as follows: for situations with relatively small interaction radius we obtain, using the multiscale method, a reduction in computation time by several orders of magnitude. On the other hand, for relatively large interaction radius, the computation times of the microscopic approximation and of the multiscale method are similar. Numerical results in 1-D ------------------------ ### Test case (Example 3) We study 1-D movement of the particles under the influence of a confining potential. The equations are described in Example \[examplebasic\]. More precisely, we look at equations (\[basicnonlocal\]) and its limit equation (\[basiclocal\]). The interaction potential is given by (\[potsymm\]). We consider the case of small $\epsilon << 1$. The porous media case $\epsilon =1$ has been treated in Ref. [@KT15]. We choose $V(x) = \vert x \vert^2/2$ and $\gamma = 1$. We choose different values for the interaction radius $R$. For this example the particles are assumed to be distributed on a fixed equidistant grid, i.e. we use here an Eulerian approach. Situations with arbitrary particle locations and a Lagrangian approach are considered in the following subsections. The initial density is given by $\rho(x,0) = 1$ for $x \in [-0.5,0.5]$ and $0$ elsewhere. As time proceeds the density converges to a stationary solution depending on the value of $R$. For the localized limit equation this stationary solution is for small values of $\epsilon$ approximated by $\rho_{\infty} = -x $ for $ - \sqrt{2}<x<0$ and $\rho_{\infty} =0$ otherwise, such that $\int \rho_{\infty} (x) dx =1$. In order to obtain the steady state solution we have solved the equation until $t=8$. \ ----------------- -------------- -------- ------------- ---------- $\# $ Particles Fokker-Plank naive multi-scale CPU time $ $ error error error seconds $200$ 0.29 $5.99$ $0.51$ $ 26$ $400$ 0.21 $1.14$ $0.33$ $ 51$ $800$ 0.15 $0.77$ $0.21$ $ 104$ $1600$ 0.07 $0.55$ $0.10$ $ 216$ ----------------- -------------- -------- ------------- ---------- : $\mathcal{L}^2$-errors and CPU time for Example 3 with $R=0.02$.[]{data-label="table1"} ![$\mathcal{L}^2$-error plot versus number of particles for the solutions at steady state computed from (\[basiclocal\]) and (\[basicnonlocal\]) with $R= 0.02$ using the microscopic and the multi-scale approximation.[]{data-label="error1"}](Example3_error.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"} In Figure \[fig1\] we plot the solutions for a fixed number of particles $N=1600$ and different values of $R$, considering in this way the different algorithms in the well-resolved, in intermediate cases and in the underresolved case. We plot the limiting Fokker-Planck solution and the microscopic and multi-scale solutions. In the well resolved case, i.e. here for larger values of $R$, the microscopic approximation of the integral and the multi-scale solution give similiar results deviating from the solution of the limiting Fokker-Planck equation. For the under-resolved case, for smaller values of $R$, the microscopic approximation does not give the correct results as discussed above, in contrast to the the multi-scale method. In particular, one observes that using the microscopic discretization for an underresolved situation, the numerical evolution terminates before the stationary state is reached, if the compact supports of the interaction kernels of the finite number of particles do not overlap any more. Finally, we investigate the convergence rate of the method numerically. We consider a situation near the localized limit with $R=0.02$, where the limit equation gives the correct solution up to order $10^{-2}$ and is used as the reference solution. We compute the error of the particle methods for the scalar model (\[basicnonlocal\]) comparing the numerical results to the numerically determined stationary solution. The scalar problem is solved with microscopic and multi-scale approximation of the interaction term. In Figure \[error1\] and Table \[table1\] the $\mathcal{L}^2$-errors versus the number of particles are plotted. One observes the deterioration of the method using the microscopic approximation of the interaction term for smaller numbers of particles. The multi-scale method is able to treat all ranges with a similiar accuracy. We remark that the computation time for the different methods is approximately the same for the same number of particles. Looking at Table \[table1\] we observe that the multiscale method with $N=200$ particles yields for the present example the same error as the microscopic method with $N=1600$ particles. Thus, the computation time for the naive, microscopic method is approximately an order of magnitude larger than the time for the multi-scale method. ### Non-local traffic flow (Example 4) We consider equations (\[trafficnonlocal\]) and (\[trafficlocal\]) with different initial conditions and different choices of the interaction potential. For this example, we consider a fully Lagrangian approach. First we consider a symmetric potential as in Example \[quadratic\] and initial conditions leading to a rarefaction wave solution. We choose $$\begin{aligned} \rho_0 (x) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}, \, \,x<0\\ 0, \, \, x>0. \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ The solution of the limit equation (\[trafficlocal\]) is a rarefaction wave $$\begin{aligned} \rho (x,t) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}, \, \,x < 0 \\ \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{x}{t}\right), \, \,0< x < t \\ 0, \, \, x > t . \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ We choose and $\delta =0.1$. In Figure \[fig-comparison1\] the rarefaction solution is compared at time $t=2$ for the scalar model (\[trafficlocal\]) and for (\[trafficnonlocal\]) with microscopic interaction approximation and multi-scale approximation. We use a fixed number of particles $N=800$ and an interaction radius ranging from $R = 0.002$ to $R = 0.4$. One observes a good coincidence of microscopic and multi-scale approximation for large $R$ and a stronger deviation, the smaller the value of $R$ is chosen. In this situation the influence of larger values of $R$ on the exact solution is a small increase of the smearing of the solution. We note that in this situation using a one-sided downwind interaction potential as in Example 2 and $\delta =0$ gives similar results. \ Second we consider a shock solution of the Riemann problem for equation (\[trafficnonlocal\]) and (\[trafficlocal\]). The initial values are now chosen as $$\begin{aligned} \rho_0 (x) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}, \, \,x<0\\ 1, \, \, x>0. \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ The solution of the limit equation (\[trafficlocal\]) is a shock $$\begin{aligned} \rho (x,t) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2} , \, \,x <-\frac{t}{2} \\ 1, \, \, x > - \frac{t}{2} . \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ We consider first the case of a one-sided downwind potential chosen as in Example 2 and chose $\delta =0$. In Figure \[fig-comparison2\] we compare again different values of $R$ for a fixed number $N=800$ of particles. We observe, that in the well resolved case for larger values of $R$ the microscopic approximation and the multi-scale solution give a smeared out shock solution deviating from the solution of the limiting equation which is a moving shock. For the under-resolved case with smaller values of $R$, the microscopic approximation does not give the correct results, in particular, the speed of the computed wave is wrong and equal to the one of the advection problem obtained after setting $U_R \star \rho$ in (\[trafficnonlocal\]) equal to $0$. This is in contrast to the multi-scale method which computes the correct wave speed. \ For the investigation of the convergence of the method we consider a situation with $R=0.2$. The scalar problem is solved with microscopic and multi-scale approximation of the interaction term. We compute the error of the different methods for different numbers of grid-particles comparing the numerical results to the numerical solution of (\[trafficnonlocal\]) determined with a fine grid with $N=6400$. For  $6400$ particles the difference between multi-scale and naive method is again of the order $10^{-2}$. In Figure \[error2\] and Table \[table2\] the $\mathcal{L}^2$-errors versus the number of particles are plotted. One observes again the deterioration of the method using the microscopic approximation of the interaction term for smaller numbers of particles. The multi-scale method is able to treat all ranges with a reasonable accuracy for the first order method. ![$\mathcal{L}^2$-error plot at time $t=2$ computed from (\[trafficnonlocal\]) with $R= 0.2$ using the microscopic and the multi-scale approximation and a downwind potential.[]{data-label="error2"}](Example4_error.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"} ----------------- -------- ------------- ------------ $\# $ particles naive multi-scale CPU time error error in seconds $200$ $0.40$ $0.05$ 8 $400$ $0.26$ $0.02$ 17 $800$ $0.15$ $0.01$ 36 $1600$ $0.08$ $0.002$ 77 ----------------- -------- ------------- ------------ : Convergence study for nonlocal Lighthill-Whitham equations with downwind interaction potential and $R=0.2$.[]{data-label="table2"} Similiar to the example in the last subsection comparable errors are obtained using $N=200$ particles and a computation time of $8s$ for the multi-scale method and $N=1600$ particles and a computation time of $77s$ for the microscopic method. This yields again an order of magnitude gain in computation time. Finally we investigate the above example with a symmetric interaction potential and a regularization $\delta =0.02$. In Figure \[fig-comparison2symm\] we compare again different values of $R$ for a fixed number $N=800$ of particles. We observe, as before that in the well resolved case for larger values of $R$ the microscopic approximation and the multi-scale solution give an oscillating solution deviating from the moving shock solution of the limit equation. For the under-resolved case with smaller values of $R$, the microscopic approximation does not give the correct results as in the case of the downwind potential, whereas the multi-scale method computes the correct solution. \ For the investigation of the convergence of the method we consider as before $R=0.2$. We compute the error of the particle method for different numbers of grid-particles comparing the numerical results to the numerical solution of (\[trafficnonlocal\]) determined with a fine grid with $N=6400$. The scalar problem is solved with microscopic and multi-scale approximation of the interaction term. In Figure \[error2a\] and Table \[table2a\] the $\mathcal{L}^2$-errors versus the number of particles are plotted. One observes a similiar behaviour as in the non-symmetric potential case. We remark that the method developed here is still working in the present case, since we have regularized the equations with $\delta >0$ obtaining a dissipative limit. For $\delta $ much smaller, the limit would be dominated by dispersion and the method is not supposed to work more efficienly than the naive, microscopic approximation. ![$\mathcal{L}^2$-error plot for the solutions at time $t=2$ computed from (\[trafficnonlocal\]) with $R= 0.1$ and $\delta =0.02$ using the microscopic and the multi-scale approximation for symmetric interaction potential.[]{data-label="error2a"}](example4_error_plot_symm_pot_visc_0dot02.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"} ----------------- -------- ------------- ------------ $\# $ Particles naive multi-scale CPU time error error in seconds $200$ $0.45$ $0.13$ $9$ $400$ $0.31$ $0.05$ $19$ $800$ $0.21$ $0.02$ $50$ $1600$ $0.11$ $0.01$ $142$ ----------------- -------- ------------- ------------ : Convergence study for nonlocal Lighthill-Whitham equations with symmetric interaction potential and $R=0.2$ and $\delta =0.02$.[]{data-label="table2a"} Comparison of numerical algorithms in 2D ---------------------------------------- In this section we solve the hydrodynamic system (\[pednonlocalhydro\]) using the multi-scale algorithm and the algorithm with naive, microscopic evaluation of the integral in 2D. We compare the results with each other and with the local hydrodynamic problem (\[pedlocalhydro\]). We consider a fully Lagrangian approach. ### Hydrodynamic system for test case We consider a two dimensional domain $[0,45]\times[0, 50] $. We initially generate particles in $[0, 30]\times[0, 50]$. We simplify the hydrodynamic system (\[pednonlocalhydro\]) considering a fixed vector $ \hat e (x) = (1,0)^T. $ The maximal velocity is $u_{max}=1$ and the maximal density is chosen as $\rho_{max}=1$. A symmetric interaction potential and $\delta = 0.1$ are chosen. Moreover, $\alpha =1, \gamma =1$. We use $N=4150$ particles and the interaction radius $R$ equal to $0.2$. The initial condition is given by $$\begin{aligned} \rho_0 (x) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{5}x, \, \,0<x \le 15\\ 3-\frac{1}{5} (x-15), \, \,15<x \le 30\\ 0, \, \,30 < x \le 45. \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ In Figure \[test\] a.) the solutions of the nonlocal equations (\[pednonlocalhydro\]) with microscopic and multi-scale interaction aproximation for the interaction radius $R = 0.2$ are plotted. Moreover, the time development of the normalized total mass in the domain $x \in [0,100]$ is plotted for microscopic and multi-scale interaction approximation in Figure \[test\] b.). In Table \[table4\] we compute the error and the CPU times of naive and multi-scale method for different numbers of grid-particles, see also Figure \[fig11\]. The reference solution is computed by using a spacing of $\Delta x = 0.11$ and approximately $136000$ particles. For this very fine resolved case the difference of naive and multi-scale solution is approximately equal to $10^{-2} $. One observes in this physical situation a smaller but still relevant gain in computation time. --------- ----------------- --------- ------------- ----------- initial $\# $ particles naive multi-scale CPU time spacing $ $ error error $0.6$ $4150$ $ 0.38$ $ 0.07 $ $$ 15 min $0.36$ $11600$ $0.37 $ $0.19 $ $40$ min $0.3$ $16600$ $ 0.29$ $0.16 $ $71$ min $0.24$ $26000$ $0.20 $ $0.11$ $90$ min $0.21$ $34000$ $0.14$ $0.09$ $118$ min $0.18$ $46000$ $0.11$ $0.07$ $154$ min $0.1$ $136000$ $ 0.02$ $0.01$ $603$ min --------- ----------------- --------- ------------- ----------- : Comparison of CPU times between microscopic and multiscale simulations of the hydrodynamic 2D equations. The error analysis is performed at time 18.75 sec.[]{data-label="table4"} ### Hydrodynamic systems for pedestrian flow (Example 5) In our final example we investigate the hydrodynamic systems (\[pednonlocalhydro\]) and (\[pedlocalhydro\]). Compared to the last subsection we consider a more complicated configuration defined in Ref. [@LWZSL09], compare also ([@EGKT14]), and a full coupling to the eikonal equation. Pedestrians are initialized on the left of the domain and evacuated towards the exits on the right as shown in Figure \[initial\_ped\]. As initial value we choose a constant value of $\rho = 1 $ in the region $[0,30] \times [0,50]$. In the center of the computational domain an obstacle is located. For the eikonal equation we use $\phi=0$ on the two exits and $\phi = \infty$ on all walls as boundary conditions. ![ Initial configuration[]{data-label="initial_ped"}](initial_ped.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"} We choose the maximum velocity $u_{max} = 2$ and the maximum density $\rho_{max} = 10 $. In this case, we vary the initial average distance between grid points from $0.15$ to $1$, i.e. the number of grid particles varies between $1440$ and $61800$. Moreover, we choose the following parameter: $\gamma= 500 , \alpha = 1000$. First we consider an underresolved situation with relatively small value $R=0.2$ and $\Delta x = 0.5$, i.e a number of particles of approximately $N=5650$. In Figure \[compare\_ped1\] we plot the solution at fixed time using the localized equation and the nonlocal equation with multiscale method and microscopic integration. In this case the solution computed via the multi-scale method and the one computed from the localized equation coincide, whereas the microscopic method gives strongly different results. In Figure \[compare\_ped1a\] we show a comparison of solutions obtained from the microscopic scheme with decreasing discretization sizes or increasing number of particles. Figure \[compare\_ped2\] considers a well-resolved case with $\Delta x = 0.2$ and $R=0.4$. In this case we observe good coincidence of the solutions of microscopic an multi-scale approximations. Finally, in Table \[table3\] and Figure \[fig115\] we compute the error and the CPU times of naive and multi-scale method for different numbers of grid-particles. The errors are determined along a line with $y=37$ and $x \in [25,55]$. The relative $\mathcal{L}^2$-errors are given as well as the computation times in minutes. The reference solution is computed by using a spacing of $\Delta x = 0.15$ and approximately $62000$ particles. For this fine resolved case the difference of naive and multi-scale solution is approximately equal to $10^{-2}$. Looking at Table \[table3\] and the multiscale error with $1400$ particles and the naive error with $35200$ particles one observes in this more complex situation a gain in computation time by more than an order of magnitude. comparing the naive computation with $35200$ particles with the multi-scale simulation with $5700$ particles there is still a gain of an order of magnitude. --------- ----------------- --------- ------------- ----------- initial $\# $ particles naive multi-scale CPU time spacing $ $ error error $ 1$ $1400$ $ 0.54$ $0.14 $ $8$ min $0.5$ $5700$ $ 0.36$ $0.18 $ $23$ min $0.35$ $11500$ $ 0.48$ $0.22 $ $52$ min $0.2$ $35200$ $0.16 $ $0.14 $ $223$ min --------- ----------------- --------- ------------- ----------- : Comparison of CPU times between microscopic and multiscale simulations of the hydrodynamic 2D equations for Example 5. The error analysis is performed at time 12.5 sec. []{data-label="table3"} Conclusion and Outlook ======================= We have extended a multi-scale meshfree particle method for macroscopic mean field approximations working uniformly for a large range of interaction parameters $R$. The well resolved case for large $R$ is treated as well as underresolved situations for small values of $R$. The method can be considered as a numerical transition from a microscopic system simulation to a macroscopic averaged simulation. Application of the method are shown for pedestrian flow simulations. The potential gain in computation time compared to a microscopic simulation is depending on the situation under consideration wit a potential gain of several orders of magnitude. In the situations considered in this paper we have obtained a gain in computation time of approximately one order of magnitude. Situations with more complex geometries or moving boundaries as well as the investigation of attractive-repulsive potentials will be treated in future work, compare [@MKT17]. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} -------------- This work is supported by the German research foundation, DFG grant KL 1105/20-1. [10]{} D.G. Aronson, *Regularity properties of flows through porous media*. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 17, (1969), 461-467. S. Blandin and P. Goatin, [*Well-posedness of a conservation law with non-local flux arising in traffic flow modeling*]{}. Numer. Math., 132, 2 (2016), 217-241 W. Braun, K. Hepp, *The Vlasov Dynamics and Its Fluctuations in the 1/N Limit of Interacting Classical Particles*. Commun. Math. Phys. 56, (1977), 101-113. T. Belytschko, Y. Guo, W. Liu, S.P. Xiao, [*A unified stability analysis of meshless particle methods*]{} Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 48, (2000), 1359-1400. T. Belyschko, W.K. Liu,B. Moran, [*Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures*]{}, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2000. M. Bodnar, J.L.L. Velazquez, *Derivation of macroscopic equations for individual cell-based models: a formal approach*, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci, 28, (2005), 1757-1779 P. Calderoni, M. Pulvirenti, Propagation of chaos for Burgers’ equation Annales de l’institut Henri Poincaré (A) Physique théorique 39, 1, (1983), 85-97 J.A. Cañizo, J.A. Carrillo, J. Rosado, *A well-posedness theory in measures for some kinetic models of collective motion*. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 21, 3, (2011), 515-539. J.A. Carrillo, G. Toscani, *Asymptotic L1-decay of solutions of the Porous Medium Equation to self-similarity*. Indiana U. Math. J. 49, (2000), 113-142. J.A. Carrillo, M.R. D’Orsogna, V. Panferov, *Double milling in self-propelled swarms from kinetic theory*. Kinetic and Related Models 2 (2009), 363-378. J.A. Carillo, M. Di Francesco, M. P. Gualdani, *Semidiscretization and longtime asymptotics of nonlinear diffusion equations*, Commun. Math. Sci., Supplemental Issue 1, (2007), 21–53. J.A. Carrillo, M. Fornasier, J. Rosado, G. Toscani, *Asymptotic Flocking Dynamics for the kinetic Cucker-Smale model*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 42(1), (2010) 218–236 R. M. Colombo, M. Garavello, and M. Lécureux-Mercier. “A class of nonlocal models for pedestrian traffic”. In: Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 22.04 (2012), p. 1150023. R. M. Colombo and M. Lécureux-Mercier. “Nonlocal crowd dynamics models for several populations”. In: Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B Engl. Ed. 32.1 (2012), 177–196. P. Degond, F:J: Mustieles, *Approximation of diffusion equations by deterministic convections of particles*. SIAM J. on Scientific and Statistical Computing 11, (1990), 293-310. P. Degond, S. Motsch, *Continuum limit of self-driven particles with orientation interaction*. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.18 (2008), 1193-1215. P. Degond, C. Appert-Rolland, M. Moussaid, J. Pettre, G. Theraulaz, *A hierarchy of heuristic-based models of crowd dynamics*, J. Stat. Phys., 152, 6, (2013), 1033–1068 M. Di Francesco, P.A. Markowich, J.F. Pietschmann and M.T. Wolfram, *On the Hughes model for pedestrian flow: The one-dimensional case*, J. Differential Equations 250 (2011) 1334-1362. M. Di Francesco, S. Fagioli, M.D. Rosini, G. Russo, Deterministic particle approximation of the [H]{}ughes model in one space dimension, Kinetic and Related Models, 10, 1, (2017), 215–237 G. A. Dilts, [*Moving-least-squares-particle hydrodynamics: I. Consistency and stability*]{} International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 44, (1999), 1115-1155. C. Drumm, S. Tiwari, J. Kuhnert, H.-J. Bart, [*Finite pointset method for simulation of the liquid-liquid flow field in an extractor*]{}, Comput. chem. Eng. 32, (2008), 2946. R. Etikyala, S. Goettlich, A. Klar, S. Tiwari, [*Particle methods for pedestrian flow models: from microscopic to non-local continuum models*]{}, Mathematical Methods and Models in Applied Sciences 24, 12, (2014), 2503-2523 Y. Farjoun, B. Seibold, An exactly conservative particle method for one dimensional scalar conservation laws Journal of Computational Physics, 228, 14, (2009), 5298-5315 R. A. Gingold, J. J. Monaghan, *Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 181, (1977), 375-389. P. Goatin, S. Scialanga, The Lighthill-Whitham-Richards traffic flow model with non-local velocity: analytical study and numerical results, Netw. Heterog. Media, 11, 1, (2016), 107-121 S. Mas-Gallic, P. Raviart, [*A particle method for first-order symmetric systems*]{} Numerische Mathematik 51, (1987), 323-352. F. Golse, *On the Dynamics of Large Particle Systems in the mean-field limit* http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5494. C.W Hirt, A.A Amsden, J.L Cook, [*An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds*]{}, Journal of Computational Physics 135, (1997) 203-216 Helbing,D. and P. Molnar, *Social force model for pedestrian dynamics*, Phys. Rev. E, 51 (1995), 4282-4286. J. Haskovec and C. Schmeiser Stochastic Particle Approximation for Measure Valued Solutions of the 2D Keller-Segel System, J. Stat. Phys. 135 (2009), 133-151 J. Haskovec and C. Schmeiser: Convergence of a stochastic particle approximation for measure solutions of the 2D Keller-Segel system. Comm. PDE 36 (2011), 940-960. F. Huang, R. Pan, Z. Wang *L1 Convergence to the Barenblatt Solution for Compressible Euler Equations with Damping*, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 200 (2011) 665–689. C. Huang, T. W.H. Sheu, [*Development of an upwinding particle interaction kernel for simulating incompressible Navier-Stokes equations*]{},Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations 28, 5, (2012), 1574–1597. F. Huang, P. Marcati, R. Pan, *Convergence to the Barenblatt Solution for the Compressible Euler Equations with Damping and Vacuum*, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 176 (2005) 1–24. R.L. Hughes, *The flow of human crowds*, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35 (2003) 169-182. S. Jin and Z. Xin, [*The Relaxation Schemes for Systems of Conservation Laws in Arbitrary Space Dimensions*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math, 48, (1995), 235-277. B. Jourdain, Probabilistic Approximation via Spatial Derivation of Some Nonlinear Parabolic Evolution Equations in Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2004 pp 197-216, Eds. H. Niederreiter, D. Talay, Springer 2006 B. Jourdain, Diffusion Processes Associated with Nonlinear Evolution Equations for Signed Measures, Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, 2, 1, (2000), 69-91 A. Klar, S. Tiwari, A multi-scale meshfree particle method for macroscopic mean field interacting particle models, SIAM Multiscale Mod. Sim. 12, 3, (2014), 1167–1192 H. Ling, S. C. Wong, M. Zhang, C. H. Shu and W. H. K. Lam, Revisiting Hughes dynamic continuum model for pedestrian flow and the development of an efficient solution algorithm, Transp. Res. B, Methodol. 43, (2009), 127–141 N. Mahato, A. Klar, S. Tiwari, Modelling and simulations of macroscopic multi-group pedestrian flow, in preparation A. Sopasakis and M. A. Katsoulakis. “Stochastic modeling and simulation of traffic flow: asymmetric single exclusion process with Arrhenius look-ahead dynamics”. In: SIAM J. Appl. Math. 66.3 (2006), 921–944 (electronic). A. J. Leverentz, C. M. Topaz, and A. J. Bernoff, [*Asymptotic Dynamics of Attractive-Repulsive Swarms*]{}, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Systems 8, 3, (2009), 880-908 H. Neunzert, *The Vlasov equation as a limit of Hamiltonian classical mechanical systems of interacting particles*. Trans. Fluid Dynamics, 18 (1977), 663-678. K. Oelschlaeger, *Large systems of interacting particles and the porous medium equation*. Journal of Differential Equation 88(2), (1990), 294–346 M.E. Schonbeck, *Convergence of solutions to nonlinear dispersive equations*, Comm. Partial Differ. Eq., 7, (1982) , 959-1000 H. Spohn, *Kinetic equations from Hamiltonian dynamics: Markovian limits*, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, (1980) 569–615 H. Spohn, *Large scale dynamics of interacting particles*. Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer (1991). A.S. Sznitman,*A propagation of chaos result for Burgers’ equation* Prob. Th. Rel. Fields 71, (1986), 581-613 + S. Tiwari, J. Kuhnert, *Modelling of two-phase flow with surface tension by Finite Point-set method (FPM)*. J. Comp. Appl. Math. 203 (2007), 376-386. S. Tiwari, J. Kuhnert, [*Finite pointset method based on the projection method for simulations of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, M. Griebel, M. A. Schweitzer (Eds.), Springer LNCSE: Meshfree Methods for Partial Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 26, (2003), 373-387. S. Tiwari, A. Klar, S. Hardt, *A particle-particle hybrid method for kinetic and continuum equations*, J. Comp. Phys. 228, (2009), 7109-7124. D. R. Tunuguntla, A.R. Thornton, T. Weinhardt, *From discrete particles to continuum fields: extension to bidisperse systems* Comput. Part. Mech. 3,3, (2016), 349-365 T. Weinhardt, A.R. Thornton, S. Luding, O. Bokhove, *From discrete particles to continuum fields near a boundary* Granul. Matt. 14,2, (2012), 289-294 H.P. Zhu, A.B. Yu, *Averaging method of granular materials*. Phys. Rev. E 66 (2002), 021302.

Motivation {#sec:motivation} ========== Among all gravitational wave sources that theorists have considered, the one most likely to be detected first is the final inspiral and merger of binary black holes (BBH’s) with masses $M_1 \sim M_2 \sim 10$–$20M_\odot$ [@bhfirst]. Detailed analyses of the evolution of stellar and black-hole populations [@binary-evolution] predict event rates as high as $\sim$ one per year in the first LIGO/VIRGO interferometers (2002–2003) and a thousand per year in enhanced interferometers for which research and development is currently under way, but the rates could also be far lower than this. Optimal search techniques require prior information about the gravitational waveforms. The waveforms from the early binary inspiral phase, when the holes are far apart, are calculated by a post-Newtonian (PN) expansion. The merger phase, beginning at the innermost stable circular orbit, will be calculated by numerical relativity. Unfortunately, there is a gap [@Thorne-Finn] between the failure of the PN expansion (which, for concreteness, we take to occur when its Taylor series makes a $2\%$ error in the energy loss rate [@pnfailure]) and the beginning of merger. Filling this gap is called the Intermediate Binary Black Hole (IBBH) Problem [@Thorne-Finn]. We estimate [@pnfailure] the PN failure point, for calculations at 3PN order \[O$(v^6)$ beyond Newtonian gravity and quadrupolar radiation reaction\], to be at the orbital speed $v \equiv (M\Omega)^{1/3} \simeq 0.3$ (where $M$ is the system’s total mass, $\Omega$ is its orbital angular velocity, and $G=c=1$); there the remaining time to merger, remaining number of orbits, and remaining number of gravitational-wave radians are $T \simeq 1200M$, $N_{\rm orbits} \simeq 8$, and $\Phi \simeq 100$. For 2.5PN calculations, the PN failure is at $v\simeq0.25$ where $T\simeq5000M$, $N_{\rm orbits} \simeq 20$, and $\Phi \simeq 250$. For optimal detection of the waves, the waveform must be accurately modeled in the IBBH gap [@pnfailure]. The wave frequency in this gap is $f = \Omega/\pi \sim (50\;\mbox{to $200$ Hz}) (20M_\odot/M)$, which is the band of optimal LIGO/VIRGO sensitivity. This adds urgency to the IBBH problem. For numerical simulations of the merger phase, the conventional approach uses asymptotically inertial coordinates in which the dynamical timescale, $\tau_{\rm dyn} \sim M$, is set by the task of moving the holes across the coordinate grid. It is unlikely that, in the next several years, this approach will be able to evolve a BBH through the gap for the required $\agt 1200$ dynamical time scales. This motivates exploring alternative procedures for computing the evolution and waves during the IBBH phase. One possible method of extending the PN expansion into and through the IBBH region is to augment it with Pad[é]{} approximants [@pade-approx]. Preliminary results [@pade-approx], in which PN and exact waveforms in the test-mass limit are compared, give cause for optimism that the waveforms’ phase evolution can be computed with adequate accuracy via PN Pad[é]{}-approximants all the way through the IBBH region. However, there is little hope, via PN Pad[é]{} approximants, to evolve the binary’s internal spacetime geometry in the IBBH region and thereby provide (i) initial data for numerical relativity’s analysis of the merger, and (ii) a connection between those initial data and the binary’s early inspiral properties (masses, spins, orbit). For these crucial issues we must turn elsewhere. In this paper we explore an alternative strategy [@Thorne-Finn]: numerical relativity computations performed not in asymptotically inertial coordinates (as is normally done), but instead using spatial coordinates which co-rotate with the holes’ orbital motion and a temporal slicing which adjusts, as the potential well between the holes deepens, so as to keep all the metric coefficients as slowly evolving as possible. In such coordinates it is reasonable to hope to achieve a timescale $\tau_{\rm dyn}$ for dynamical evolution of the metric coefficients that is of order the timescale $\tau_\ast$ on which radiation reaction drives the holes together.[^1] Since the orbital frequency changes by only a factor of $\sim2$–$3$ through the IBBH phase, this phase may last only $\sim3$ dynamical timescales in the co-rotating frame—an enormous reduction from the $\agt1200$ timescales in the asymptotically inertial coordintes of standard numerical relativity. Although the metric coefficients’ true dynamical timescale will be $\tau_\ast$ in these co-rotating coordinates, numerical approximations may excite spurious gravitational waves with wavelengths of order the spatial grid size. Some numerical schemes will be forced to take time steps shorter than the grid size in order to suppress these modes and to keep the numerical evolution stable; cf. the Courant condition. A good numerical scheme should freeze out these unphysical modes and stabilize the evolution while using long time steps. Correspondingly, a concrete implementation of our strategy must include two elements: first, a method to choose the lapse and shift so the coordinates co-rotate with the binary; second, a numerical scheme that evolves stably with time steps constrained only by $\tau_\ast$. Such a scheme differs from that of previous co-rotating neutron-star-binary calculations [@quasi-ns], which have not evolved the gravitational field but instead computed sequences of equilibria. Choosing the lapse and shift ============================ Numerical relativity is based on a $3+1$ decomposition of the metric: $$ds^2 = -\alpha^2 dt^2 + \gamma_{ij} (dx^i + \beta^i dt) (dx^j + \beta^j dt) \; . \label{eq:line-element}$$ Here $\alpha$ is the lapse function, $\beta^i$ is the shift vector, and $\gamma_{ij}$ is the intrinsic metric of the 3-dimensional slices of constant time $t$. The lapse and shift are specified freely during the evolution, thereby fixing the spacetime coordinates. We propose to construct the initial IBBH co-rotating coordinates and metric from the PN metric near the PN failure point by adjusting the lapse $\alpha$ and shift $\beta_j$ so as to make the metric coefficients evolve on the inspiral timescale $\tau_\ast$. Subsequently $\alpha$ and $\beta_j$ must be chosen so as to make the coordinate time derivatives of all the metric coefficients stay small—or, equivalently in coordinate-independent language, to make $${\cal L}_{\partial_t} \bbox{g} \simeq 0 \;, \label{e:approx-killing}$$ where ${\cal L}_{\partial_t} \bbox{g}$ is the Lie derivative of the spacetime metric $\bbox{g}$ with respect to the coordinate system’s time generator $\partial_t$. This is a vague statement, which we make precise by thinking of the left side of Eq. (\[e:approx-killing\]) as a velocity, constructing a kinetic energy from this velocity, and choosing a lapse and shift that minimize this kinetic energy. We will discuss several such action principles for $\alpha$ and $\beta_j$ in the next two subsections. The Minimal-Strain Lapse and Shift ---------------------------------- In the spirit of Smarr and York’s [@york-smarr] minimal distortion shift, we can construct an action principle based on minimizing the Lie derivative of the spatial metric $\gamma_{ij}$ rather than the spacetime metric. Specifically, we presume that the numerical evolution has proceeded up to some slice of constant time $t$ that has intrinsic metric $\gamma_{ij}$ and extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$, and we choose the lapse $\alpha$ and shift $\beta_i$ on this slice so as to minimize the positive definite action $$I_1[\alpha,\beta_k] = \int d^3x \! \sqrt{\gamma} \; \dot{\gamma_{ij}} \gamma^{ik}\gamma^{jl}\dot{\gamma}_{kl} \; . \label{e:action-spatial}$$ Here $\dot \gamma_{ij} = \partial \gamma_{ij}/ \partial t$ (the Lie derivative of $\gamma_{ij}$ along $\partial_t$) must be expressed in terms of $K_{ij}$, $\alpha$, $\beta_j$ via the standard relation $$\dot \gamma_{ij} = - 2 \alpha K_{ij} + 2D_{(i}\beta_{j)} \; , \label{e:extrinsic-curvature}$$ where $D_i$ is the spatial gradient compatible with the 3-metric $\gamma_{ij}$. By minimizing the resulting action with respect to variations of $\alpha$ and $\beta_i$, we obtain four coupled equations: \[e:spatial\] $$\begin{aligned} K^{ij} [ - 2\alpha K_{ij} + 2D_i\beta_j ] &=& 0 \; , \label{e:spatial-1}\\ D^j [- 2\alpha K_{ij} + 2D_{(i}\beta_{j)}] &=& 0 \; . \label{e:spatial-2}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[e:spatial-1\]) is easily solved to give $\alpha$ in terms of $\beta_j$. When that $\alpha$ is inserted into Eq. (\[e:spatial-2\]), the result is a linear, homogeneous differential equation for $\beta_j$. If the lapse were not fixed via Eq. (\[e:spatial-1\]) but instead were chosen independent of $\beta_j$, e.g., via maximal slicing, then the shift equation (\[e:spatial-2\]) would reduce to the minimal strain shift of Smarr and York [@york-smarr]. We therefore refer to Eqs. (\[e:spatial\]) as [*minimal strain equations*]{}. Notice the geometrical nature of the spatial coordinates carried by this lapse and shift: The action principle (\[e:action-spatial\]) minimizes the rate of change, along $\partial_t$, of the infinitesimal proper distance between neighboring points at fixed spatial coordinates. This (presumably) will be achieved, in the binary itself, by making the coordinates co-rotate with the holes, and in the radiation zone by attaching the spatial coordinates to the wave pattern, i.e., by (almost) freezing the wave pattern into the spatial coordinate grid. A direct consequence is that evolution along $\partial_t$ is nearly shape and volume preserving. In the IBBH problem, this approach is not without shortcomings: there is no guarantee that the minimal strain equations, which are solved on each spatial slice, will force the lapse and shift to evolve slowly. On the other hand, if the initial data are constructed in coordinates that are close to co-rotating (as they will be using the known PN metric), and if appropriate slow-change boundary conditions are enforced on $\beta_i$ near the holes’ apparent horizons and at the outer edge of the coordinate grid, then it is reasonable to expect $\alpha$ and $\beta_i$ to evolve on the same slow timescale $\tau_\ast$ as the spatial metric $\gamma_{ij}$. This is because $\alpha$ and $\beta_i$ inherit their dynamics from the time evolution of $\gamma_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$. Note that the minimal strain equations become degenerate for time-symmetric initial data; such a situation will not arise in the IBBH problem. A method of enforcing a variant of Eq. (\[e:spatial-1\]) where $K^{ij}$ is replaced by $\gamma^{ij}$ has been explored by Balakrishna [*et al.*]{} [@balakrishna:1996] The following (far from rigorous) argument makes it seem likely that this scheme will succeed for the IBBH problem. The IBBH spacetime has an “almost Killing vector field” $\bbox{\xi}$, which embodies co-rotation and satisfies $${\cal L}_{\bbox{\xi}} \bbox{g} \equiv \bbox{s} \sim \lambda/\tau_* \; .\label{e:time-derivative}$$ Here $\lambda \sim M$ is the length scale over which the spacetime curvature varies, and $\tau_*\gg \lambda$ is the inspiral timescale, so $\bbox{s}$ is small. In terms of the 3+1 spacetime foliation being generated by the minimal-strain lapse and shift, we can decompose $\bbox{\xi}$ into a spatial piece $\bbox{B}$ and a piece in the direction $\hat{\bbox{n}}$ normal to the surfaces of constant $t$: $\bbox{\xi} = A \hat{\bbox{n}} + \bbox{B}$, where $\bbox{B}\cdot\hat{\bbox{n}}=0$ by definition. We wish to determine the effectiveness of the minimal strain equations at attaching the coordinate grid to $\bbox{\xi}$, i.e., at making $\bbox{\xi} = \partial_t$ or equivalently $A=\alpha$ and $\bbox{B} = \bbox{\beta}$. First, we project Eq. (\[e:time-derivative\]) into the spatial slice $\Sigma$ to get $$2 D_{(i}B_{j)} - 2 A K_{ij} = s_{ij} \; . \label{e:projected-derivative}$$ Next, because $\alpha$ and $\beta^i$ satisfy Eqs. (\[e:spatial\]), $$D^j [- 2 K_{ij} K^{kl} D_k\beta_l / K_{mn}K^{mn} + 2D_{(i}\beta_{j)}] = 0 \; . \label{e:shifter}$$ Finally, substituting $\beta^i=B^i-b^i$ into this equation and using Eq. (\[e:projected-derivative\]) we find that $b^i$, the difference between the minimal-strain shift and the shift we would like, satisfies $$\begin{aligned} D^j[- 2 K_{ij} && K^{kl} D_k b_l / K_{mn}K^{mn} + 2 D_{(i}b_{j)}] \nonumber\\ &&= D^j[- K_{ij}(K^{kl} s_{kl} / K_{mn}K^{mn}) + s_{ij} ] \;. \label{e:difference}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming (without proof) that the boundary value problem for Eq. (\[e:shifter\]) is well posed, we see that there exists a solution to Eq. (\[e:difference\]) that will scale as $b^i \sim \lambda/\tau_\ast$; Eq. (\[e:spatial-1\]) then implies that $\alpha-A\sim \lambda/\tau_\ast$. Therefore, the minimal-strain shift and lapse can make $\partial_t$ equal to the almost Killing vector field $\bbox{\xi}$ that embodies co-rotation, aside from fractional differences of order $\lambda/\tau_\ast$, as we desired. Notice that if $\bbox{\xi} \equiv A\hat{\bbox{n}} + \bbox{B}$ is a Killing vector field on the spacetime then $s_{ij}\equiv 0$, and $b^i=0$ is a trivial solution to Eqs. (\[e:difference\]) corresponding to $\alpha=A$ and $\beta^i=B^i$. Other Choices of Lapse and Shift -------------------------------- There is much freedom in choosing the lapse and shift to achieve the goal of slowly evolving metric coefficients. Another class of action principles that might work is based on minimizing an integral over spacetime rather than over 3-space as in Eq. (\[e:action-spatial\]). Let $\partial_t = \alpha \hat{\bbox{n}} + \bbox{\beta}$ be the vector field to which our coordinates are tied, and denote the Lie derivative of the 4-metric along $\partial_t$ by $j_{\mu\nu} = {\cal L}_{{\partial_t}} g_{\mu\nu}$. Let $\bbox{v}$ be some other vector field independent of $\partial_t$, and from it construct the tensor $H^{\mu\nu}_{\bbox{v}} = g^{\mu\nu} + v^\mu v^\nu$. Then our class of actions is $$I_2[\partial_t;\bbox{v}] = \int_{\cal M} (j_{\mu\nu} H_{\bbox{v}}^{\mu\rho} H_{\bbox{v}}^{\nu\sigma} j_{\rho\sigma})\;.$$ On varying $\partial_t$, while holding $\bbox{v}$ and the spacetime metric fixed, we arrive at $$\nabla_\nu(H^{\mu\rho}_{\bbox{v}} H^{\nu\sigma}_{\bbox{v}} j_{\rho\sigma}) = 0 \; . \label{e:TBC}$$ This is a dynamical system of equations for the lapse and shift. Certain values of $\bbox{v}$ might be considered most natural. If $\bbox{v} = \sqrt2 \times$(some unit timelike vector), then $H_{\bbox{v}}^{\mu\nu}$ is positive definite and there is a solution of Eqs. (\[e:TBC\]) that truly minimizes the action. If $\bbox{v} = 0$, then Eqs.  (\[e:TBC\]) are a simple conservation law, but the action is not positive definite. It is trivial to show that a spacetime Killing vector field is a solution to Eqs. (\[e:TBC\]) independent of the choice of $\bbox{v}$, and straightforward to extend the analysis of Eqs. (\[e:projected-derivative\])–(\[e:difference\]) to show that for the IBBH problem one of the solutions of (\[e:TBC\]) differs from the “almost Killing vector field” of Eq.(\[e:time-derivative\]) by an amount that scales as $\lambda/\tau_\ast$. However, neither here nor for our minimal-strain equations have we managed to demonstrate that the desired solution for $\partial_t$ is an attractor; this needs further study. Numerical Evolution =================== To fully solve the IBBH problem will require combining one of our lapse/shift differential equations with the Einstein equations in some concrete numerical scheme. As noted in Sec. \[sec:motivation\], although the binary’s metric coefficients should evolve on the long timescale $\tau_\ast$ in our proposed co-rotating coordinate system, there is danger that the time steps will be driven down to less than the size of the spatial grid by the numerical scheme’s attempt to follow spurious gravitational waves and/or to control numerical instabilities (the Courant condition). To avoid these pitfalls while taking time steps controlled only by the inspiral timescale $\tau_\ast$, it will be necessary to stabilize the integration scheme and freeze out the degrees of freedom that are physically present but unphysically excited. Freezing Out Unwanted Degrees of Freedom ---------------------------------------- It is well known that implicit differencing schemes freeze small-scale structure and produce unconditionally stable evolution. For this reason, we envisage using an implicit scheme to evolve the Einstein equations in co-rotating coordinates. While implicit differencing may be sufficient to achieve a stable evolution on the timescale $\tau_\ast$, we propose an additional technique that should also help. The idea is to convert the ADM equations for $\gamma_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ into a parabolic system, thereby removing all spurious waves while keeping the real ones (which are nearly frozen into the co-rotating coordinates). The evolution equations written in the usual ADM form are \[e:adm\] $$\begin{aligned} \dot \gamma_{ij} &=& -2\alpha K_{ij} + {\cal L}_\beta\gamma_{ij}\;, \label{e:admg}\\ \dot K_{ij} &=& -D_iD_j\alpha + \alpha [ {}^3\!R_{ij} + \gamma^{kl}(K_{ij}K_{kl} - 2K_{ik}K_{lj}) ] \nonumber\\ &&\quad + {\cal L}_\beta K_{ij}\;, \label{e:admK}\end{aligned}$$ where ${}^3\!R_{ij}$ is the Ricci tensor constructed from $\gamma_{ij}$. This first-order system can be re-expressed as a second order system by solving Eq. (\[e:admg\]) for the extrinsic curvature and substituting it into Eq. (\[e:admK\]). Since the fields evolve on the very long timescale $\tau_\ast$ in the co-rotating frame, and since $(\partial_t)_{\rm inertial} \simeq (\partial_t)_{\rm co-rotating} + \Omega \partial_\phi$, the terms with two time derivatives in co-rotating coordinates will be smaller, by a factor $\sim 1/(\Omega\tau_\ast)$, than at least some of those with a single time derivative. Thus, the double-time-derivative terms can be neglected (or back-differenced, if desired, so they are treated as sources arising from data on previous time slices). In particular, the term involving $\ddot\gamma_{ij}$ can be neglected (or back-differenced). (Since $\alpha$ and $\beta_i$ are not dynamical fields, we suggest that their time derivatives also be back-differenced.) The resulting parabolic system of equations for $\gamma_{ij}$ can be evolved using an implicit scheme, which should be stable for large time steps. Initial Data and Boundary Conditions ------------------------------------ To solve the IBBH problem, we must specify suitable initial data and boundary conditions in addition to formulating an evolution scheme and a method of choosing the lapse and shift. One can construct the initial data, just before the PN failure point, by using matched asymptotic expansions to join the post-Newtonian exterior metric onto the metrics of two tidally distorted Kerr black holes, and by then transforming to co-rotating coordinates [@Kashif]. The method of Cauchy characteristic matching (e.g., Ref. [@Bishop]) seems a promising candidate for constructing boundary data for evolution of $\gamma_{ij}$ in the co-rotating frame. Such matching could conceivably be done around each of the holes and at an outer boundary in the radiation zone [@Gomez_R:1997]. It may be possible to impose outgoing-wave boundary conditions as a constraint on the spatial derivatives of $\gamma_{ij}$ at the outer boundary. The shift there is $\bbox{\beta} \simeq \Omega\partial_\phi$, where $\partial_\phi$ is the generator of rotations in the orbital plane, and outgoing waves are constant along $\partial_r + \bbox{\beta}$ (aside from their $1/r$ amplitude falloff), whereas spurious ingoing waves would be constant along $\partial_r - \bbox{\beta}$. We also need boundary conditions for the differential equation used to compute the shift. Fortunately, these seem easy to construct. Since the matching to characteristics would be done on the history of closed spatial 2-surfaces on the outer boundary and around each black hole, the derivations of the equations for the lapse and shift can be repeated for these surfaces. For example, the minimal strain equations, obtained by the variations of an action of the squared velocity of the metric on the 2-surface \[the analog of Eq. (\[e:action-spatial\])\], are \[e:bound\_spatial\] $$\begin{aligned} k^{ab} [ - 2\alpha k_{ab} + 2{\cal D}_a\beta_b ] &=& 0\; , \label{e:bound_spatial-1} \\ {\cal D}^a[- 2\alpha k_{ab} + 2{\cal D}_{(a}\beta_{b)}] &=& 0\; , \label{e:bound_spatial-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_{ab}$ is the extrinsic curvature of the 2-surface embedded in its history, ${\cal D}_a$ is the covariant derivative operator compatible with the metric on the 2-surface, and $\beta_a$ is the 3-dimensional shift vector projected into the 2-surface. Since the boundary is closed, these equations can be solved to obtain the lapse function and the tangential components of the shift vector on the boundary. The component of the shift that is normal to the boundary would be set to zero, so the evolution will not attempt to follow wave crests as they leave the numerical grid. Among the various solutions to Eqs. (\[e:bound\_spatial\]), the one we want will be that which is closest to the solution on the previous time slice. This boundary solution, combined with our 3-dimensional differential equations for the lapse and shift, presumably will produce the desired $\alpha$ and $\beta_i$, which evolve on the slow time scale $\tau_\ast$ and co-rotate with the holes. Worries ======= Two conceivably serious difficulties with our approach are: (i) in our co-rotating reference frame, the almost Killing vector becomes spacelike beyond the speed-of-light surface, which might cause problems for the evolution; (ii) when the second time derivatives are discarded, the resulting evolution might not represent the true evolution of the spacetime. We doubt, however, that these difficulties will actually arise, since we have seen no sign of them in a toy problem that retains the relevant features of the IBBH problem. Our toy problem is a rotating, radiating sphere of scalar charge in flat spacetime. We begin in standard spherical polar coordinates so the line element is given by Eq. (\[eq:line-element\]) with $x^i=\{ r,\theta,\phi\}$, $\gamma_{ij} = \mbox{\rm diag} [1,r^2,r^2\sin^2\theta]$ and $\beta^i=0$. The sphere has radius $R$, angular velocity $\Omega(t)$, moment of inertia $I$ and scalar charge density $\rho [r,\theta,\phi-\Phi(t)]$ where $\Phi(t)=\int^t dt' \Omega(t')$. The scalar field $\Psi$ produced by this charge distribution satisfies the wave equation $$g^{\alpha\beta} \nabla_\alpha\nabla_\beta \Psi = 4 \pi \rho \, \Theta (R-r)\; , \label{eq:wave-eqn}$$ where $\Theta(R-r)$ is the step function which is unity inside the sphere and zero outside. As the sphere rotates, scalar waves are radiated to infinity, decreasing its angular momentum $I \Omega$ according to the radiation-reaction equation $$I \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t} = 4\pi \int d^3x \sqrt{\gamma} \, \bigl[ \rho \,( \partial_\phi \Psi) \,\Theta(R-r) \bigr] \; . \label{e:rad-react}$$ For a quadrupolar distribution of the scalar charge, this model can be reduced, via separation of variables, to a (1+1)-dimensional problem, which we have evolved in the inertial frame by standard finite-difference methods for hyperbolic systems and time steps constrained by the Courant condition. We have also evolved this $1+1$ system in the co-rotating frame $\{r,\theta,\bar\phi=\phi-\Phi(t),t\}$ with $\Phi(t)$ inferred from the radiation-reaction equation (\[e:rad-react\]) and [*not*]{} from some variant of our minimal-strain equations. In this co-rotating evolution, we discarded the (small) second time derivatives of $\Psi$ and applied an implicit differencing scheme to the resulting parabolic system. We succeeded to make the time steps as large as the rotational timescale of the charged sphere (much larger than the Courant condition would allow), and we believe that the time steps could be made as large as the radiation reaction timescale (which is much larger than the rotational timescale), since the limiting factor was the simple outer boundary condition that we used. There were no numerical instabilities. Moreover, no numerical problems were encountered at the speed-of-light surface $r=(\Omega\sin\theta)^{-1}$ \[and we expected none, since the transformation to co-rotating coordinates does not change the fact that the wave equation (\[eq:wave-eqn\]) is manifestly hyperbolic\]. There was good agreement between the results computed in the inertial and co-rotating frames. Further details will appear elsewhere [@abc]. Additional evidence that evolution in rotating coordinates need not cause problems comes from the work of Bishop [*et al.*]{} [@Bishop_N:1997]. They have used Schwarzschild spacetime transformed into rigidly rotating coordinates as a test bed for their numerical evolutions of the Einstein equations, and they encountered no problems at the speed-of-light surface. They report that their characteristic code “can routinely handle such superluminal gauge flows” at large distances from the Schwarzschild black hole, even though the coordinate grid moves slower than the speed of light near the hole. Based on these results, it seems likely that an implementation of the methods presented here will allow a numerical evolution of a binary system through the IBBH phase. Since a better understanding of this phase is important—and perhaps critical—for the LIGO/VIRGO detection of waves from binary black hole systems, and since such systems are highly promising candidate sources for LIGO and VIRGO, we hope to inspire researchers in numerical relativity to address the IBBH problem via our proposed techniques or others. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported in part by NSF grants AST-9417371, AST-9731698 and PHY-9424337 and NASA grants NAGW-4268/NAG5-4351 and NAG5-6840. P.R.B. is grateful to the Sherman Fairchild Foundation for financial support via a Caltech Prize Fellowship, and J.C. is grateful for partial support via a Fellowship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The authors thank Sam Finn for helpful discussions; and for helpful critiques of an earlier version of this manuscript, they thank Miguel Alcubiere, Bernd Bruegmann, Joan Centrella, Carsten Gundlach, Richard Matzner, Ed Seidel, Stuart Shapiro, and James York. [99]{} For $M_1 \simeq M_2$, the volume of the Universe that LIGO/VIRGO can search scales approximately as $M_1^{2.5}$, so $M_1 \simeq M_2 \simeq 15M_\odot$ BBH’s can be seen through a volume 400 times larger than binary neutron stars. This is likely to more than make up for the lower formation rate of BBH’s, and it means that the first BBH’s seen are likely to be the rarer ones with $M_1 \sim 10$–$20M_\odot$ rather than the presumably more common ones with $M_1 < 10M_\odot$. See V. M. Lipunov, K. A. Postnov and M. E.Prokhorov, New Astron., [**2**]{}, 43 (1997); also [É]{}. [É]{}. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 4535 (1998). S. Sigurdsson and L. Hernquist, Nature, [**364**]{}, 423 (1993) argue that one BBH forms in every core-collapse star cluster and that the resulting BBH merger rate may be as high as $\sim 1$ per year in a sphere of radius 200Mpc (the distance to which the first LIGO/VIRGO interferometers can see with signal to noise ratio 5.5 if $M_1\simeq M_2 \simeq 15M_\odot$); but the rate could be much lower. V. M. Lipunov, K. A. Postnov and M. E. Prokhorov, New Astron., [**2**]{}, 43 (1997) argue for a rate ranging up to this same value, based on the evolution of populations of massive main-sequence binaries in galaxies like our own; but S. F. Portegies Zwart and L.R. Yungelson, Astron. Astrophys. [**332**]{}, 173 (1998), in a similar type of analysis, obtain a vanishing rate of such BBH mergers. The enhanced LIGO interferometers are expected to see a volume 1000 times greater than the initial ones, and thus a 1000 times higher event rate; see K. S. Thorne, in [*Critical Problems in Physics*]{}, eds. Val L. Fitch, Daniel R. Marlow and Margit A. E. Dementi (Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 167 (gr-qc/9704042). L. S. Finn and K. S. Thorne identified the IBBH Problem in spring 1996 and organized a August 1996 workshop at Caltech to brainstorm on its solution. This paper is one outgrowth of that brainstorming. We take a 2% error in energy loss rate to signal PN failure because the remaining number of radians of inspiral waveform is $\Phi \agt 100$, and an error of more than 2 radians will seriously affect LIGO/VIRGO data analysis. Our values of $v$ at PN failure are independent of the black-hole spins and are inferred from calculations in the limit $\eta \equiv(\mbox{reduced mass})/(\mbox{total mass})\ll 1$ \[Fig. 1 of T. Tanaka, H. Tagoshi, and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys., [**96**]{}, 1087 (1996); Figs. 1 of H. Tagoshi, M. Shibata, T. Tanaka, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 1439 (1996)\], extrapolated to $\eta=1/4$ (equal masses). Our values of $T$, $N_{\rm orbits}$, and $\Phi$ are based on $T = (5M/256\eta)v^{-8}{\cal T}$, $N_{\rm orbits} = (1/64\pi\eta)v^{-5}{\cal N}$, and $\Phi = 4\pi N_{\rm orbits}$, where $\cal T$ and $\cal N$ are relativistic corrections that are within a few tens of percent of unity at $v=0.3$ and $\eta\ll1$ (L. S. Finn and K. S. Thorne, in preparation). The numbers quoted in the text assume ${\cal T}={\cal N}=1$. T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 885 (1998). T. W. Baumgarte [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett [**79**]{}, 1182 (1997); J. R. Wilson, G. J. Mathews, and P. Marronetti, unpublished (gr-qc/9803093); S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, and J. A. Marck, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 7740-7749 (1997). L. Smarr and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 2529 (1978). J. Balakrishna [*et al.*]{}, Class. Quantum Grav. [**13**]{} L135 (1996). K. Alvi, research in progress; see also P. D. D’Eath, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 1387. N. Bishop, R. Isaacson, R. Gomez, L. Lehner, B.Szilagyi, and J. Winicour, in press (gr-qc/9801070). R. Gomez, R. L. Marsa and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 6310 (1997). N. T. Bishop, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 6298 (1997); R. Gómez, L. Lehner, R. L. Marsa and J. Winicour, [*ibid.*]{} [**57**]{}, xxxx (1998). P. R. Brady, J. Creighton and A. G. Wiseman (in preparation). [^1]: If the holes are spinning with axes inclined to the orbital angular momentum, then in these coordinates the evolution timescale may be shorter: $\tau_\ast \sim ($spins’ precession period). For simplicity we shall ignore this possibility, though our analysis presumably can be adapted to handle it.

--- author: - Felix Patzelt - Klaus Pawelzik bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: Unstable Price Dynamics as a Result of Information Absorption in Speculative Markets --- Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered} ======== **In speculative markets, risk-free profit opportunities are eliminated by traders exploiting them. Markets are therefore often described as “informationally efficient”, rapidly removing predictable price changes, and leaving only residual unpredictable fluctuations. This classical view of markets absorbing information and otherwise operating close to an equilibrium is challenged by extreme price fluctuations, in particular since they occur far more frequently than can be accounted for by external news. Here we show that speculative markets which absorb mainly self-generated information can exhibit both: evolution towards efficient equilibrium states as well as their subsequent destabilization. This peculiar dynamics, a generic instability arising from an adaptive control which annihilates predictable information, is realized in a minimal agent-based market model where the impacts of agents’ strategies adapt according to their trading success. This adaptation implements a learning rule for the market as a whole minimizing predictable price changes. The model reproduces stylized statistical properties of price changes in quantitative detail, including heavy tailed log return distributions and volatility clusters. Our results demonstrate that the perpetual occurrence of market instabilities can be a direct consequence of the very mechanisms that lead to market efficiency.**\ Social systems self-organize. In consequence, collective behaviors can emerge that appear to pursue a common goal which is actually not present in the behavior of the single agents [@smith1776wealth]. The view that markets in fact operate in distinguished equilibrium states became influential in economics [@samuelsonEconomics]. Here, a fundamental hypothesis is that markets operate informationally optimal. That is, prices are assumed to “fully reflect available information” [@fama1970efficientMarkets], or at least come close to this limit [@grossmann1980efficient], such that risk-free (arbitrage) profits cannot be made by said information. If true, one of the implications of this “Efficient Market Hypothesis” (EMH) is that resulting prices fluctuate randomly [@samuelson_prices]. Empirical findings in favor of the Efficient Market Hypothesis include the general absence of exploitable autocorrelations among price changes in financial markets [@Fama1998EfficiencyReturnsBehaviour]. The magnitudes of price changes (“volatilities”), however, are correlated for long periods of time. That is, large price changes are typically followed by large ones and small changes by small ones, indicating that markets are complex dynamical systems involving long memories [@Mandelbrot1963Prices; @Boucheaud2009MarketsSlowlyDigest]. Furthermore, logarithmic price changes (log returns) exhibit large fluctuations even in the absence of external news [@cutler1989prices; @joulin2008news], contradicting naive expectations for systems in stable equilibria. More precisely, log return distributions exhibit heavy tails where events that are many times bigger than the standard deviation occur at a much higher frequency than what would be expected if they were Gaussian distributed [@Mandelbrot1963Prices; @farmer99scaling] ([[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (c)]{}]{}). These so-called stylized facts of price time series hint at underlying dynamics that are substantially self-referential [@bouchaud2008loops]. They were associated either with herding effects [@devenow1996herding], “bubbles", or with the interactions of heterogeneous traders with limited rationality [@lux1999multi-agent] in a market exactly at a critical point [@challet2004market_chapter]. Here we investigate whether the apparent antinomy of stabilizing information efficient control and dynamics resembling systems operating close to criticality can be resolved by a recent non-economic theory [@patzelt2011critical]: It was shown that adaptive control of a dynamical system can generically lead to an instability where the susceptibility to noise dramatically increases close to the point of perfect balance. This principle applies to markets if two requirements are fulfilled: First, markets have to absorb information about predictable price changes. Ideally, this property should hold independently of the rationality of the individual traders, which cannot be guaranteed. Second, a self-referential market needs to become susceptible to residual noise once all locally relevant information has been exploited. The first property is a rather common view in economics. If a profit opportunity is present, investors will increasingly exploit it until their price impacts cancel said opportunity. For example, if a certain stock is priced too low, traders will increase buy orders and thereby raise its price. The second property is also intuitive. As traders try to detect trends or patterns in the price dynamics, they effectively predict how the market reacts to available information. However, once the agents’ actions have led to a balanced equilibrium, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish predictable price fluctuations from random noise. If traders then act upon the random fluctuations as if they would hold meaningful new information, their actions will not be balanced anymore. That is, it may be impossible to predict whether a group of traders overreact to the supposed new information and to attenuate the resulting price jump by exploiting it. Therefore, atypically large price movements may become much more likely than expected for a Gaussian distribution. The Model {#the-model .unnumbered} ========= As a concrete example of the fundamental dynamical instability arising from information absorption as it may be realized in financial markets, we introduce a minimal agent-based trading model. Each agent is representative of one trading strategy and possesses two types of assets which are called money and stocks in the following. For simplicity, we consider a coarse-grained price time series where one step could be considered as e.g. a day. In each time step, every agent either buys or sells an amount of stocks. The fraction of an agent’s money that is used to buy stocks or vice versa is denoted by the use parameter $\gamma$. At each time $t$, all trades are performed at the same price $p(t)$ which is determined from the ratio of total demand and supply. Hence, trading per se conserves the total amounts of each asset, money and stocks. Agents base their decisions on public information states. In each time step $t$ one of $D$ possible states, which is denoted by an index $\mu(t) \in \{1, \dots, D\}$, is conveyed to the agents. Each agent’s decision to either buy or sell is fixed in time for each $\mu$ and assigned at random. We consider two different methods for the generation of these information states: For endogenous information, agents possess a memory of the most recent $K$ signs of the log returns which indicate whether the prices $p(t-K), \dots, p(t)$ decreased or increased with respect to their predecessor. This information can take one out of $D = 2^K$ possible states. For exogenous information, $\mu(t)$ are drawn randomly and independently with probability $P_\textrm{ext}(\mu)$. Unless stated otherwise all $\mu$ have equal probabilities $P_\textrm{ext}(\mu) = 1 / D$. We also investigated mixed information and obtained results similar to the endogenous case (see supplement). We focus on markets that are dominated by speculators who can win or loose assets only by betting on price changes within the market. To investigate the effect of a small number of traders that convey new assets to the market or draw out their profits, we divide the agents into $N_s$ speculators and $N_p$ producers. Producers’ resources by definition stay constant. Thus, speculators only redistribute their wealth and are competitive whereas producers provide a predictable supply of liquidity and stocks. All agents are initially provided with equal amounts of assets. Stylized Facts {#stylized-facts .unnumbered} ============== ![Analysis of log returns $r(t+1)=\log{p(t+1)}-\log{p(t)}$, where $p(t)$ is the price at time step $t$. (a): Time series of the trading model with uniformly distributed exogenous information. Parameters: $N_s = 2^{10}$, $N_p = 0$, $D = 2^9$, $\gamma = 0.8$. (b): Time series for the same model, but with endogenous information. (c): Complementary cumulative distribution function of log return magnitudes obtained by rank ordering. Dotted black: The same simulation as in (a). Solid black: the same simulation as in (b). Dashed red: Daily returns for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) since 1900. Short grey line: Hill estimator for the scaling exponent $\xi$ of the black curve, where large returns show power-law scaling $P(|r| > x) \propto x^{-\xi}$. The cutoff optimizes the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic [@patzelt2011critical]. For a fair comparison, $3\cdot10^4$ time steps after transients were analyzed for the simulations to match the length of the Dow Jones time series. Each time series was normalized by dividing by its standard deviation. (d): Autocorrelations of the log-return magnitudes $|r|$. Line styles are identical to (c). Positive autocorrelations for the model with endogenous information, and the DIJA persist for more than 2 years.[]{data-label="fig:transient"}](figs/model_vs_dow){width="\textwidth"} Log-return time series for the model with exogenous information are shown in [[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (a)]{}]{}. A strong reduction of initial fluctuations is observed leaving only a narrow band of Gaussian distributed returns after the transient. [[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (b)]{}]{} shows the endogenous case. Here, in contrast, initial return magnitudes are reduced only in the mean. The magnitudes of the few most extreme returns, however, are less reduced. The remaining fluctuations are analyzed in [[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (c)]{}]{}, where cumulative distributions of return magnitudes are shown for both cases and compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). The latter serves as an example for a typical price time series. For the endogenous case, the distribution tail is well described by a power-law and in good agreement with the DJIA. Return fluctuations in the endogenous case also tend to form clusters in time. This effect is quantified by long-range temporal correlations of return magnitudes shown in [[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (d)]{}]{} and is also consistent with the DJIA. Dynamics with Exogenous Information {#dynamics-with-exogenous-information .unnumbered} =================================== To understand the model dynamics, we first consider the exogenous case which is fully analytically tractable. The rules of asset redistribution by trading are equivalent to a learning rule related to gradient descent, allowing for the market as a whole to minimize predictable price changes. The reason for this stabilizing control is that trading success increases the impact of agents whose actions contribute to a reduction of price fluctuations. A phase transition with respect to the critical parameter $\alpha = D / N_s$ is identified at $\alpha = 1/2$, the point where random binary vectors (the agents) with positive weights (the assets) form a complete basis in the $D$-dimensional strategy space in the limit $N_s \rightarrow \infty$. Beyond this point, a speculative market without producers evolves the distribution of assets onto a manifold where the price is invariant to trading. That is, agents still trade and exchange assets, but the price remains constant. Markets that include producers still exhibit finite returns also for $\alpha < 1/2$. Otherwise, for $N_p \ll N_s$, return distributions only depend weakly on $N_p$. See [[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\]]{}]{}, and the supplementary material for more details. Information Annihilation Instability {#information-annihilation-instability .unnumbered} ==================================== ![**(a)**: Price time series with a very slow rate of resource redistribution (use) $\gamma = 0.01$. Other parameters: $N = 2^{10}$, $N_p = 2^4$, $D = 2^9$. **(b)**: A zoom in on the time series shown in (a). []{data-label="fig:price_slow"}](figs/price_slow.eps "fig:")\ ![**(a)**: Price time series with a very slow rate of resource redistribution (use) $\gamma = 0.01$. Other parameters: $N = 2^{10}$, $N_p = 2^4$, $D = 2^9$. **(b)**: A zoom in on the time series shown in (a). []{data-label="fig:price_slow"}](figs/price_slow_detail.eps "fig:") When the $\mu(t)$ are endogenously generated, the same mechanism of information absorption present in the exogenous case ensures that the system relaxes towards local price equilibria and returns vanish, but only transiently. [[Fig. \[fig:price\_slow\] (a)]{}]{} shows the price time series for a simulation with a very small use $\gamma$ which formally is a learning rate. At any point in time, the system moves towards a certain price which characterizes a local equilibrium. As the system approaches this equilibrium, price fluctuations are reduced. These fluctuations generally consist of complex oscillations like the one shown in [[Fig. \[fig:price\_slow\] (b)]{}]{}. The equilibria become unstable once all predictable information is exploited by the speculators. Then, even little overshooting of the adaptation dynamics or noise can lead to price changes corresponding to information states that were not predicted by patterns in the immediate past. Because the market is not well-adapted to these new states, the possibility of large price changes increases dramatically. Compared to [@patzelt2011critical], we here discovered an instability due to information annihilation in a mathematically different way, which demonstrates that this concept is even more general. ![**(a)**: reduction of average return magnitudes during transients and **(b):** kurtosis of log-returns of the model with endogenous information for different $\alpha$ vs $\gamma$. A kurtosis of $3$ corresponds to a normal distribution. Here, the system size is set constant at $N_s = 2^{10}$ speculators and $N_p = 2^4$ producers. For each time series, $2 \cdot 10^7$ time steps were simulated. Reductions are measured as the ratio between the mean log-return magnitudes during the first $10$ and the last $10^7$ timesteps. The kurtoses were calculated for the last $10^7$ timesteps. Simulations were performed on a grid, all axis ticks correspond to node positions. For each node on the grid, $50$ time series were analyzed and results were averaged. Values in between nodes were obtained by linear interpolation after logarithmizing the values at each node. Color mapping was performed on the log-values, contour line labels are the actual values for variances and kurtoses. For $\alpha \leq 1/2$, the kurtoses reach extreme values that can not be reliably estimated from finite time series. Therefore, the color scale in (b) was set to not extend to values above 100.[]{data-label="fig:use_vs_bet"}](figs/mem_vs_risk_var.eps "fig:")\ ![**(a)**: reduction of average return magnitudes during transients and **(b):** kurtosis of log-returns of the model with endogenous information for different $\alpha$ vs $\gamma$. A kurtosis of $3$ corresponds to a normal distribution. Here, the system size is set constant at $N_s = 2^{10}$ speculators and $N_p = 2^4$ producers. For each time series, $2 \cdot 10^7$ time steps were simulated. Reductions are measured as the ratio between the mean log-return magnitudes during the first $10$ and the last $10^7$ timesteps. The kurtoses were calculated for the last $10^7$ timesteps. Simulations were performed on a grid, all axis ticks correspond to node positions. For each node on the grid, $50$ time series were analyzed and results were averaged. Values in between nodes were obtained by linear interpolation after logarithmizing the values at each node. Color mapping was performed on the log-values, contour line labels are the actual values for variances and kurtoses. For $\alpha \leq 1/2$, the kurtoses reach extreme values that can not be reliably estimated from finite time series. Therefore, the color scale in (b) was set to not extend to values above 100.[]{data-label="fig:use_vs_bet"}](figs/mem_vs_risk_kurt.eps "fig:") For larger $\gamma$, this behavior is not as obvious: time series appear random and distinct oscillations are rarely visually recognizable ([[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (b)]{}]{}). Still, phase diagrams from extensive simulations demonstrate that return distributions are largely unaffected by these effects over wide ranges of $\gamma$: [[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\] (a)]{}]{} shows how much initial mean log return magnitudes are reduced for different $\alpha$ and $\gamma$; [[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\] (b)]{}]{} shows the impacts that infrequent extreme returns have on the remaining variances, which are measured by kurtoses after transients. The stronger the reduction of return magnitudes ([[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\] (a)]{}]{}), the heavier tailed the return distributions are ([[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\] (b)]{}]{}). Therefore, a clear link between information annihilation and extreme returns is established in our model for the whole parameter space. This relation between return reduction and kurtosis is not found for exogenous information drawn from a uniform distribution ([[Fig. \[fig:transient\] (b)]{}]{}, and supplement). Surprising Information Causes Large Returns {#surprising-information-causes-large-returns .unnumbered} =========================================== ![Correlation of return magnitudes $|r|$ with the time $\tau$ since the corresponding information states occurred last. Model parameters: $D = 2^{10}$, $N_s = 2^{11}$, $N_p = 0$, $\gamma = 0.5$. Simulation length: $T=2\cdot10^7$; the first $T/2$ timesteps were discarded for the analysis. Black line: Endogenous information. Dashed line: Exogenous information with $P_\textrm{exo}(\mu) \propto \exp(-0.02\, \mu)$, leading to $P(\tau) \propto \tau^{-2}$. Both lines are averages over $10$ simulations.[]{data-label="fig:surprise"}](figs/surprise_return_xcorr.eps) We find that large returns are caused by information states that have not occurred for a long time. Intuitively, such states are more surprising and therefore carry more information than the ones visited more recently – a concept that is closely related to Shannon information. The more surprising an information state is, the higher the corresponding log return. The correlation between log return magnitudes and the times $\tau$ that have passed since the respective information states occurred last is shown in [[Fig. \[fig:surprise\]]{}]{} (solid line) for endogenous information. Here, the absorption of local information in combination with rare jumps leads to a strongly inhomogeneous distribution of visiting frequencies over the information set: the probability distribution $P(\tau)$ is power-law tailed with an exponent of approximately $2.5$ (see supplement). This suggests that the self-reflexive dynamics for endogenous information generates a characteristic distribution of information states that ultimately underlies extreme price fluctuations. We tested this hypothesis by using inhomogeneously distributed exogenous information states leading to similarly distributed $\tau$. Then, as in the endogenous case, return magnitudes are strongly correlated with $\tau$ ([[Fig. \[fig:surprise\]]{}]{}, dashed line). Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered} ========== Our model demonstrates that even a simple yet plausible mechanism of order size adaptation suffices to coordinate the impacts of diverse strategies such that information becomes completely absorbed in the price. The proof that the trading rules in our model correspond to an efficient gradient based learning rule that minimizes predictable return magnitudes provides a rigorous link of a fundamental market mechanism to adaptive control. We tested variations of this mechanism including adaptations of individual agent use parameters, and order-book based pricing [@Rothenstein_2003a]; information absorption proved to be a robust property. We therefore consider it highly plausible to prevail in real markets despite the complexities of real pricing mechanisms and order size adaptations, as long as the latter correlate with trading success. “Rationality”, in the sense of an efficient adjustment of prices to new information, in our model emerges from the collective behavior of many traders. We find that a minority rule with respect to the returns is a dominating factor in its dynamics. That is, traders whose actions counteract those of the majority profit most. In the well known minority game [@challet2004market_chapter] (MG), however, adaptation is based on the choices of the participating agents, and a single-step payoff with respect to the excess demand. This differs from our model where the market adapts traders’ impacts based on price changes, and also over different time scales. Most importantly, the mechanism for herding previously discussed for MGs is a breakdown of the efficient coordination of agents in overcomplete markets where they become too correlated. This leads to an increase of average fluctuations and does not depend on how the information conveyed to the agents is generated. In contradistinction, the instability due to adaptive control is independent of microscopic interactions and in fact was first realized in a one-dimensional random map [@patzelt07]. The heavy tailed distributions here are a direct consequence of the elimination of local trends or patterns which yields a net decrease in average fluctuation magnitudes. These fluctuations are therefore a sign of high efficiency and do not signal its breakdown: they reflect surprising information. Furthermore, a closed loop involving endogenous information is essential for creating this instability leading to extreme fluctuations that are not caused by external events. Therefore, the results presented in this paper are complementary to the published findings based on MGs in several respects. It is, however, possible to formulate a minority game corresponding to our model, but that would go beyond the scope of this paper. The fact that efficient information annihilation does not result in a unique and stable equilibrium, but instead can lead to local states that perpetually become unstable, provides a new and comprehensive solution to a long standing antinomy in economics where both notions have been considered mutually exclusive [@lux1999multi-agent]. Furthermore, our adaptive agent-based model not only demonstrates the theoretical principle of information annihilation instability, but can reproduce important “stylized facts” of financial markets also quantitatively to a surprising extent. The parameter sets that best reproduce the data correspond to situations where agents on average profit most (see supplement). This is plausible because real traders can choose among different markets. These findings suggest that the information annihilation instability is indeed one of the main causes of the notorious large jumps in price time series, particularly in strongly speculative markets. An empirical confirmation of our theory would require identifying the information states that cause large price changes in a given market, for which it then makes directly testable predictions. **Acknowledgments.** We thank Josephine Mielke who developed a precursor model to the one presented in this paper, Andreas Kreiter for his help improving this letter’s general understandability, and the Volkswagen Foundation for funding Felix Patzelt. Dow-Jones Data from: Department of Statistics at Carnegie Mellon University; download: http://www.analyzeindices.com/dowhistory/djia-100.txt. **Author Contributions.** The authors contributed equally to this work. [Supplementary Materials for]{} Felix Patzelt and Klaus Pawelzik correspondence to felix@neuro.uni-bremen.de Contents {#contents .unnumbered} ======== - Supplementary Methods - Model - Invariant Manifold - Completeness of the Strategies - Gradient Descent - Supplementary Figures - Phase Diagrams for Exogenous Information - Speculators and Producers - Distribution of Information Ages (Surprise) - Mixed Information - Supplementary Discussion: Income and the Critical Point Supplementary Methods ===================== Model ----- Each agent $i = 1, \dots, N$ possesses two types of assets which without loss of generality are called money $M_i(t)$ and stocks $S_i(t)$. N is the total number of agents. In each round, every agent places a market order to either buy or to sell an amount of stocks. Since trading should conserve the amount of traded assets, the price in each round is determined by: $$p(t) = \frac{\delta(t)}{\varsigma(t)} \label{eq:price}$$ with demand $\delta$ and supply of stocks $\varsigma$. This is a fair rule that could be used in a real market with only market orders. For a market including stochastic limit orders gathered over some period of time, consider the hypothetical price $p^*(t)$ at which trades would take place if all agents scaled their orders by a common factor. Then the volume would change, but to preserve market clearing the price is not affected; that is $p(t)^* = p(t)$. Therefore, the price is a function of the ratio of demand and supply. After linearization of this function for small small excess demands the price is proportional to the aforementioned ratio which justifies this choice of the pricing rule also as an approximation of the mean prices obtained from limit orders. Agents base their decisions on a public information state. In each time step one of $D$ possible states, which is denoted by an index $\mu(t)$, is conveyed to the agents. We distinguish two different methods for the generation of these information states at each time step $t$: For exogenous information, $\mu(t)$ are independent identically distributed random variates drawn from a distribution $P_\textrm{ext}(\mu)$. For endogenous information, agents possess a memory of the most recent $K$ signs of the log returns. To eliminate the possibility of a lock, signs for vanishing returns are chosen at random. This information can take one out of $D = 2^K$ possible states: $$\mu(t+1) = \big(2\, \mu(t) + \Theta(r(t) + \eta) \big)\! \mod D \label{for:mu}$$ where $\Theta$ denotes the Heaviside step function and $\eta$ is an arbitrarily small symmetric random variable with zero mean. Simulation results do not depend on ${\textrm{Var}}(\eta)$ as long as it is small enough. Each agent’s $i$ consequent decision is now determined by a strategy vector whose elements $\sigma_i^{\mu}$ are drawn randomly out of $\left\lbrace0,1\right\rbrace$ once and then kept constant. These two possible decisions correspond to trading an amount $m_i(t)$ of money or an amount $s_i(t)$ of stocks for the respective other asset in the next round. Orders are placed with a constant use parameter $\gamma$:\ Case $\sigma_i^{\mu(t)} = 1$ (agent $i$ buys stocks): $$\begin{aligned} m_i(t) &=& \gamma\, M_i(t)\\ s_i(t) &=& 0\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Case $\sigma_i^{\mu(t)} = 0$ (agent $i$ sells stocks): $$\begin{aligned} m_i(t) &=& 0\nonumber\\ s_i(t) &=& \gamma\, S_i(t) \label{for:si}\end{aligned}$$ Demand and supply are the sums of all buy and sell orders respectively $$\begin{aligned} \delta(t) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{N} m_i(t) + \epsilon\\ \varsigma(t) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{N} s_i(t) + \epsilon \label{dem_sup}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small positive number. This ensures that prices and returns are always well defined. The cases with zero demand or supply are, however, irrelevant for all practical purposes. A sufficiently small $\epsilon \ll 10^{-3}$ does not influence simulation results to a meaningful degree. All figures were generated using $\epsilon = 10^{-10}$. We investigate the effect of a market ecology by dividing the agents into $N_s$ speculators and $N_p = N - N_s$ producers. We focus on markets that are dominated by speculators whose resources are redistributed due to trading: $$\left. \begin{array}{lcl} M_k(t+1) &=& M_k(t) - m_k(t) + s_k(t)\, p(t)\\ S_k(t+1) &=& S_k(t) - s_k(t) + m_k(t) / p(t) \end{array}\right\} N_p < k <= N. \label{eq:redistribute}$$ Producers’ resources stay constant throughout the game: $$\left. \begin{array}{lcl} M_j(t) &=& M_j(0)\\ S_j(t) &=& S_j(0) \end{array}\right \}\quad j < N_p. \label{eq:redistribute_p}$$ Thus, only speculators redistribute their wealth and are competitive whereas producers provide a predictable supply of liquidity and stocks. All agents are initially provided with equal amounts of resources $M_i(0)=S_i(0)= 1$. Invariant Manifold ------------------ We show, that if one distribution of resources $({\overline{M}}, {\overline{S}}) = ({\overline{M}}_1, \dots, {\overline{M}}_N, {\overline{S}}_1, \dots, {\overline{S}}_N)$ exists for which the price $p({\overline{M}}, {\overline{S}}, \mu) = {\overline{p}}$ is independent of the information $\mu$, this price is invariant with respect to any resource redistribution due to trading in a purely speculative market. That is, there is a manifold $Q = \{({\overline{M}}', {\overline{S}}')\ |\ p({\overline{M}}', {\overline{S}}', \mu) = {\overline{p}}\ \forall\ \mu\}$ of distributions of stocks for which the price is independent of $\mu$ and this manifold is closed with respect to trading according to [[Eq. (\[eq:redistribute\])]{}]{}. For the proof, assume that at some point in time the system is in a suitable state such that $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\delta({\overline{M}}, \mu)}{\varsigma({\overline{S}}, \mu)} &=& {\overline{p}}\quad \forall\ \mu(t) \Leftrightarrow\\[.5\baselineskip] \delta({\overline{M}}, \mu) - {\overline{p}}\, \varsigma({\overline{S}}, \mu) &=& \nonumber\\ \gamma \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \sigma_i^{\mu}\, {\overline{M}}_i - {\overline{p}}\, (1-\sigma_i^{\mu})\, {\overline{S}}_i \right) &=& 0 \quad \forall\ \mu(t). \label{for:steady_state_condition}\end{aligned}$$ Then, denoting the distributions of stocks and money after trading by ${\overline{M}}_i'$ and ${\overline{S}}_i'$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{\gamma} \left(\delta({\overline{M}}', \mu') - {\overline{p}}\, \varsigma({\overline{S}}', \mu')\right) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i^{\mu'}\, {\overline{M}}_i' - {\overline{p}}\sum_{i=1}^{N} (1-\sigma_i^{\mu'})\, {\overline{S}}_i'\\ =& \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i^{\mu'}\, \left( {\overline{M}}_i - \gamma\, \sigma_i^{\mu}\, {\overline{M}}_i + \gamma\, {\overline{p}}\, (1 - \sigma_i^{\mu})\, {\overline{S}}_i \right)\nonumber\\ &- {\overline{p}}\sum_{i=1}^{N} (1-\sigma_i^{\mu'}) \left( {\overline{S}}_i - \gamma\, (1-\sigma_i^{\mu})\, {\overline{S}}_i + \frac{\gamma}{{\overline{p}}}\, \sigma_i^{\mu}\, {\overline{M}}_i \right)\\ =& \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \sigma_i^{\mu'}\, {\overline{M}}_i - {\overline{p}}\, (1-\sigma_i^{\mu'})\, {\overline{S}}_i \right) - \gamma \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \sigma_i^{\mu}\, {\overline{M}}_i - {\overline{p}}\, (1-\sigma_i^{\mu})\, {\overline{S}}_i \right)\\ =&\ 0 - 0 = 0\\ &&\Box\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Completeness of the Strategies ------------------------------ As shown above, a sufficient condition for complete suppression of all price changes is finding a resource distribution $({\overline{M}}, {\overline{S}})$ for which the price is independent of the information. That is, $$\begin{aligned} p(\mu, {\overline{M}}, {\overline{S}}) &=& {\overline{p}}\ \forall\ \mu\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to [[Eq. (\[for:steady\_state\_condition\])]{}]{}. To fulfill this criterion, we need enough agents to form a complete basis in the strategy space which has $D$ dimensions. Then, the deviation from ${\overline{p}}$ caused by each agent can be canceled by a superposition of the other agents for every $\mu$. This can be guaranteed if the number of speculators $N_s$ exceeds $2D$. ![Average log-return variances for different values of $\alpha = D / N_s$. The model with exogenous information and only speculators serves as a reference. For comparison, simulations with a small numbers of either deterministic ($N_p=2^4$) or random producers ($N_n=2^4$) are shown as well as as the model with endogenous information. Grey area: Analytical upper and lower limit for exogenous information. Dark gray line: heuristic interpolation.[]{data-label="fig:phase_transition"}](figs/phase_transition.eps) For an insufficient number of speculators, we can still calculate an upper and a lower bound for the variance of the log returns given $D$ and $N$ for a perfect superposition of speculators with exogenous information. Numerical and analytical results for this case are shown in [[Fig. \[fig:phase\_transition\]]{}]{}. The mean variance is found to drop dramatically at $\alpha = D / N_s = 1/2$, with an increasingly sharp transition for large D. This phase transition can be understood by considering the probability that a random binary vector can be canceled by an optimal superposition of $N-1$ random binary vectors with positive weights. As an interim step, consider superpositions of random vectors with arbitrary weights. One such vector creates a one dimensional subspace. Adding a second vector expands the dimensionality of the subspace to $d_2 = 2$ if it is linearly independent of the first one. Adding further vectors one by one, the probability that the $i$th vector does not lie in a $d_{i-1}$-dimensional submanifold is $$P(d_i = d_{i-1}+1) = 1 - 2^{D - d_{i-1}}.$$ We can therefore iteratively calculate the probability distribution $P(d_{N_s-1})$ of $d$ after adding $N_s - 1$ agents and the probability $$P(d_{N_s} = d_{N_s-1}+1) = \sum_{d = 1}^{D} P(d=d_{N_s-1})\ (1 - 2^{d - D}) \label{for:p_linearindependent}$$ that one out of $N_s$ agents is linearly independent of the others. If a vector is linearly independent of the other agents in $d$ dimensions, it cannot be canceled by a linear combination of the other agents for all $\mu$. However, it may still be possible to cancel this agent’s impact for a subset of all possible $\mu$, i.e. for a smaller subspace. Therefore, the probability that an agent cannot be canceled in any given time step is $$P_\textrm{c.c.} = \sum_{d = 1}^{D} P(d=d_{N_s-1})\ (1 - 2^{d - D})\ (1 - \frac{d}{D}). \label{for:p_cant_cancel}$$ The last term weights each summand with the fraction of dimensions in which the agent’s impact is not canceled. Finally, to relate the fraction of not canceled agents to returns we need to consider the fluctuations prior to any resource redistribution. Since all strategies and $\mu$ are chosen randomly, agents initially contribute to the demand or the supply at random. These fluctuations of demand and supply then follow a binomial distribution with $N_s$ trials and equal probability for buying or selling: $$\begin{aligned} \delta \propto {\cal B}(N_s, 1/2)\\ \varsigma \propto {\cal B}(N_s, 1/2).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned} \langle \delta \rangle = \langle \varsigma \rangle = N_s / 2,\quad \textrm{and}\\ {\textrm{Var}}(\delta) = {\textrm{Var}}(\varsigma) = N_s / 4\end{aligned}$$ we can approximate the price for small deviations: $$\begin{aligned} p = \frac{N/2 + \Delta\delta}{N/2 - \Delta\varsigma} \approx 1 + 2\frac{\Delta\delta - \Delta\varsigma}{N_s}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \langle p(0) \rangle &=& 1,\\ {\textrm{Var}}(p(0)) &\approx& 4 / N_s,\end{aligned}$$ and finally $$\begin{aligned} \langle r(0) \rangle &=& 0,\\ {\textrm{Var}}(r(0)) &\approx& \frac{8}{N_s \ln(10)^2}, \label{for:var(r(0))}\end{aligned}$$ where the logarithm stems from using the logarithm with base $10$ in the log return. Combining [[Eqns. ]{}]{}[[(\[for:p\_cant\_cancel\])]{}]{} and [[(\[for:var(r(0))\])]{}]{}, we obtain the expected variance of the return for an optimal superposition of agents without the positivity constraint on the resources $${\textrm{Var}}(r_\textrm{n.c.}) = {\textrm{Var}}(r(0))\ P_\textrm{c.c.}. \label{for:var(r_nc)}$$ Since resources cannot be negative, they form a positive cone. Each agent thatlocalized is linear independent of the others spans a half space. Therefore, $2 N_s$ agents are necessary to completely span the strategy space. Yet for small numbers of agents, each agent still represents a full degree of freedom since the probability that two agents lie on the same 1-dimensional submanifold is vanishingly small. However, as the number of agents is increased such that $\alpha \rightarrow 1$, an increasingly large number of new agents just converts a halfspace into a full one. Therefore, [[Eq. (\[for:var(r\_nc)\])]{}]{} represents a lower limit for the variance of the log returns which is a good description for $N_s \ll D$. An upper limit is obtained by changing [[Eq. (\[for:p\_cant\_cancel\])]{}]{} such, that each agents increases $d$ by $1/2$. This is a good approximation for $N_s \approx 2 D$. The area in between these limits is shown in [[Fig. \[fig:phase\_transition\]]{}]{} (gray shaded). The lower limit has a phase transition at $\alpha=1$ while the upper limit has a phase transition at $\alpha=1/2$. A phase transition at $\alpha = 1$ is already present in [[Eq. (\[for:p\_linearindependent\])]{}]{}. The gradual convergence for the true variance of the system from the lower to the upper limit is captured by a simple heuristic interpolation: For the dark gray line in [[Fig. \[fig:phase\_transition\]]{}]{}, the probability for a new linearly independent agent to increase $d$ by one is $P_1=\textrm{min}(1, N_s / 2^{m+1}$) while the probability to increase $d$ by $1/2$ is $P_{1/2}=1 - p_1$. The presented theory describes the numerical results ([[Fig. \[fig:phase\_transition\]]{}]{}) for the model with endogenous information very well for $\alpha \leq 1/2$. For full markets, the residual error for simulations with only speculators is determined by the numerical precision. When producers are present, the residual error is noticeably higher. This is due to the fact, that producers push the system off the invariant manifold. This error is dependent on the agents’ use and vanishes for small $\gamma$. Still, predictable producers are canceled much better than random ones because speculators can successfully predict their choices. For endogenous information ($D = 2^K$), the phase transition appears smother and slightly shifted towards larger $\alpha$. A stronger reduction of average returns for $\alpha < 1/2$ occurs due to the more localized adaptation: Agents do not adapt to all possible values of $\mu$ at the same time. Gradient Descent {#sec:gradient} ---------------- We now investigate, how the system evolves towards the invariant manifold. We focus on large numbers of agents and small $\gamma$. The resource redistribution due to subsequently trading the two assets for one another is found to be a special case of a learning rule which minimizes log-return magnitudes. Even more generally, we consider the error function $$e = r^2$$ and show that its gradient $$\frac{\partial e}{\partial X} = 2 r \frac{\partial r}{\partial X}, \quad X \in \{M, S\} \label{for:gradient}$$ with respect to the agents’ resources is dominated by terms with the opposite sign as the change in the agents’ resources. Therefore, any scaling of the agents’ resources which keeps the sign of the return for money and the opposite sign for stocks corresponds to minimizing log return magnitudes similar to a gradient descent. To begin with, consider two subsequent time steps where the information takes the values $\mu$ and $\mu'$. We again consider a market consisting of speculators only. The derivative of the return with respect to the resources of an agent $k$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{for:drdm} \frac{\partial r(M, S, \mu, \mu')}{\partial M_k} &=& \frac{\sigma_k^{\mu'}}{\delta'} - \frac{\sigma_k^{\mu}}{\delta} + O(\gamma),\\ \frac{\partial r(M, S, \mu, \mu')}{\partial S_k} &=& \frac{1 - \sigma_k^{\mu}}{\varsigma} - \frac{1-\sigma_k^{\mu'}}{\varsigma'} + O(\gamma),\quad \textrm{with}\\[\baselineskip] \delta = \delta(M, \mu), && \delta' = \delta(M', \mu'),\\ \varsigma = \varsigma(S, \mu), && \varsigma' = \varsigma(S', \mu').\end{aligned}$$ The change in resources after trading twice is $$\begin{aligned} \Delta M_k = M_k'' - M_k &=& \gamma\left( S_k ((1-\sigma_k^\mu) p + (1-\sigma_k^{\mu'}) p') - M_k (\sigma_k^{\mu'} + \sigma_k^\mu)\right) + O(\gamma^2)\\ \Delta S_k = S_k'' - S_k &=& \gamma\left( M_k \left(\frac{\sigma_k^{\mu'}}{p'} + \frac{\sigma_k^\mu}{p}\right) - S_k (2 - \sigma_k^\mu - \sigma_k^{\mu'} )\right) + O(\gamma^2).\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in $$\Delta r_k = \left(\Delta M_k \frac{\partial r}{\partial M_k} + \Delta S_k \frac{\partial r}{\partial S_k} \right)$$ and continue only with leading terms in $\gamma$. For now, we also assume that agents can only perform roundtrip trades (RT). The general case will be discussed later. Two cases are left: Case $\sigma_k^{\mu} (1 - \sigma_k^{\mu'}) = 1$: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\Delta r_k^{RT}}{\gamma} &\stackrel{\gamma \ll 1}{\approx}& \frac{M_k - p' S_k}{\delta} - \frac{M_k / p - S_k}{\varsigma'}\\ &=& \frac{M_k}{\delta} (1-\frac{\varsigma}{\varsigma'}) + \frac{S_k}{\varsigma'} (1-\frac{\delta'}{\delta})\end{aligned}$$ Case $\sigma_k^{\mu'} (1 - \sigma_k^{\mu}) = 1$: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\Delta r_k^{RT}}{\gamma} &\stackrel{\gamma \ll 1}{\approx}& \frac{p S_k - M_k}{\delta'} + \frac{M_k / p' - S_k}{\varsigma'}\\ &=& \frac{M_k}{\delta'} (\frac{\varsigma'}{\varsigma}-1) + \frac{S_k}{\varsigma} (\frac{\delta}{\delta'}-1).\end{aligned}$$ Above, we used $p = \delta/\varsigma$ and $p' = \delta'/\varsigma'$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{\gamma} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \Delta r_k^{RT} &=& \frac{\varsigma'}{\varsigma} - \frac{\varsigma}{\varsigma'} + \frac{\delta}{\delta'}- \frac{\delta'}{\delta}\\ &=& \frac{\varsigma'}{\varsigma} (1 - \frac{p'}{p}) + \frac{\varsigma}{\varsigma'} (\frac{p}{p'} - 1)\quad \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} < 0, \quad r > 0\\ > 0, \quad r < 0\quad . \end{array}\right. \label{for:sum_delta_r}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the change in the total error function $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \left(\Delta M_k \frac{\partial r^2}{\partial M_k} + \Delta S_k \frac{\partial r^2}{\partial S_k} \right) \stackrel{\textrm{RT}}{\leq} 0\end{aligned}$$ can never be positive if agents only perform roundtrip trades. On average, this result holds even for the general case. The reason why we have to consider averages is, that agents who buy or sell two times in a row always decrease the amount of money or stocks they own after two time steps. Therefore, these agents’ resources are expected to change in the opposite direction of the gradient half of the time. That is, for every given pair of informations $(\mu, \mu')$, a quarter of all agents’ is expected to have their resources evolve such that future $r(\mu,\mu')^2$ increase. However, the actual influence of these agents is much lower and can be neglected for large systems. Then, demand and supply can be well described as binomial processes as shown above. Here, express demand and supply as: $$\begin{aligned} \delta =& \frac{N}{2} + \Delta\delta,\quad \langle\Delta\delta\rangle &= 0,\quad \langle\Delta\delta^2\rangle \leq \frac{N}{4}\\ \varsigma &= \frac{N}{2} + \Delta\varsigma,\quad \langle\Delta\varsigma\rangle &= 0,\quad \langle\Delta\varsigma^2\rangle \leq \frac{N}{4}\end{aligned}$$ and the relative fluctuations around the mean demand $N/2$ are only $\sqrt{N}/2$ and therefore small for large N. Thus we can expand [[Eq. (\[for:drdm\])]{}]{} for small fluctuations: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial r(M, S, \mu, \mu')}{\partial M_k} &\approx& \sigma_k^{\mu'} \left( \frac{2}{N} - \frac{4 \Delta\delta'}{N^2} \right) - \sigma_k^{\mu} \left( \frac{2}{N} - \frac{4 \Delta\delta}{N^2} \right)\\ \frac{\partial r(M, S, \mu, \mu')}{\partial S_k} &\approx& (1-\sigma_k^{\mu}) \left( \frac{2}{N} - \frac{4 \Delta\varsigma}{N^2} \right) - (1-\sigma_k^{\mu'}) \left( \frac{2}{N} - \frac{4 \Delta\varsigma'}{N^2} \right).\end{aligned}$$ As the above equation shows, when agents perform roundtrip trades, they contribute a term of order $N^{-1}$ to the gradient with respect to each asset. When agents buy or sell twice, they only contribute a term of order $N^{-1.5}$ for one asset. Therefore, the influence of these agents vanishes for sufficiently large $N$. By a similar argument, approximately a quarter of all agents performs either one of the actions (buy, sell), (sell, buy), (buy, buy), and (sell, sell) while fluctuations can be neglected for large $N$. Summing up, the expected change in $r(\mu, \mu')^2$ over repeated trades with the same information $$\begin{aligned} \left\langle \sum_{k=1}^{N} \left(\Delta M_k \frac{\partial r^2}{\partial M_k} + \Delta S_k \frac{\partial r^2}{\partial S_k} \right)\right\rangle_{(\mu, \mu')} \leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ is always negative given a sufficiently large number of agents. Supplementary Figures ===================== Phase Diagrams for Exogenous Information ---------------------------------------- For uniformly distributed exogenous information states, a reduction of fluctuations does not generally increase the kurtosis ([[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\_ext\]]{}]{}). This is opposed to the endogenous case shown in [[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\]]{}]{} in the main paper. Only very large uses in overcomplete markets cause high kurtoses. Then, even uniformly distributed $\mu$ occasionally are not repeated for a sufficiently long time to be “forgotten” by the market.\ ![**(a)**: Reduction of average return magnitudes during transients, and **(b):** kurtoses for the model with exogenous $\mu$ drawn from a uniform distribution. All other parameters and figure generation are identical to [[Fig. \[fig:use\_vs\_bet\]]{}]{} in the main paper.[]{data-label="fig:use_vs_bet_ext"}](figs/mem_vs_risk_var_ext.eps) Speculators and Producers ------------------------- [[Fig. \[fig:chartis\_vs\_fundis\]]{}]{} shows the phase diagram for $\alpha$ versus the amount of producers in the market. As it turns out, a second phase transition with respect to the number of producers is found. This transition is independent of the one for the speculators. Small $N_p < 0.5 \cdot D$ only weakly influence return distributions.\ ![**(a)**: Reduction of average return magnitudes during transients, and **(b):** kurtosis of log-returns of the model with endogenous information for different numbers of speculators $N_s$ and producers $N_p$ for constant memory $K=~10$ (i.e. $D=2^{10}$) and use $\gamma = 0.5$. []{data-label="fig:chartis_vs_fundis"}](figs/chartis_vs_fundis_var.eps) Distribution of Information Ages (Surprise) ------------------------------------------- ![Complementary cumulative distribution of the times $\tau(t)$ since the informations $\mu(t)$ occurred last. Solid black line: Model with intrinsic information and $D = 2^{10}$, $N_s = 2^{11}$, $N_p = 0$, $\gamma = 0.5$. Short red line: Hill estimator. Dashed line: Exogenous information with $P_\textrm{exo}(\mu) \propto \exp(-0.02\, \mu)$, leading to $P(\tau) \propto \tau^{-2}$. []{data-label="fig:surprise_distribution"}](figs/surprise_distribution) Mixed Information ----------------- For a combination of endo- and exogenous information, results are similar to pure endogenous information as long as the endogenous part dominates. Generally, more exogenous information leads to a stronger reduction of fluctuations, less pronounced volatility clustering, and random time series without visible patterns even for small $\gamma$. The scaling of the remaining extreme returns remains unchanged. An example is shown in [[Fig. \[fig:mixed\_info\]]{}]{}.\ ![Simulation for a model with $3$ bits of uniform exogenous information and $6$ bits of endogenous information. $N_s = 2^{10}$, $N_p = 0$, $\gamma = 0.1$. The first $2^7$ time steps were discarded. Log returns $r_n$ are normalized by their standard deviation. **(a)**: Time series **(b):** Solid black line: complementary cumulative distribution function. Short Red line: Hill estimator for the scaling exponent. Dashed grey line: normal distribution. []{data-label="fig:mixed_info"}](figs/mixed_info_series.eps) Supplementary Discussion: Income and the Critical Point {#apdx:income} ======================================================= ![Properties of log-return and resource distributions depend on the parameter $\alpha = D / N_s$. Solid line: The model with unity (initial) speculator and producer capitals $C_s$ and $C_p$ and a small number of producers serves as a reference. Shown are averages from $50$ simulations for each of which only the last $T = 10^7$ out of $2\,T$ timesteps have been analyted. **(a)**: variances and **(b)**: kurtoses were calculated from log-returns. **(c)**: income factors $a$ according to [[Eqns. ]{}]{}[[(\[for:totalcapital\])]{}]{} and [[(\[for:income\])]{}]{}. **(d)** gini indices for speculator capitals after $2\,T$ timesteps. For each other line or symbol, only one model parameters has been changed, respectively. []{data-label="fig:criticalpoint"}](figs/criticalpoint.eps) [[Fig. \[fig:criticalpoint\]]{}]{} shows the phase transition with respect to $\alpha$ in more detail. As in [[Fig. \[fig:phase\_transition\]]{}]{}, we take one parameter set as a reference to which we compare simulations after transients for different parameters. For orientation, the log-return variances ([[Fig. \[fig:criticalpoint\] (a)]{}]{}) and kurtoses([[Fig. \[fig:criticalpoint\] (b)]{}]{}), which have been discussed earlier, are shown again. Mean speculator capitals $$C_s(t) = \frac{1}{2 N_s} \sum_{k=1}^{N_s} M_k(t) + S_k(t). \label{for:totalcapital}$$ are not constant over time in markets that include producers. For empty markets, the ratio of average speculator and producer capitals quickly evolves towards an equilibrium. The more agents are added, the longer it takes for $C_s$ to saturate. For critical or crowded markets a positive speculator income persists over long times. Then, average speculator capitals after transients can be well described as: $$C_s(t)^2 = C_s(t_0)^2 + a\, t, \quad t_0 < t. \label{for:income}$$ The income factor $a$ is shown in [[Fig. \[fig:criticalpoint\] (c)]{}]{} and quantifies how well the speculators can exploit the producers. $a$ is found to be independent of the initial ratio between speculator and producer capitals. It becomes maximal close to the critical point which can be intuitively understood: For empty markets, there is a finite chance for a producer strategy to lie outside of the space spanned by the speculators. Therefore, increasing the number of speculators increases their average income. For crowded markets, producers are already optimally exploited. Then, adding more speculators just distributes the maximal total income over more of them. An analogous maximum can be found in Minority Games (see e.g. ref. 15 in the main paper). [[Fig. \[fig:criticalpoint\] (d)]{}]{} shows the gini index, a common measure of wealth inequality. Increased incomes coincide with increased capital inequality among speculators as the gini-index shows a maximum at the critical point. Thus, only few speculators are most successful in exploiting the producers.

--- abstract: 'Demonstrating quantum advantage with less powerful but more realistic devices is of great importance in modern quantum information science. Recently, a significant quantum speedup was achieved in the problem of learning a hidden parity function with noise. However, if all data qubits at the query output are completely depolarized, the algorithm fails. In this work, we present a quantum parity learning algorithm that exhibits quantum advantage as long as one qubit is provided with nonzero polarization in each query. In this scenario, the quantum parity learning naturally becomes deterministic quantum computation with one qubit. Then the hidden parity function can be revealed by performing a set of operations that can be interpreted as measuring nonlocal observables on the auxiliary result qubit having nonzero polarization and each data qubit. We also discuss the source of the quantum advantage in our algorithm from the resource-theoretic point of view.' author: - 'Daniel K. Park' - 'June-Koo K. Rhee' - Soonchil Lee title: 'Noise-tolerant parity learning with one quantum bit' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Experimental realizations of quantum information processing (QIP) have made impressive progress in the past years [@Nigg302; @NVQEC; @SCQEC; @NMR2017]. Nonetheless, a scalable architecture capable of universal and reliable quantum computation is still far from within reach. While the development of such quantum computers is pursued, identifying well-defined computational tasks for which less powerful and less challenging devices (for example, subuniversal, without quantum error correction, etc.) can still outperform classical counterparts is of fundamental importance. One interesting family of problems for which near-term quantum devices can exhibit considerable advantages is machine learning. In particular, the quantum speedup is demonstrated in the problem of learning a hidden parity function defined by the unknown binary string in the presence of noise (LPN). The LPN problem is thought to be computationally intractable classically [@Angluin1988; @Blum2003; @Lyubashevsky2005; @Levieil2006], and hence cryptographic applications have been suggested based on this problem [@Regev:2005; @Pietrzak2012]. In the quantum setting, all possible input binary strings are encoded in the *data* qubits for parallel processing, and the outcome of the function is encoded in the auxiliary *result* qubit. Then the quantum learner with the ability to coherently rotate all qubits before the readout can solve the LPN problem in logarithmic time [@LPNTheory]. However, the number of required queries diverges as the noise (depolarizing) rate increases, and the learning becomes impossible if the final state of the data qubits is maximally mixed [@LPNTheory; @LPNexp]. This result intuitively makes sense since measuring the maximally mixed state outputs completely random bits. Hence the parity function can only be guessed with success probability decreasing exponentially with the size of the problem in both classical and quantum settings. In this work, we present a protocol with which the hidden bit string of the parity function can be learned efficiently even if all data qubits are completely depolarized, provided that the result qubit has nonzero polarization. Under the aforementioned conditions, the learning algorithm can naturally become *deterministic quantum computation with one quantum bit* (DQC1) [@DQC1PhysRevLett.81.5672]. Then the expectation value measurement on the result qubit allows for efficient evaluation of the normalized trace of the unitary gate that represents the hidden parity function. However, this unitary operator is traceless as long as at least one element of the hidden bit string is 1, and therefore the naive application of the DQC1 protocol does not help. Thus, we modify the original quantum LPN algorithm by adding a set of operations that can be understood as performing nonlocal measurements between each data qubit and the result qubit. With this change, the normalized trace is nonzero if the hidden bit encoded in the data qubit is 0, and zero if it is 1. Therefore, the parity function can be learned using the number of queries that grows only linearly with the length of the hidden bit string. This counterintuitive result shows that the robustness of the quantum parity learning against decoherence is retained via the power of one quantum bit. The quantum advantage is achieved without any entanglement between the data qubits and the result qubit bipartition. This brings up an interesting question: What is the quantum resource that empowers the learning protocol? We conjecture that the inherent ability of the DQC1 model to discriminate the coherence consumption, which results in producing nonclassical correlation, lies at the center of our learning algorithm. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:2\] briefly reviews the LPN problem and the DQC1 protocol, topics that have been studied extensively by numerous authors. In Sec. \[sec:3.1\] we describe the equivalence of the quantum parity learning circuit and the DQC1 circuit when the data output is in the maximally mixed state. The DQC1 algorithm for solving the LPN problem is presented in Sec. \[sec:3.2\], including the discussion on the computation efficiency. The effect of errors at various locations in the DQC1 LPN protocol is discussed in Sec. \[sec:3.3\]. Section \[sec:4\] discusses the origin of the quantum advantage in our learning algorithm, and Sec. \[sec:5\] concludes. Preliminaries {#sec:2} ============= LPN {#sec:2.1} --- Here we briefly summarize the work presented in Ref. [@LPNTheory]. In the parity learning problem, an oracle generates a uniformly random input $x\in\lbrace 0,1\rbrace^n$ and computes a Boolean function $f_s$ defined by a hidden bit string $s\in\lbrace 0,1\rbrace^n$, $$f_s(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n s_jx_j\;\text{mod }2,$$ where $s_j\;(x_j)$ is the $j$th bit of $s\;(x)$. A query to the oracle returns $\left(x,\;f_s(x)\right)$, and a learner tries to reconstruct $s$ by repeating the query. In the presence of noise, the learner obtains $ f_s(x)\oplus e$, where $e\in \lbrace 0,1\rbrace$ has the Bernoulli distribution with parameter $p$, i.e., Pr$\lbrack e=1\rbrack=p/2,\;0<p<1$ [@Angluin1988; @Blum2003; @Lyubashevsky2005]. The LPN problem is equivalent to decoding a random binary linear code in the presence of random noise [@Lyubashevsky2005]. In the quantum setting, the learner has access to a quantum oracle which implements a unitary transformation on the computational basis states and returns the equal superposition of $|f_s(x)\rangle_r|x\rangle_d$ for all possible inputs $x$. The subscript $r\;(d)$ indicates the result (data) qubit. At the query output, the learner applies Hadamard gates to all qubits to create an entangled state $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0\rangle_r|0\rangle^{\otimes n}_d+|1\rangle_r|s\rangle_d\right).$$ Thus, whenever the result qubit is $1$ (occurs with probability $1/2$), measuring data qubits in their computational bases reveals $s$. The quantum version of the parity learning is depicted in Fig. \[fig:LPN0\]. In this example, $s$ is $011\ldots 0$, and it is encoded via a series of controlled-not (CNOT) gates targeting the result qubit conditioned on the data qubits. The gray box in the figure emphasizes that the learner does not have *a priori* knowledge about this part. ![\[fig:LPN0\]The quantum circuit for the parity learning algorithm in Ref. [@LPNTheory]. Hadamard operations ($H$) prepare the equal superposition of all possible input states. The hidden parity function (gray box) is realized using controlled-not gates between the result (target) and data (control) qubits. The hidden bit string $s=011\ldots 0$ is used as an example. All qubits are measured in their computational bases at the end.](Fig1.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"} A noisy quantum oracle can be modeled with the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{D}_p\left(\rho\right)=\left(1-p\right)\rho+p\one/2$ acting independently on all qubits at the oracle’s output with a constant known noise rate of $p<1$. Learning from the noiseless oracle is tractable for both quantum and classical learners. However, the quantum algorithm prevails when the noise is introduced. The best-known classical algorithms for LPN has superpolynomial complexity in $n$ [@Angluin1988; @Blum2003; @Lyubashevsky2005; @Levieil2006], while the quantum learning based on the bitwise majority vote requires $O\left(\log n\right)$ queries and $O\left(n\right)$ running time (gates and measurements) [@LPNTheory]. This result contradicts the widely accepted idea that quantum computers are intrinsically more vulnerable to error than classical computers. The quantum LPN was realized experimentally with superconducting qubits in Ref. [@LPNexp]. On the other hand, in terms of the noise strength, the query complexity of the quantum algorithm is $O(\text{poly}(1/(1-p)))$ [@LPNTheory]. The experimental results in Ref. [@LPNexp] also show that the number of queries diverges as $p\rightarrow 1$ for both classical and quantum learners. This is evident since maximally mixed states at the query output does not provide any knowledge about $s$. In fact, in the learning algorithm discussed thus far, for each completely depolarized data qubit, the probability of finding $s$ exactly is reduced by $1/2$. Repeating the query does not improve the success probability since the outcome is uniformly random every time. Equivalently, the fully depolarizing noise acting on the data output can be translated to the state preparation error. In this case, without any additional noise, the final entangled state at the end of a query is $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0\rangle_r|x\rangle_d\pm |1\rangle_r|x\oplus s\rangle_d\right),$$ where the relative phase factor $-1$ is due to potential error propagations to the result qubit via CNOT gates as the measurement error is moved backward through the quantum circuit. Then the measurement only reveals either $x$ or $x\oplus s$. However, since $x$ is randomly sampled in each query, the learning is not possible. Classically, the complete depolarization of the data qubits at the output corresponds to complete ignorance of the input bit string $x$. Therefore, under such a noise model, classical and quantum learners can only guess $s$ out of $2^{n}$ possibilities. DQC1 {#sec:2.2} ---- DQC1 is a subuniversal quantum computation model to which one probe qubit with nonzero polarization $\alpha$, $n$ bits in a maximally mixed state, an arbitrary unitary transformation, and the expectation measurement of the Pauli operator $\sigma_i$ ($i\in\lbrace x,y,z\rbrace$) on the probe qubit are available [@DQC1PhysRevLett.81.5672]. Though weaker than standard universal quantum computers, it still offers efficient solutions to some problems that are classically intractable [@DQC1PhysRevLett.81.5672; @PhysRevA.72.042316; @DQC1complexity]. In particular, DQC1 can be employed to efficiently estimate the normalized trace of an $n$-qubit unitary operator, $U_n$, provided that $U_n$ can be implemented with $O(\text{poly}(n))$ elementary quantum gates. In the trace evaluation protocol, a Hadamard gate on the probe qubit is followed by the controlled unitary $\left(|0\rangle\langle 0|\otimes\one_n+|1\rangle\langle 1|\otimes U_n\right)$, where $\one_n$ is the $2^n\times 2^n$ identity matrix. These operations transform the input state $\rho_i=(\one+\alpha\sigma_z)\otimes\one_n/2^{n+1}$ to $$\rho_f=\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}\left(\one_{n+1}+\alpha\left(|0\rangle\langle 1|\otimes U_n^{\dagger}+|1\rangle\langle 0|\otimes U_n\right)\right).$$ The traceless part that deviates from the identity is called the deviation density matrix, and only this part returns nonzero expectation values in DQC1. Measuring the expectation of $\sigma_x$ or $\sigma_y$ on the probe qubit ends the protocol, and $$\langle \sigma_x\rangle=\frac{\alpha}{2^n}\text{Re}\left(\text{tr}\left(U_n\right)\right),\;\langle \sigma_y\rangle=\frac{\alpha}{2^n}\text{Im}\left(\text{tr}\left(U_n\right)\right).$$ Repeating the protocol $O(\log\left(1/\delta\right)/(\alpha\epsilon)^2)$ times allows for estimating the expectation values to within $\epsilon$ with the probability of error $\delta$ [@estimate]. Parity learning with fully depolarizing noise ============================================= From LPN to DQC1 {#sec:3.1} ---------------- The LPN algorithm fails if the noise completely randomizes the output. However, if the result qubit is alive with some polarization, then can anything about the overall evolution be inferred from measuring the result qubit alone? This situation resembles the DQC1 model in which the probe qubit carries the information about the trace of the unitary operator applied to the completely mixed state. Indeed, using $H|0\rangle\langle 0|H\otimes\one+H|1\rangle\langle 1|H\otimes \sigma_x=\one\otimes H|0\rangle\langle 0|H+\sigma_x\otimes H |1\rangle\langle 1|H$, the quantum circuit for the parity learning (Fig. \[fig:LPN0\]) with completely depolarizing noise on the data qubits can be converted to the DQC1 circuit as depicted in Fig. \[fig:LPNasDQC1\]. ![\[fig:LPNasDQC1\]The DQC1 circuit that implements the original quantum parity learning algorithm with fully depolarized data qubits. The gray box represents the hidden function defined by $s=011\ldots 0$ as an example. The data qubits at the query input are in the completely mixed state, but the result qubit is prepared with nonzero polarization $\alpha$. The expectation measurement replaces the projective measurement, and it returns the normalized trace of the unitary matrix that corresponds to the hidden parity function. The result qubit also experiences depolarizing noise ($\mathcal{D}_p$) prior to the measurement as in the original algorithm. The trace is zero for all $s$ except when it is uniformly 0.](Fig2.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"} Without loss of generality, the data qubits are supplied in the completely mixed state as input. The result qubit can be initialized with some error, but it should possess nonzero polarization. Since measuring the fully depolarized data qubits is redundant, only the result qubit is measured. Then by measuring the expectations of $\sigma_{x}$ and $\sigma_{y}$, the normalized trace of the unitary matrix that implements the hidden parity function can be evaluated. The depolarizing noise at the result qubit ouput scales the expectation values by a factor of $\left(1-p\right)$: $$\label{eq:trUs} \langle \sigma_x\rangle+i\langle \sigma_y\rangle=\frac{\left(1-p\right)\alpha}{2^n}\text{tr}\left(U_{s}\right), %\langle \sigma_x\rangle+\langle \sigma_y\rangle=\frac{\left(1-p\right)\alpha}{2^n}\left(\text{Re}\left(\text{tr}\left(U_n\right)\right)+\text{Im}\left(\text{tr}\left(U_n\right)\right)\right). % \langle \sigma_y\rangle&=\frac{\left(1-p\right)\alpha}{2^n}\text{Im}\left(\text{tr}\left(U_n\right)\right). %\langle\sigma_i\mathcal{D}_p\left(\rho\right)\rangle=\left(1-p\right)\text{tr}\left(\sigma_i\rho\right)=(1-p)\langle\sigma_i\rangle,\;i\in\lbrace x,\; y\rbrace$$ where $U_{s}$ is the unitary implementation of the hidden parity function acting on the data qubits. This is easy to verify using the Kraus representation of the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{D}_p=\lbrace \sqrt{1-3p/4}\one,\sqrt{p/4}\sigma_x,\sqrt{p/4}\sigma_y,\sqrt{p/4}\sigma_z\rbrace$ and the cyclic property of the trace. Hence as long as $p<1$, the normalized trace can be estimated with high accuracy using $\sim 1/(1-p)^2$ repetitions. Equation \[eq:trUs\] shows that some information about the hidden function can be contained in the coherent basis of the result qubit. Yet the trace of the hidden unitary matrix does not provide any useful knowledge about $s$ since the trace is zero for all $s$ except when $s$ is uniformly 0. In the following, we present a strategy for finding $s$ using the trace estimation. Solving LPN using DQC1 {#sec:3.2} ---------------------- The quantum learner with an access to the DQC1 LPN circuit (Fig. \[fig:LPNasDQC1\]) has the ability to implement additional quantum gates after the unknown unitary operation. If a rotation $R_x(\theta)=\exp(i\theta \sigma_x/2)$ controlled by the result qubit is applied equally to all data qubits after the hidden parity function, the trace of the total unitary operator becomes $$\text{tr}\left(R_x^{\otimes n}(\theta)U_{s}\right)=2^n\left(i\sin\left(\theta/2\right)\right)^m\left(\cos\left(\theta/2\right)\right)^{n-m},$$ where $m$ is the number of CNOT operators implemented in the hidden parity function, i.e., the number of ones in $s$. Now, if the rotation on one of the data qubits is undone by another controlled-rotation $R_x^{j\dagger}(\theta)$, then the normalized trace of the total unitary operator becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:tr_final} &\text{tr}\left(R_x^{\bar{j}}(\theta)U_{s}\right)/2^n\nonumber\\ &=\begin{dcases} \left(i\sin\left(\theta/2\right)\right)^m\left(\cos\left(\theta/2\right)\right)^{n-m-1}&\text{if } s_j=0,\\ \qquad\quad\qquad\quad\;\; 0&\text{if } s_j=1. \end{dcases}\end{aligned}$$ Here $R_x^{\bar{j}}(\theta)$ represents a coherent rotation uniformly applied to all $n$ qubits except the $j$th qubit, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:cR} R_x^{\bar{j}}(\theta)&=R_x^{j\dagger}(\theta) R_x^{\otimes n}(\theta)\nonumber \\ &=\exp\left(-i\theta \sigma_x^{(j)}/2\right)\prod_{k=1}^n\exp\left(i\theta \sigma_x^{(k)}/2\right),\end{aligned}$$ and the superscript $(j)$ indicates that the Pauli operator is acting on the $j$th data qubit while the identity operator acts on the rest. We use $\sigma_i^{(r)}$ to represent the result qubit for clarity when needed. For $\theta\neq a\pi,\;a\in\mathbb{Z}$, the DQC1 protocol can resolve whether the hidden bit encoded in the $j$th data qubit is 0 or 1; the trace estimation returns a nonzero value if $s_j=0$, and 0 if $s_j=1$. The quantum circuit for finding the value of $s_j$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:modDQC1\]. ![\[fig:modDQC1\]The modified DQC1 circuit for solving the LPN problem. The gray box represents the hidden function defined by $s=011\ldots 0$ as an example. The quantum learner applies the uniform rotation to all data qubits controlled by the result qubit except on the $j$th qubit ($R_x^{\bar j}(\theta)$). For some $\theta$, the trace of the total unitary operator is 0 (nonzero) if the hidden bit encoded in the $j$th data qubit is 1 (0).](Fig3.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"} The deviation density matrix at the end of the protocol can be written as $$\tilde\rho_{f}=\frac{\alpha}{2^{n+1}}\left(|0\rangle\langle 1|\otimes V^{\dagger}R_x^{j}(\theta)+|1\rangle\langle 0|\otimes R_x^{j\dagger}(\theta)V\right),$$ where $V=R_x^{\otimes n}(\theta)U_s$. Then the expectation measurement on the result qubit can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:nonlocal} \langle \sigma_i\rangle&=\text{tr}\left(\sigma_i^{(r)}\frac{\alpha\cos(\theta/2)}{2^{n+1}}\left(|0\rangle\langle 1|\otimes V^\dagger+|1\rangle\langle 0|\otimes V\right)\right)\nonumber\\ +&\text{tr}\left(\sigma_i^{(r)}\sigma_x^{(j)}\frac{i\alpha\sin(\theta/2)}{2^{n+1}}\left(|0\rangle\langle 1|\otimes V^\dagger-|1\rangle\langle 0|\otimes V\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the measurement outcome can be interpreted as the sum of two expectations determined from different deviation density matrices, and one of them (second line in Eq. (\[eq:nonlocal\])) corresponds to measuring the nonlocal observable on the result qubit and the $j$th data qubit. This nonlocal contribution to the measurement extracts the information about the bit value hidden in the $j$th qubit. To optimally distinguish the normalized traces (the difference is denoted as $\Delta\tau_j$) without knowing $m$, the rotation angle should be chosen as $\theta=\pi/2$ (or an odd-integer multiple of it). Then $\Delta\tau_j=i^m(1/\sqrt{2})^{n-1}$. Once $s_j$ is revealed, the $j$th data qubit can be decoupled from the result qubit by applying the inverse of the unitary operator that encodes $s_j$. Then in the subsequent run, the controlled rotation is applied only to the remaining data qubits. This rotation can be expressed as $$\tilde{R}_x^{j}(\theta)=\prod_{k=j+1}^n\exp\left(i\theta \sigma_x^{(k)}/2\right).$$ This extra procedure increases $\Delta\tau_j$ by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ for each decoupled data qubit, i.e., $\lvert\Delta\tau_j\rvert=(1/\sqrt{2})^{n-j}$, and can reduce the computational overhead accordingly. With these results, the full learning algorithm can be stated as follows. - Given a DQC1 circuit with the hidden unitary operator controlled-$U_s$, for $j=1,\ldots ,n$, do the following. 1. Apply the controlled-rotation $\tilde{R}_x^{j}(\theta)$ to data qubits with the result qubit as the control. 2. Measure $\langle \sigma_x\rangle$ and $\langle \sigma_y\rangle$. Repeat until desired accuracy is reached. 3. If $\langle \sigma_x\rangle+\langle \sigma_y\rangle$=0, record $s_j=1$. Otherwise, record $s_j=0$. 4. If $\langle \sigma_x\rangle+\langle \sigma_y\rangle$=0, apply a bit-flip ($\sigma_x$) gate to the $j$th data qubit controlled by the result qubit. Otherwise, do nothing. 5. Increment $j$ and go to step 1. Until the first nonzero value is detected, both $\langle\sigma_x\rangle$ and $\langle\sigma_y\rangle$ must be measured because $\Delta\tau_j$ can be either real or imaginary depending on $m$. However, once the nonzero trace is found, only one of them needs to be measured in subsequent runs. The number of queries required for estimating $s$ within $\epsilon$ with the probability of error $\delta$ is $O(\log(1/\delta)/(L(\alpha\epsilon(1-p))^{2}))$, assuming an ensemble of $L$ quantum systems (e.g., spin-1/2 nuclei) encodes the result qubit. In order to identify whether $s_j$ is 0 or 1 with high certainty, $\epsilon<\lvert\Delta\tau_j\rvert/2$ must be satisfied. On the other hand, $\lvert\Delta\tau_j\rvert^2$ decreases exponentially in $n-j$. Thus, the learning may be too expensive, especially when $L \ll 2^n$ and for $j\ll n$. However, for ensemble quantum computing models such as those based on nuclear magnetic resonance, $L\sim 10^{22}$. This means that for about $n=\log_2(10^{20})\approx 66$, $L\gg 2^n$ and the learning algorithm is efficient. For the hidden bit string beyond this length, the size of the ensemble should increase exponentially to maintain the efficiency in the number of queries. Error analysis {#sec:3.3} -------------- The depolarizing noise (or any Pauli errors) on the result qubit anywhere during the protocol can be treated as either the initialization error that reduces $\alpha$ or the measurement error that increases $p$. Errors on the data qubits before the realization of the hidden function does not have any effect since all data qubits are completely mixed, as long as the noise is unital. Also, errors on the data qubits after the controlled-$\tilde{R}_x^{j}(\theta)$ are irrelevant since only the result qubit is detected. In contrast, for $s_j=1$, a phase-flip ($\sigma_z$) error that occurs on a data qubit between the CNOT and the controlled-$\tilde{R}_x^{j}(\theta)$ can propagate to the result qubit. Then the propagated error can be treated as an error in the state preparation or in the measurement. Because of the properties $\one\otimes\sigma_z\left(|0\rangle\langle 0|\otimes\one+|1\rangle\langle 1|\otimes \sigma_x\right)=\left(|0\rangle\langle 0|\otimes\one+|1\rangle\langle 1|\otimes \sigma_x\right)\sigma_z\otimes \sigma_z$ and $\sigma_z H=H\sigma_x$, two quantum circuits shown in Fig. \[fig:ErrorProp\] are equivalent. This shows that a single phase-flip error ($Z$ in Fig. \[fig:ErrorProp\]) that occurs on a data qubit results in two errors, a phase-flip and a bit-flip ($X$ in Fig. \[fig:ErrorProp\]) on the input state of the data and the result qubits, respectively. ![\[fig:ErrorProp\] A phase-flip ($Z$) on the second qubit after a gate sequence constructed as a Hadamard followed by a CNOT is equivalent to a bit-flip ($X$) on the first qubit and a phase-flip on the second qubit before the gate sequence.](Fig4.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"} Now suppose that the phase-flip error corrupts two data qubits simultaneously at this location. This sends two bit-flip errors to the initial state of the result qubit which cancel each other. Hence, the phase errors that occur simultaneously on an even number of data qubits cancel each other and do not affect the result qubit. For an odd number of phase errors, only one of them affects the result qubit. Therefore, the depolarizing noise occurring between the controlled-$U_s$ and the controlled-$\tilde{R}_x^{j}(\theta)$ independently on all data qubits with the error rate $q$ results in a bit-flip error with the error rate being $\sim q/2$ on the initial state of the result qubit. The initial polarization of the result qubit is multiplied by a factor of $\sim (1-q)$. Systematic errors in the controlled-$\tilde{R}_x^{j}(\theta)$ also affect the result, but not severely. We already mentioned that the algorithm works for all $\theta\neq a\pi,\;a\in\mathbb{Z}$, although ideally $\theta$ should be $\pi/2$ to minimize the computational overhead. Therefore, the algorithm withstands small amplitude errors. It is also robust to the error in the phase of the rotation. For example, consider the rotation around $\cos(\phi)\hat x+\sin(\phi)\hat x_{\perp}$, where $\hat x_{\perp}$ is some axis orthogonal to $\hat x$. Then the normalized trace is multiplied by a factor of $\cos(\phi)^m$. In principle, the algorithm can distinguish $s_j$ as long as $\cos(\phi)\neq 0$, but the optimal separation is attained when $\cos(\phi)=1$ as chosen in our algorithm. Quantum Discord and Coherence Consumption {#sec:4} ========================================= In the preceding, we showed that the learning is enabled by the nonlocal nature of the measurement embedded in each query. This section further investigates the source of the quantum advantage in our protocol from the resource-theoretic standpoint. According to the results in Refs. [@PhysRevA.95.022330; @PhysRevA.72.042316], the DQC1 circuit cannot generate entanglement at the bipartition split as one result qubit and $n$ data qubits when $\alpha\le 1/2$. Hereinafter we limit our discussion to correlations that are generated at this result-data bipartition. Clearly, entanglement is not the source of the quantum supremacy in our algorithm. However, nonclassical correlation other than entanglement as measured by quantum discord can exist for $\alpha>0$ [@PhysRevLett.100.050502]. Quantum discord quantifies the quantumness of correlations based on the entropic measure, and it can be understood as the amount of the disturbance induced to a bipartite quantum system via local measurements [@discord_vedral; @PhysRevLett.88.017901]. We examine quantum discord with respect to the measurement on the result qubit in our DQC1 circuit, speculating that it is closely linked to the origin of the quantum advantage. First, the output state in the DQC1 version of the original LPN algorithm (Fig. \[fig:LPNasDQC1\]) has zero discord since $U_s^2=\one$ for all $s$ [@PhysRevLett.105.190502]. However, discord is generated when the controlled rotation $R_x^{\bar{j}}(\theta)$ is added. We calculate the amount of discord generated in our modified DQC1 circuit shown in Fig. \[fig:modDQC1\] for various hidden functions, and it is observed to be different depending on $s_j$. This feature coincides with the dependence of the trace of the total unitary operator on $s_j$ (see Eq. (\[eq:tr\_final\])), which plays the central role in our learning algorithm. ![\[fig:DiscordN\]Quantum discord at the end of the DQC1 circuit shown in Fig. \[fig:modDQC1\] as a function of $\alpha$ for various $s$. In this regime, there is no entanglement in the result-data bipartition. The amount of discord depends on the hidden bit value encoded in the $j$th data qubit, which is excluded from the uniform rotation prior to the measurement (see Eq. (\[eq:cR\])). For all $s$, the discord is the same when $s_j=1$ (solid line). The inset shows the difference of the discord for $s_j=1$ and $s_j=0$ as a function of the controlled-rotation angle $\theta$ when $s=10$ and $\alpha=1/4$.](Fig5.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"} The discord is plotted as a function of $\alpha$ for some selection of the hidden bit strings in Fig. \[fig:DiscordN\]. As the length of $s$ increases, the difference of the discords for $s_j=1$ and $s_j=0$ becomes smaller, similar to the behavior of $\Delta\tau_j$. Moreover, the difference of the discords decreases with $\alpha$, consistent with the scaling of the number of queries required in terms of $\alpha$ for a fixed accuracy. The inset shows the difference of the discords for $s_j=1$ and $s_j=0$ as a function of the controlled-rotation angle $\theta$ when $s=10$ and $\alpha=1/4$. The *discord contrast* with respect to $\theta$ resembles $\Delta\tau_j$ in that it is the largest when $\theta$ is an odd-integer multiple of $\pi/2$ and vanishes at the integer multiples of $\pi$ as the discord is zero regardless of $s_j$ at these points. Above studies suggest that the presence of nonzero discord and the discord contrast in different DQC1 circuits are crucial for our learning algorithm. Nonetheless, claiming quantum discord as the necessary resource for the DQC1-based binary classification in general is problematic since one can come up with two unitary matrices with different normalized traces that do not produce discord when implemented in the DQC1 circuit. Alternatively, quantum coherence can be regarded as a resource, and it has been rigorously studied within the framework of quantum resource theory recently [@PhysRevLett.113.140401; @PhysRevLett.116.120404; @RevModPhys.89.041003]. Evidently, the probe qubit must contain some amount of coherence as the minimal requirement for the DQC1 protocol [@2058-9565-1-1-01LT01]. The connection between coherence and discord in DQC1 is established in Ref. [@PhysRevLett.116.160407]: the discord produced is upper-bounded by the coherence consumed by the probe qubit. Using the relative entropy of coherence as the quantifier [@PhysRevLett.113.140401], the coherence consumption $\Delta C$ in each execution of our DQC1 protocol can be expressed as $$%\Delta C=H_2\left(\frac{1-\alpha\lvert\text{tr}\left(R_x^{\bar{j}}(\theta)U_s\right)\rvert/2^n}{2}\right)-H_2\left(\frac{1-\alpha}{2}\right), \Delta C=H_2\left(\frac{1-\alpha\lvert\tau_j\rvert}{2}\right)-H_2\left(\frac{1-\alpha}{2}\right),$$ where $H_2(\cdot)$ is the binary Shannon entropy and $\tau_j$ is the normalized trace of the total unitary operator acting on the data qubits controlled by the result qubit. This is monotonically decreasing with respect to $\lvert\tau_j\rvert$ for a fixed nonzero $\alpha$. Thus it appears that the DQC1 protocol is inherently capable of quantifying the consumption of the coherent resource supplied by one quantum bit. Furthermore, the magnitude of the partial derivative of $\Delta C$ with respect to $\lvert\tau_j\rvert$ ($\alpha$) monotonically increases with the independent variable, meaning that $\Delta C$ is more sensitive to the changes in $\lvert\tau_j\rvert$ ($\alpha$) when the independent variable is large. This feature is consistent with the computational complexity of our algorithm. By all means, the notion of the coherence consumption is purely quantum mechanical. Our algorithm is set up in a way that the coherent resource used up in each query varies with the answer $s_j$ being probed. An interesting open question is whether manipulating the coherence consumption provides a quantum advantage in solving problems other than those based on the trace estimation. Conclusion {#sec:5} ========== By measuring only one quantum bit with nonzero polarization in each query, an $n$-bit hidden parity function can be identified. This situation arises when data qubits undergo the completely depolarizing channel in the original quantum LPN algorithm in Ref. [@LPNTheory]. The protocol introduced here can solve the problem efficiently when $n\sim \log_2(L)$. Classically, the corresponding task can only be accomplished via brute-force enumeration in an exponentially large search space, provided that an efficient means to verify the answer exists. The one-qubit LPN algorithm is inspired by the DQC1 model. However, the naive translation of the original LPN algorithm to a DQC1 circuit does not solve the problem since the trace of the unitary matrix that encodes the hidden parity function is zero in $2^n-1$ instances. To circumvent the issue, we introduced controlled uniform rotations so that the trace is either zero or nonzero depending on the hidden bit value encoded in the data qubit being probed. The additional operation can be viewed as the nonlocal measurement between the result and the data qubit. The mere existence of nonzero quantum discord between the result and data qubits does not permit the learning. Instead, we conjectured that the discord contrast or, more fundamentally, the *coherence consumption contrast* is essential for the quantum advantage in our algorithm. While efforts towards building standard quantum computers that fulfill what the theory of QIP promises continue, exploring weaker but more realistic quantum devices to solve interesting but classically hard problems is imperative. The LPN problem is one such problem in which the noisy quantum machine can shine. For the LPN problem, the ability to manipulate and measure the coherence consumed by one quantum bit suffices to demonstrate the quantum supremacy. This also motivates future studies on whether similar strategies can be utilized in the near-term quantum devices to perform other well-defined computational tasks beyond classical capabilities and how much, if any, improvement can be achieved by utilizing coherence from more than one qubit. We thank Sumin Lim for helpful discussions. This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (Grants No. 2015R1A2A2A01006251 and No. 2016R1A5A1008184). [10]{} D. Nigg, M. M[ü]{}ller, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, M. Hennrich, T. Monz, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and R. Blatt, Science **345**, 302 (2014). T. H. Taminiau, J. Cramer, T. van der Sar, V. V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Nat. Nanotechnol. **9**, 171 (2014). J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I. C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Nature (London) **519**, 66 (2015). D. Lu, K. Li, J. Li, H. Katiyar, A. J. Park, G. Feng, T. Xin, H. Li, G. Long, A. Brodutch, J. Baugh, B. Zeng, and R. Laflamme, npj Quantum Info. **3**, 45 (2017). D. Angluin and P. Laird, Mach. Learn. **2**, 343 (1988). A. Blum, A. Kalai, and H. Wasserman, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. **50**, 506 (2003). V. Lyubashevsky, “The Parity Problem in the Presence of Noise, Decoding Random Linear Codes, and the Subset Sum Problem," in [*Approximation, Randomization and Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Techniques*]{}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3624 (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 378–389. . Levieil and P.-A. Fouque, “An Improved LPN Algorithm", in [*Security and Cryptography for Networks: SCN 2006*]{}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4116 (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 348–359. O. Regev, in [*Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC’05*]{} (ACM, New York, 2005), pp. 84–93. K. Pietrzak, “Cryptography from Learning Parity with Noise," in [*Theory and Practice of Computer Science, SOFSEM 2012*]{}, Vol. 7147 (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 99–114. A. W. Cross, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. A **92**, 012327 (2015). D. Rist[è]{}, M. P. da Silva, C. A. Ryan, A. W. Cross, A. D. C[ó]{}rcoles, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and B. R. Johnson, npj Quantum Info. **3**, 16 (2017). E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 5672 (1998). A. Datta, S. T. Flammia, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A **72**, 042316 (2005). P. W. Shor and S. P. Jordan, Quantum Info. Comput. **8**, 681 (2008). P. J. Huber, [*Robust Statistics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1981). M. Boyer, A. Brodutch, and T. Mor, Phys. Rev. A **95**, 022330 (2017). A. Datta, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 050502 (2008). L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **34**, 6899 (2001). H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 017901 (2001). B. Dakić, V. Vedral, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 190502 (2010). T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 140401 (2014). A. Winter and D. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 120404 (2016). A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys. **89**, 041003 (2017). J. M. Matera, D. Egloff, N. Killoran, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum Science and Technology **1**, 01LT01 (2016). J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V. Vedral, and M. Gu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116** 160407 (2016).

--- abstract: | We consider the problem of learning a coefficient vector $x_0\in\reals^N$ from noisy linear observation $y=Ax_0+w\in\reals^n$. In many contexts (ranging from model selection to image processing) it is desirable to construct a sparse estimator $\hx$. In this case, a popular approach consists in solving an $\ell_1$-penalized least squares problem known as the LASSO or Basis Pursuit DeNoising (BPDN). For sequences of matrices $A$ of increasing dimensions, with independent gaussian entries, we prove that the normalized risk of the LASSO converges to a limit, and we obtain an explicit expression for this limit. Our result is the first rigorous derivation of an explicit formula for the asymptotic mean square error of the LASSO for random instances. The proof technique is based on the analysis of $\AMP$, a recently developed efficient algorithm, that is inspired from graphical models ideas. author: - 'Mohsen Bayati[^1] and Andrea Montanari${}^{*,}$[^2]' bibliography: - 'all-bibliography.bib' title: The LASSO risk for gaussian matrices --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Let $x_0\in\reals^N$ be an unknown vector, and assume that a vector $y\in\reals^n$ of noisy linear measurements of $x_0$ is available. The problem of reconstructing $x_0$ from such measurements arises in a number of disciplines, ranging from statistical learning to signal processing. In many contexts the measurements are modeled by $$\begin{aligned} y = Ax_0+w\, , $$ where $A\in\reals^{n\times N}$ is a known measurement matrix, and $w$ is a noise vector. The LASSO or Basis Pursuit Denoising (BPDN) is a method for reconstructing the unknown vector $x_0$ given $y$, $A$, and is particularly useful when one seeks sparse solutions. For given $A$, $y$, one considers the cost functions $\cost_{A,y}:\reals^{N}\to\reals$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} \cost_{A,y}(x) = \frac{1}{2}\,\|y-Ax\|^2 + \,\lambda \|x\|_1\, ,\label{eq:LASSO-Problem} $$ with $\lambda>0$. The original signal is estimated by $$\begin{aligned} \hx(\lambda;A,y) = \argmin_x\, \cost_{A,y}(x)\, .\label{eq:LassoOPT} $$ In what follows we shall often omit the arguments $A,y$ (and occasionally $\lambda$) from the above notations. We will also use $\hx(\lambda;N)$ to emphasize the $N$-dependence. Further $\|v\|_p \equiv (\sum_{i=1}^mv_i^p)^{1/p}$ denotes the $\ell_p$-norm of a vector $v\in \reals^p$ (the subscript $p$ will often be omitted if $p=2$). A large and rapidly growing literature is devoted to $(i)$ Developing fast algorithms for solving the optimization problem (\[eq:LassoOPT\]); $(ii)$ Characterizing the performances and optimality of the estimator $\hx$. We refer to Section \[sec:Related\] for an unavoidably incomplete overview. Despite such substantial effort, and many remarkable achievements, our understanding of (\[eq:LassoOPT\]) is not even comparable to the one we have of more classical topics in statistics and estimation theory. For instance, the best bound on the mean square error ($\MSE$) of the estimator (\[eq:LassoOPT\]), i.e. on the quantity $N^{-1}\|\hx-x_0\|^2$, was proved by Candes, Romberg and Tao [@CandesStable] (who in fact did not consider the LASSO but a related optimization problem). Their result estimates the mean square error only up to an unknown numerical multiplicative factor. Work by Candes and Tao [@Dantzig] on the analogous *Dantzig selector*, upper bounds the mean square error up to a factor $C\log N$, under somewhat different assumptions. The objective of this paper is to complement this type of ‘rough but robust’ bounds by proving *asymptotically exact* expressions for the mean square error. Our asymptotic result holds almost surely for sequences of random matrices $A$ with fixed aspect ratio and independent gaussian entries. While this setting is admittedly specific, the careful study of such matrix ensembles has a long tradition both in statistics and communications theory and has spurred many insights [@JohnstoneICM; @Telatar]. Although our rigorous results are asymptotic in the problem dimensions, numerical simulations have shown that they are accurate already on problems with a few hundreds of variables. Further, they seem to enjoy a remarkable *universality* property and to hold for a fairly broad family of matrices [@NSPT]. Both these phenomena are analogous to ones in random matrix theory, where delicate asymptotic properties of gaussian ensembles were subsequently proved to hold for much broader classes of random matrices. Also, asymptotic statements in random matrix theory have been replaced over time by concrete probability bounds in finite dimensions. Of course the optimization problem (\[eq:LASSO-Problem\]) is not immediately related to spectral properties of the random matrix $A$. As a consequence, universality and non-asymptotic results in random matrix theory cannot be directly exported to the present problem. Nevertheless, we expect such developments to be foreseable. Our proofs are based on the analysis of an efficient iterative algorithm first proposed by [@DMM09], and called AMP, for approximate message passing. The algorithm is inspired by belief-propagation on graphical models, although the resulting iteration is significantly simpler (and scales linearly in the number of nodes). Extensive simulations [@NSPT] showed that, in a number of settings, $\AMP$ performances are statistically indistinguishable to the ones of LASSO, while its complexity is essentially as low as the one of the simplest greedy algorithms. The proof technique just described is new. Earlier literature analyzes the convex optimization problem (\[eq:LassoOPT\]) –or similar problems– by a clever construction of an approximate optimum, or of a dual witness. Such constructions are largely explicit. Here instead we prove an asymptotically exact characterization of a rather non-trivial iterative algorithm. The algorithm is then proved to converge to the exact optimum. Definitions ----------- In order to define the $\AMP$ algorithm, we denote by $\eta:\reals\times\reals_+\to\reals$ the soft thresholding function $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eta-def} \eta(x;\theta) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} x-\theta & \mbox{if $x>\theta$,}\\ 0 & \mbox{if $-\theta\le x\le\theta$,}\\ x+\theta & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right. $$ The algorithm constructs a sequence of estimates $x^t\in\reals^N$, and residuals $z^t\in\reals^n$, according to the iteration $$\begin{aligned} x^{t+1}&=\eta(A^*z^t+x^t;\theta_t),\label{eq:dmm}\\ z^t &= y - Ax^t+{\frac}{1}{\delta} z^{t-1} \left\<\eta'(A^*z^{t-1}+x^{t-1};\theta_{t-1})\right\>\, ,\nonumber $$ initialized with $x^0=0$. Here $A^*$ denotes the transpose of matrix $A$, and $\eta'(\,\cdot\,;\,\cdot\,)$ is the derivative of the soft thresholding function with respect to its first argument. Given a scalar function $f$ and a vector $u\in\reals^m$, we let $f(u)$ denote the vector $(f(u_1),\dots,f(u_m))\in\reals^m$ obtained by applying $f$ componentwise. Finally $\<u\> \equiv m^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^m u_i$ is the average of the vector $u\in\reals^m$. As already mentioned, we will consider sequences of instances of increasing sizes, along which the LASSO behavior has a non-trivial limit. The sequence of instances $\{x_0(N), w(N), A(N)\}_{N\in\naturals}$ indexed by $N$ is said to be a *converging sequence* if $x_0(N)\in\reals^{N}$, $w(N)\in\reals^n$, $A(N)\in\reals^{n\times N}$ with $n=n(N)$ is such that $n/N\to\delta\in(0,\infty)$, and in addition the following conditions hold: - The empirical distribution of the entries of $x_0(N)$ converges weakly to a probability measure $p_{X_0}$ on $\reals$ with bounded second moment. Further $N^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^Nx_{0,i}(N)^2\to \E_{p_{X_0}}\{X_0^{2}\}$. - The empirical distribution of the entries of $w(N)$ converges weakly to a probability measure $p_{W}$ on $\reals$ with bounded second moment. Further $n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^nw_{i}(N)^2\to \E_{p_{W}}\{W^{2}\}$. - If $\{e_i\}_{1\le i\le N}$, $e_i\in\reals^N$ denotes the standard basis, then $\max_{i\in [N]}\|A(N)e_i\|_2$, $\min_{i\in [N]}\|A(N)e_i\|_2\to 1$, as $N\to\infty$ where $[N]\equiv\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$. Let us stress that our proof only applies to a subclass of converging sequences (namely for gaussian measurement matrices $A(N)$). The notion of converging sequences is however important since it defines a class of problem instances to which the ideas developed below might be generalizable. For a converging sequence of instances, and an arbitrary sequence of thresholds $\{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ (independent of $N$), the asymptotic behavior of the recursion (\[eq:dmm\]) can be characterized as follows. Define the sequence $\{\tau_t^2\}_{t\ge 0}$ by setting $\tau_{0}^2 =\sigma^2+\E\{X_0^2\}/\delta$ (for $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$ and $\sigma^2\equiv \E\{W^2\}$, $W\sim p_W$) and letting, for all $t\ge 0$: $$\begin{aligned} \tau_{t+1}^2 & = & \seF(\tau_t^2,\theta_t)\, ,\label{eq:1-dim-SE}\\ \seF(\tau^2,\theta) &\equiv &\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\, \E\{\,[\eta(X_0+\tau Z;\theta)-X_0]^2\}\,, $$ where $Z\sim\normal(0,1)$ is independent of $X_0$. Notice that the function $\seF$ depends implicitly on the law $p_{X_0}$. We say a function $\psi:\reals^2\to\reals$ is *pseudo-Lipschitz* if there exist a constant $L>0$ such that for all $x,y\in\reals^2$: $|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|\le L(1+\|x\|_2+\|y\|_2)\|x-y\|_2$. (This is a special case of the definition used in [@BM-MPCS-2010] where such a function is called pseudo-Lipschitz *of order 2*.) Our next proposition that was conjectured in [@DMM09] and proved in [@BM-MPCS-2010]. It shows that the behavior of $\AMP$ can be tracked by the above one dimensional recursion. We often refer to this prediction by *state evolution*. \[prop:state-evolution\] Let $\{x_0(N), w(N), A(N)\}_{N\in\naturals}$ be a converging sequence of instances with the entries of $A(N)$ iid normal with mean $0$ and variance $1/n$ and let $\psi:\reals\times\reals\to \reals$ be a pseudo-Lipschitz function. Then, almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:state-evolution} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(x_{i}^{t+1},x_{0,i}\big) = \E\Big\{\psi\big(\eta(X_0+\tau_t Z;\theta_t),X_0\big)\Big\}\, , $$ where $Z\sim\normal(0,1)$ is independent of $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$. In order to establish the connection with the LASSO, a specific policy has to be chosen for the thresholds $\{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}$. Throughout this paper we will take $\theta_t = \alpha\tau_t$ with $\alpha$ is fixed. In other words, the sequence $\{\tau_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ is given by the recursion $$\begin{aligned} \tau_{t+1}^2 = \seF(\tau_t^2,\alpha\tau_t)\, . $$ This choice enjoys several convenient properties [@DMM09]. Main result {#sec:Results} ----------- Before stating our results, we have to describe a *calibration* mapping between $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ that was introduced in [@NSPT]. Let us start by stating some convenient properties of the state evolution recursion. \[propo:UniqFP\] Let $\alpha_{\rm min}= \alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$ be the unique non-negative solution of the equation $$\begin{aligned} (1+\alpha^2)\Phi(-\alpha)-\alpha\phi(\alpha) = \frac{\delta}{2}\, , \label{eq:AlphaMin} $$ with $\phi(z) \equiv e^{-z^2/2}/\sqrt{2\pi}$ the standard gaussian density and $\Phi(z) \equiv\int_{-\infty}^{z}\phi(x)\,\de x$. For any $\sigma^2>0$, $\alpha>\alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$, the fixed point equation $\tau^2 = \seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$ admits a unique solution. Denoting by $\tau_*=\tau_*(\alpha)$ this solution, we have $\lim_{t\to\infty}\tau_t=\tau_*(\alpha)$. Further the convergence takes place for any initial condition and is monotone. Finally $\left|\frac{\de \seF}{\de\tau^2}(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)\right|<1$ at $\tau=\tau_*$. For greater convenience of the reader, a proof of this statement is provided in Appendix \[app:UniqFP\]. We then define the function $\alpha\mapsto \lambda(\alpha)$ on $(\alpha_{\rm min}(\delta),\infty)$, by $$\begin{aligned} \lambda(\alpha) \equiv \alpha\tauinf\left[1 - \frac{1}{\delta} \E\big\{\eta'(X_0+\tauinf Z;\alpha\tauinf)\big\}\right]\, .\label{eq:calibration} $$ This function defines a correspondence (calibration) between the sequence of thresholds $\{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ and the regularization parameter $\lambda$. It should be intuitively clear that larger $\lambda$ corresponds to larger thresholds and hence larger $\alpha$ since both cases yield smaller estimates of $x_0$. In the following we will need to invert this function. We thus define $\alpha:(0,\infty)\to(\alpha_{\rm min},\infty)$ in such a way that $$\begin{aligned} \alpha(\lambda) \in \big\{\, a\in (\alpha_{\rm min},\infty)\, :\, \lambda(a) =\lambda\big\}\, .\label{eq:AlphaOfLambda} $$ The next result implies that the set on the right-hand side is non-empty and therefore the function $\lambda\mapsto\alpha(\lambda)$ is well defined. \[propo:Lambda\] The function $\alpha\mapsto\lambda(\alpha)$ is continuous on the interval $(\alpha_{\rm min},\infty)$ with $\lambda(\alpha_{\rm min}+)= -\infty$ and $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\lambda(\alpha) = \infty$. Therefore the function $\lambda\mapsto\alpha(\lambda)$ satisfying Eq. (\[eq:AlphaOfLambda\]) exists. A proof of this statement is provided in Section \[app:Lambda\]. We will denote by $\cA = \alpha((0,\infty))$ the image of the function $\alpha$. Notice that the definition of $\alpha$ is *a priori* not unique. We will see that uniqueness follows from our main theorem. Examples of the mappings $\tau^2\mapsto\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$, $\alpha\mapsto\tau_*(\alpha)$ and $\alpha\mapsto\lambda(\alpha)$ are presented in Figures \[fig:tau2-&gt;F(tau2)\], \[fig:alpha2taustar\], and \[fig:alpha2lam\] respectively. ![Mapping $\tau^2\mapsto\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$ for $\alpha=2$, $\delta=0.64$, $\sigma^2=0.2$, $p_{X_0}(\{+1\}) = p_{X_0}(\{-1\}) = 0.064$ and $p_{X_0}(\{0\}) = 0.872$. []{data-label="fig:tau2->F(tau2)"}](tau2F.eps){width="4.7in"} ![Mapping $\alpha\mapsto\tau_*(\alpha)$ for the same parameters $\delta$, $\sigma^2$ and distribution $p_{X_0}$ as in Figure \[fig:tau2-&gt;F(tau2)\].[]{data-label="fig:alpha2taustar"}](alpha2ts.eps){width="4.7in"} ![Mapping $\alpha\mapsto\lambda(\alpha)$ for the same parameters $\delta$, $\sigma^2$ and distribution $p_{X_0}$ as in Figure \[fig:tau2-&gt;F(tau2)\].[]{data-label="fig:alpha2lam"}](alpha2lam.eps){width="4.7in"} We can now state our main result. \[thm:Risk\] Let $\{x_0(N), w(N), A(N)\}_{N\in\naturals}$ be a converging sequence of instances with the entries of $A(N)$ iid normal with mean $0$ and variance $1/n$. Denote by $\hx(\lambda;N)$ the estimator for instance $(x_0(N), w(N), A(N))$, with $\sigma^2,\lambda>0$, $\prob\{X_0\neq 0\}$ and let $\psi:\reals\times\reals\to \reals$ be a pseudo-Lipschitz function. Then, almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:asymptotic-result} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(\hx_{i},x_{0,i}\big) = \E\Big\{\psi\big(\eta(X_0+\tau_* Z;\theta_*),X_0\big)\Big\}\, , $$ where $Z\sim\normal(0,1)$ is independent of $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$, $\tau_*=\tau_*(\alpha(\lambda))$ and $\theta_*=\alpha(\lambda) \tau_*(\alpha(\lambda))$. As a corollary, the function $\lambda\mapsto\alpha(\lambda)$ is indeed uniquely defined. \[coro:AlphaUnique\] For any $\lambda,\sigma^2>0$ there exists a unique $\alpha>\alpha_{\rm min}$ such that $\lambda(\alpha) = \lambda$ (with the function $\alpha \to\lambda(\alpha)$ defined as in Eq. (\[eq:calibration\]). Hence the function $\lambda\mapsto\alpha(\lambda)$ is continuous non-decreasing with $\alpha((0,\infty)) \equiv\cA = (\alpha_0,\infty)$. The proof of this corollary (which uses Theorem \[thm:Risk\]) is provided in Appendix \[app:LambdaBis\]. The assumption of a converging problem-sequence is important for the result to hold, while the hypothesis of gaussian measurement matrices $A(N)$ is necessary for the proof technique to be correct. On the other hand, the restrictions $\lambda,\sigma^2>0$, and $\prob\{X_0\neq 0\}>0$ (whence $\tau_*\neq0$ using Eq. ) are made in order to avoid technical complications due to degenerate cases. Such cases can be resolved by continuity arguments. The proof of Theorem \[thm:Risk\] is given in Section \[sec:MainProof\]. Related work {#sec:Related} ------------ The LASSO was introduced in [@Tibs96; @BP95]. Several papers provide performance guarantees for the LASSO or similar convex optimization methods [@CandesStable; @Dantzig], by proving upper bounds on the resulting mean square error. These works assume an appropriate ‘isometry’ condition to hold for $A$. While such condition hold with high probability for some random matrices, it is often difficult to verify them explicitly. Further, it is only applicable to very sparse vectors $x_0$. These restrictions are intrinsic to the worst-case point of view developed in [@CandesStable; @Dantzig]. Guarantees have been proved for correct support recovery in [@Zhao], under an appropriate ‘incoherence’ assumption on $A$. While support recovery is an interesting conceptualization for some applications (e.g. model selection), the metric considered in the present paper (mean square error) provides complementary information and is quite standard in many different fields. Closer to the spirit of this paper [@Goyal] derived expressions for the mean square error under the same model considered here. Similar results were presented recently in [@KabashimaTanaka; @BaronGuoShamai]. These papers argue that a sharp asymptotic characterization of the LASSO risk can provide valuable guidance in practical applications. For instance, it can be used to evaluate competing optimization methods on large scale applications, or to tune the regularization parameter $\lambda$. Unfortunately, these results were non-rigorous and were obtained through the famously powerful ‘replica method’ from statistical physics [@MezardMontanari]. Let us emphasize that the present paper offers two advantages over these recent developments: $(i)$ It is completely *rigorous*, thus putting on a firmer basis this line of research; $(ii)$ It is *algorithmic* in that the LASSO mean square error is shown to be equivalent to the one achieved by a low-complexity message passing algorithm. Numerical illustrations {#sec:simulations} ======================= Theorem \[thm:Risk\] assumes that the entries of matrix $A$ are iid gaussians. We expect however the mean square error prediction to be robust and hold for much larger family of matrices. Rigorous evidence in this direction is presented in [@KM-2010] where the normalized cost $\cost(\hx)/N$ is shown to have a limit as $N\to\infty$ which is universal with respect to random matrices $A$ with iid entries. (More precisely, it is universal provided $\E\{A_{ij}\}=0$, $\E\{A_{ij}^2\}=1/n$ and $\E\{A_{ij}^6\}\le C/n^{3}$ for some uniform constant $C$.) Further, our result is asymptotic, while and one might wonder how accurate it is for instances of moderate dimensions. Numerical simulations were carried out in [@NSPT; @OurNips] and suggest that the result is robust and relevant already for $N$ of the order of a few hundreds. As an illustration, we present in Figs. \[fig:GaussianMatrices\] and \[fig:PM1Matrices\] the outcome of such simulations for two types of random matrices. Simulations with real data can be found in [@OurNips]. We generated the signal vector randomly with entries in $\{+1,0,-1\}$ and $\prob(x_{0,i}=+1) = \prob(x_{0,i}=-1) = 0.064$. The noise vector $w$ was generated by using i.i.d. $\normal(0,0.2)$ entries. We obtained the optimum estimator $\hx$ using `CVX`, a package for specifying and solving convex programs [@CVX] and `OWLQN`, a package for solving large-scale versions of LASSO [@OWLQN]. We used several values of $\lambda$ between $0$ and $2$ and $N$ equal to $200$, $500$, $1000$, and $2000$. The aspect ratio of matrices was fixed in all cases to $\delta=0.64$. For each case, the point $(\lambda,\MSE)$ was plotted and the results are shown in the figures. Continuous lines corresponds to the asymptotic prediction by Theorem \[thm:Risk\] for $\psi(a,b) = (a-b)^2$, namely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|\hx-x_0\|^2 = \E\big\{ \big[\eta(X_0+\tau_*Z;\theta_*)-X_0\big]^2\big\} = \delta(\tau_*^2-\sigma^2)\, . $$ The agreement is remarkably good already for $N, n$ of the order of a few hundreds, and deviations are consistent with statistical fluctuations. The two figures correspond to different entries distributions: $(i)$ Random gaussian matrices with aspect ratio $\delta$ and iid $\normal(0,1/n)$ entries (as in Theorem \[thm:Risk\]); $(ii)$ Random $\pm1$ matrices with aspect ratio $\delta$. Each entry is independently equal to $+1/\sqrt{n}$ or $-1/\sqrt{n}$ with equal probability. Notice that the asymptotic prediction has a minimum as a function of $\lambda$. The location of this minimum can be used to select the regularization parameter. ![Mean square error (MSE) as a function of the regularization parameter $\lambda$ compared to the asymptotic prediction for $\delta=0.64$ and $\sigma^2=0.2$. Here the measurement matrix $A$ has iid $\normal(0,1/n)$ entries. Each point in this plot is generated by finding the LASSO predictor $\hx$ using a measurement vector $y=Ax_0+w$ for an independent signal vector $x_0$, an independent noise vector $w$, and an independent matrix $A$.[]{data-label="fig:GaussianMatrices"}](Gaussian_Matrices_MSE_vs_Lambda.eps){width="4.7in"} ![As in Fig. \[fig:GaussianMatrices\], but the measurement matrix $A$ has iid entries that are equal to $\pm1/\sqrt{n}$ with equal probabilities.[]{data-label="fig:PM1Matrices"}](Plus_Minus_One_Matrices_MSE_vs_Lambda.eps){width="4.7in"} A structural property and proof of the main theorem {#sec:MainProof} =================================================== We will prove the following theorem which implies our main result, Theorem \[thm:Risk\]. \[thm:FiniteTime\] Assume the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:Risk\]. Let $\hx(\lambda;N)$ the LASSO estimator for instance $(x_0(N), w(N), A(N))$, and denote by $\{x^t(N)\}_{t\ge 0}$ the sequence of estimates produced by $\AMP$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{N}\|x^t(N)-\hx(\lambda;N)\|_2^2 = 0\, , $$ almost surely. The rest of the paper is devoted to the proof of this theorem. Section \[sec:Structural\] proves a structural property that is the key tool in this proof. Section \[sec:ProofFiniteTime\] uses this property together with a few lemmas to prove Theorem \[thm:FiniteTime\] The proof of Theorem \[thm:Risk\] follows immediately. For any $t\ge 0$, we have, by the pseudo-Lipschitz property of $\psi$, $$\begin{aligned} \left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(x_{i}^{t+1},x_{0,i}\big)- \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(\hx_{i},x_{0,i}\big)\right|&\le \frac{L}{N}\, \sum_{i=1}^N |x^{t+1}_i-\hx_i| \big(1+2|x_{0,i}|+|x^{t+1}_i|+|\hx_i|\big)\\ &\le\frac{L}{N}\, \|x^{t+1}-\hx\|_2\,\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^N\big(1+2|x_{0,i}|+|x^{t+1}_i|+|\hx_i|\big)^2}\\ &\le L \frac{\|x^{t+1}-\hx\|_2}{\sqrt{N}}\,\sqrt{4+\frac{8\|x_0\|_2^2}{N}+\frac{4\|x^{t+1}\|_2^2}{N}+\frac{4\|\hx\|_2^2}{N}}\,,\\\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows by Cauchy-Schwarz. Next we take the limit $N\to\infty$ followed by $t\to\infty$. The first term vanishes by Theorem \[thm:FiniteTime\]. For the second term, note that $\|x_0\|_2^2/N$ remains bounded since $(x_0,w,A)$ is a converging sequence. The two terms $\|x^{t+1}\|_2^2/N$ and $\|\hx\|_2^2/N$ also remain bounded in this limit because of state evolution (as proved in Lemma \[lemma:norm2(xt)is\_bounded\] below). We then obtain $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(\hx_{i},x_{0,i}\big)= \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(x_{i}^{t+1},x_{0,i}\big) = \E\Big\{\psi\big(\eta(X_0+\tau_* Z;\theta_*), X_0\big)\Big\}\, , $$ where we used Theorem \[prop:state-evolution\] and Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\]. Some notations -------------- Before continuing, we introduce some useful notations. For any non-empty subset $S$ of $[m]$ and any $k\times m$ matrix $M$ we refer by $M_S$ to the $k$ by $|S|$ sub-matrix of $M$ that contains only the columns of $M$ corresponding to $S$. The same notation is used for vectors $v\in\reals^m$: $v_S$ is the vector $(v_i:\, i\in S)$. The transpose of matrix $M$ is denoted by $M^*$. We will often use the following scalar prduct for $u,v\in\reals^m$: $$\begin{aligned} \<u,v\> \equiv \frac{1}{m}\,\sum_{i=1}^m u_i\, v_i\, . $$ Finally, the subgradient of a convex function $f:\reals^m\to\reals$ at point $x\in\reals^m$ is denoted by $\partial f(x)$. In particular, remember that the subgradient of the $\ell_1$ norm, $x\mapsto \|x\|_1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \partial\|x\|_1 =\big\{v\in\reals^m\mbox{ such that } |v_i|\le 1\,\forall i \mbox{ and } x_i\neq 0\Rightarrow v_i = \sign(x_i)\big\}\, . $$ A structural property of the LASSO cost function {#sec:Structural} ------------------------------------------------ One main challenge in the proof of Theorem \[thm:Risk\] lies in the fact that the function $x\mapsto \cost_{A,y}(x)$ is not –in general– strictly convex. Hence there can be, in principle, vectors $x$ of cost very close to the optimum and nevertheless far from the optimum. The following Lemma provides conditions under which this does not happen. \[lemma:smallcost2smallmse\] There exists a function $\xi(\eps,c_1,\dots,c_5)$ such that the following happens. If $x$, $\dx\in\reals^N$ satisfy the following conditions 1. $\|\dx\|_2\le c_1\sqrt{N}$;\[H:Bound\] 2. $\cost(x+\dx)\le \cost(x)$;\[H:Cost\] 3. There exists $\subg(\cost,x)\in\partial \cost(x)$ with $\|\subg(\cost,x)\|_2\le \sqrt{N}\, \eps$; \[H:Grad\] 4. Let $v\equiv (1/\lambda)[A^*(y-Ax)+\subg(\cost,x)]\in \partial \|x\|_1$, and $S(c_2)\equiv\{i\in [N]: \; |v_i|\ge 1-c_2\}$. Then, for any $S'\subseteq [N]$, $|S'|\le c_3N$, we have $\sigma_{\rm min}(A_{S(c_2)\cup S'})\ge c_4$;\[H:Key\] 5. The maximum and minimum non-zero singular value of $A$ satisfy $c_5^{-1}\le\sigma_{\rm min}(A)^2\le \sigma_{\rm max}(A)^2\le c_5$. \[H:SVD\] Then $\|\dx\|_2\le \sqrt{N}\, \xi(\eps,c_1,\dots,c_5)$. Further for any $c_1,\dots, c_5>0$, $\xi(\eps,c_1,\dots,c_5)\to 0$ as $\eps\to 0$. Further, if $\ker(A)=\{0\}$, the same conclusion holds under assumptions \[H:Bound\], \[H:Cost\], \[H:Grad\], \[H:SVD\]. Throughout the proof we denote $\xi_1, \xi_2,\dots$ functions of the constants $c_1,\dots,c_5>0$ and of $\eps$ such that $\xi_i(\eps)\to 0$ as $\eps\to 0$ (we shall omit the dependence of $\xi_i$ on $\eps$). Let $S = \supp(x)\subseteq [N]$. We have $$\begin{aligned} 0 & \stackrel{(a)}{\ge} & \Big(\frac{ \cost(x+\dx)-\cost(x)}{N}\Big)\\ & \stackrel{(b)}{=} & \lambda\Big(\frac{\|x_S+\dx_S\|_1-\|x_S\|_1}{N}\Big)+\frac{\lambda\|\dx_{\Sco}\|_1+ \frac{1}{2}\|y-Ax-A\dx\|^2_2-\frac{1}{2}\|y-Ax\|^2_2}{N}\\ & \stackrel{(c)}{=} & \lambda\Big(\frac{\|x_S+\dx_S\|_1-\|x_S\|_1}{N}-\<\sign(x_S),\dx_S\>\Big)+ \lambda\Big(\frac{\|\dx_{\Sco}\|_1}{N}-\<v_{\Sco},\dx_{\Sco}\>\Big) +\lambda\<v,\dx\> -\<y-Ax,A\dx\>+\frac{\|A\dx\|_2^2}{2N}\\ & \stackrel{(d)}{=} & \lambda\Big(\frac{\|x_S+\dx_S\|_1-\|x_S\|_1}{N}-\<\sign(x_S),\dx_S\>\Big)+ \lambda\Big(\frac{\|\dx_{\Sco}\|_1}{N}-\<v_{\Sco},\dx_{\Sco}\>\Big)+ \<\subg(\cost,x),\dx\>+\frac{\|A\dx\|_2^2}{2N}\, , $$ where $(a)$ follows from hypothesis (\[H:Cost\]), $(c)$ from the fact that $v_S=\sign(x_S)$ since $v\in\partial\|x\|_1$, and $(d)$ from the definition of $(v)$. Using hypothesis (\[H:Bound\]) and (\[H:Grad\]), we get by Cauchy-Schwarz $$\begin{aligned} \lambda\Big(\frac{\|x_S+\dx_S\|_1-\|x_S\|_1}{N}-\<\sign(x_S),\dx_S\>\Big)+ \lambda\Big(\frac{\|\dx_{\Sco}\|_1}{N}-\<v_{\Sco},\dx_{\Sco}\>\Big)+\frac{\|A\dx\|_2^2}{2N}\le c_1\eps \, . $$ Since each of the three terms on the left-hand side is non-negative it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\|\dx_{\Sco}\|_1}{N}-\<v_{\Sco},\dx_{\Sco}\> &\le &\xi_1(\eps)\, ,\label{eq:Sco}\\ \|A\dx\|_2^2 & \le & N\xi_1(\eps)\, .\label{eq:AzBound} $$ Write $\dx = \dx^{\perp}+\dxparal$, with $\dxparal\in\ker(A)$ and $\dx^{\perp}\perp \ker(A)$. It follows from Eq. (\[eq:AzBound\]) and hypothesis (\[H:SVD\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \|\dx^{\perp}\|_2^{2}\le N c_5\xi_1(\eps)\, . $$ In the case $\ker(A) = \{0\}$, the proof is concluded. In the case $\ker(A)\neq\{0\}$, we need to prove an analogous bound for $\dxparal$. From Eq. (\[eq:Sco\]) together with $\|\dx^{\perp}_{\Sco}\|_1\le\sqrt{N}\|\dx^{\perp}_{\Sco}\|_2 \le\sqrt{N}\|\dx^{\perp}\|_2 \le N \sqrt{c_5\xi_1(\eps)}$, we get $$\begin{aligned} &A\dxparal = 0\, ,\\ &\frac{\|\dxparal_{\Sco}\|_1}{N}-\<v_{\Sco},\dxparal_{\Sco}\> \le\xi_2(\eps)\, ,\label{eq:Sco2} $$ Notice that $\Sco(c_2)\subseteq\Sco$. From Eq. (\[eq:Sco2\]) and definition of $S(c_2)$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \|\dxparal_{\Sco(c_2)}\|_1&\le \frac{\|\dxparal_{\Sco(c_2)}\|_1-N\<v_{\Sco(c_2)},\dxparal_{\Sco(c_2)}\>}{c_2}\\ &\le Nc_2^{-1}\xi_2(\eps)\, . $$ Let us first consider the case $|\Sco(c_2)|\ge Nc_3/2$. Then partition $\Sco(c_2) = \cup_{\ell=1}^K S_\ell$, where $(Nc_3/2)\le |S_{\ell}|\le Nc_3$, and for each $i\in S_{\ell}$, $j\in S_{\ell+1}$, $|\dxparal_i|\ge |\dxparal_j|$. Also define $\Sco_+\equiv \cup_{\ell=2}^K S_{\ell}\subseteq \Sco(c_2)$. Since, for any $i\in S_{\ell}$ $|\dxparal_i|\le\|\dxparal_{S_{\ell-1}}\|_1/|S_{\ell-1}|$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \|\dxparal_{\Sco_+}\|_2^2 &= \sum_{\ell=2}^K \|\dxparal_{S_{\ell}}\|_2^2\le \sum_{\ell=2}^K |S_{\ell}| \Big(\frac{\|\dxparal_{S_{\ell-1}}\|_1}{|S_{\ell-1}|}\Big)^2\\ &\le \frac{4}{Nc_3}\sum_{\ell=2}^{K} \|\dxparal_{S_{\ell-1}}\|_1^2\le \frac{4}{Nc_3} \Big(\sum_{\ell=2}^{K}\|\dxparal_{S_{\ell-1}}\|_1\Big)^2\\ &\le \frac{4}{Nc_3}\,\|\dxparal_{\Sco(c_2)}\|_1^2\le \frac{4\xi_2(\eps)^2}{c_2^2c_3}\, N \equiv N\xi_3(\eps)\, . $$ To conclude the proof, it is sufficient to prove an analogous bound for $\|\dxparal_{S_+}\|_2^2$ with $S_+ = [N]\setminus \Sco_+= S(c_2)\cup S_1$. Since $|S_1|\le Nc_3$, we have by hypothesis (\[H:Key\]) that $\sigma_{\rm min}(A_{S_+})\ge c_4$. Since $0=A\dxparal = A_{S_+}\dxparal_{S_+}+A_{\Sco_+}\dxparal_{\Sco_+}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} c_4^2\|\dxparal_{S_+}\|_2^2\le \|A_{S_+}\dxparal_{S_+}\|^2_2= \|A_{\Sco_+}\dxparal_{\Sco_+}\|^2_2 \le c_5\|\dxparal_{\Sco_+}\|_2^2\le c_5 N\xi_3(\eps)\, . $$ This finishes the proof when $|\Sco(c_2)|\ge Nc_3/2$. Note that if this assumption does not hold then we have $\Sco_+=\emptyset$ and $S_+=[N]$. Hence, the result follows as a special case of above. Proof of Theorem \[thm:FiniteTime\] {#sec:ProofFiniteTime} ----------------------------------- The proof is based on a series of Lemmas that are used to check the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma:smallcost2smallmse\] The first one is an upper bound on the $\ell_2$–norm of $\AMP$ estimates, and of the $\LASSO$ estimate. Its proof is deferred to Section \[sec:ProofNormBound\]. \[lemma:norm2(xt)is\_bounded\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:Risk\], assume $\lambda>0$ and $\alpha = \alpha(\lambda)$. Denote by $\hx(\lambda;N)$ the $\LASSO$ estimator and by $\{x^t(N)\}$ the sequence of $\AMP$ estimates. Then there is a constant $\finite$ such that for all $t\ge 0$, almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\< x^t(N),x^t(N)\>&<\finite,\label{eq:Bound_xt}\\ \lim_{N\to\infty}\< \hx(\lambda;N),\hx(\lambda;N)\>&<\finite.\end{aligned}$$ The second Lemma implies that the estimates of $\AMP$ are approximate minima, in the sense that the cost function $\cost$ admits a small subgradient at $x^t$, when $t$ is large. The proof is deferred to Section \[sec:small-subgradient\]. \[lemma:small-subgradient\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:Risk\], for all $t$ there exists a subgradient $\subg(\cost,x^t)$ of $\cost$ at point $x^t$ such that almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|\subg(\cost,x^t)\|^2=0.\end{aligned}$$ The next lemma implies that submatrices of $A$ constructed using the first $t$ iterations of the $\AMP$ algorithm are non-singular (more precisely, have singular values bounded away from $0$). The proof can be found in Section \[sec:ProofMinS\]. \[lemma:MinS\] Let $S\subseteq [N]$ be measurable on the $\sigma$-algebra ${\mathfrak}{S}_t$ generated by $\{z^0,\dots, z^{t-1}\}$ and $\{x^0+A^*z^0,\dots,x^{t-1}+A^*z^{t-1}\}$ and assume $|S|\le N(\delta-c)$ for some $c>0$. Then there exists $a_1=a_1(c)>0$ (independent of $t$) and $a_2=a_2(c,t)>0$ (depending on $t$ and $c$) such that $$\begin{aligned} \min_{S'}\big\{\sigma_{\rm min}(A_{S\cup S'})\, :\;\; S'\subseteq [N]\, , \;|S'|\le a_1N\big\} \ge a_2\,, $$ with probability converging to $1$ as $N\to\infty$. We will apply this lemma to a specific choice of the set $S$. Namely, defining $$\begin{aligned} v^t\equiv{\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}(x^{t-1}+A^*z^{t-1}-x^t)\, ,\label{eq:vtDef} $$ we will then consider the set $$\begin{aligned} S_t(\gamma) \equiv \big\{\,i\in [N]\, :\; |v^t_{i}|\ge 1-\gamma\,\big\}\, , \label{eq:StDef} $$ for $\gamma\in (0,1)$. Our last lemma shows that this sequence of sets $S_t(\gamma)$ ‘converges’ in the following sense. The proof can be found in Section \[sec:ConvergenceSupport\]. \[lemma:ConvergenceSupport\] Fix $\gamma\in(0,1)$ and let the sequence $\{S_t(\gamma)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be defined as in Eq. (\[eq:StDef\]) above. For any $\xi>0$ there exists $t_*=t_*(\xi,\gamma)<\infty$ such that, for all $t_2\ge t_1\ge t_*$ $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\prob\big\{|S_{t_2}(\gamma)\setminus S_{t_1}(\gamma)|\ge N\xi \big\} = 0\, . $$ The last two lemmas imply the following. \[propo:PSD\] There exist constants $\gamma_1\in(0,1)$, $\gamma_2$, $\gamma_3>0$ and $t_{\rm min}<\infty$ such that, for any $t\ge t_{\rm min}$, $$\begin{aligned} \min\big\{\sigma_{\rm min}(A_{S_t(\gamma_1)\cup S'})\, :\;\; S'\subseteq [N]\, , \;|S'|\le \gamma_2 N\big\} \ge \gamma_3 $$ with probability converging to $1$ as $N\to\infty$. First notice that, for any fixed $\gamma$, the set $S_t(\gamma)$ is measurable on ${\mathfrak}{S}_t$. Indeed by Eq. (\[eq:dmm\]) ${\mathfrak}{S}_t$ contains $\{x^0,\dots, x^t\}$ as well, and hence it contains $v^t$ which is a linear combination of $x^{t-1}+A^*z^{t-1}$, $x^t$. Finally $S_t(\gamma)$ is obviously a measurable function of $v^t$. Using Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b) the empirical distribution of $(x_0-A^*z^{t-1}-x^{t-1},x_0)$ converges weakly to $(\tau_{t-1}Z,X_0)$ for $Z\sim \normal(0,1)$ independent of $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$. (Following the notation of [@BM-MPCS-2010], we let $h^t=x_0-A^*z^{t-1}-x^{t-1}$.) Therefore, for any constant $\gamma$ we have almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{|S_t(\gamma)|}{N}&= \lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \ind_{\left\{{\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}\big|x_i^{t-1}+[A^*z^{t-1}]_i-x_i^t\big|\geq 1-\gamma\right\}}\\ &= \lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \ind_{\left\{{\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}\big|x_0-h^t-\eta(x_0-h^t,\theta_{t-1})\big|\geq 1-\gamma\right\}}\\ &= \prob\left\{{\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}|X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z-\eta(X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z,\theta_{t-1})|\geq 1-\gamma\right\} \,.\label{eq:h-x_0-state-evolution}\end{aligned}$$ The last equality follows from the weak convergence of the empirical distribution of $\{(h_i,x_{0,i})\}_{i\in [N]}$ (from Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b), which takes the same form as Theorem \[thm:FiniteTime\]), together with the absolute continuity of the distribution of $|X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z-\eta(X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z,\theta_{t-1})|$. Now, combining $$\Big|X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z-\eta(X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z,\theta_{t-1})\Big|= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \theta_{t-1}&{\rm When}~~~|X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z|\geq \theta_{t-1}\,,\\ |X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z|&{\rm Otherwise}\,, \end{array} \right.$$ and Eq. we obtain almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{|S_t(\gamma)|}{N}&=\E\left\{\eta'(X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z,\theta_{t-1})\right\}+\prob\Big\{ (1-\gamma)\leq {\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}|X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z|\leq 1\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that the second term $\prob\left\{1-\gamma\leq (1/\theta_{t-1})|X+\tau_{t-1}Z|\leq 1\right\}$ converges to $0$ as $\gamma\to 0$. On the other hand, using Eq. and the fact that $\lambda(\alpha)>0$ the first term will be strictly smaller than $\delta$ for large enough $t$. Hence, we can choose constants $\gamma_1\in(0,1)$ and $c>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\prob\big\{|S_t(\gamma_1)|< N(\delta - c)\big\} = 1\, . $$ for all $t$ larger than some $t_{{\rm min},1}(c)$. For any $t\ge t_{{\rm min},1}(c)$ we can apply Lemma \[lemma:MinS\] for some $a_1(c)$, $a_2(c,t)>0$. Fix $c>0$ and let $a_1=a_1(c)$ be fixed as well. Let $t_{\rm min} =\max(t_{{\rm min},1}, t_{*}(a_1/2,\gamma_1))$ (with $t_*(\,\cdot\,)$ defined as per Lemma \[lemma:ConvergenceSupport\]). Take $a_2=a_2(c,t_{\rm min})$. Obviously $t\mapsto a_2(c,t)$ is non-increasing. Then we have, by Lemma \[lemma:MinS\] $$\begin{aligned} \min\big\{\sigma_{\rm min}(A_{S_{t_{\rm min}}(\gamma_1)\cup S'})\, :\;\; S'\subseteq [N]\, ,\;|S'|\le a_1N\big\} \ge a_2\, , $$ and by Lemma \[lemma:ConvergenceSupport\] $$\begin{aligned} |S_{t}(\gamma_1)\setminus S_{t_{\rm min}}(\gamma_1)|\leq Na_1/2, $$ where both events hold with probability converging to $1$ as $N\to\infty$. The claim follows with $\gamma_2 = a_1(c)/2$ and $\gamma_3=a_2(c,t_{\rm min})$. We are now in position to prove Theorem \[thm:FiniteTime\]. We apply Lemma \[lemma:smallcost2smallmse\] to $x= x^t$, the $\AMP$ estimate and $r = \hx-x^t$ the distance from the $\LASSO$ optimum. The thesis follows by checking conditions 1–5. Namely we need to show that there exists constants $c_1,\dots,c_5>0$ and, for each $\ve>0$ some $t=t(\ve)$ such that 1–5 hold with probability going to $1$ as $N\to\infty$. *Condition 1* holds by Lemma \[lemma:norm2(xt)is\_bounded\]. *Condition 2* is immediate since $x+r = \hx$ minimizes $\cost(\,\cdot\,)$. *Condition 3* follows from Lemma \[lemma:small-subgradient\] with $\eps$ arbitrarily small for $t$ large enough. *Condition 4.* Notice that this condition only needs to be verified for $\delta<1$. Take $v=v^t$ as defined in Eq. (\[eq:vtDef\]). Using the definition (\[eq:dmm\]), it is easy to check that $|v_{i}^t|\le 1$ if $x_{i}^t = 0$ and $v_{i}^t = \sign(x^t_i)$ otherwise. In other words $v^t\in\partial \|x\|_1$ as required. Further by inspection of the proof of Lemma \[lemma:small-subgradient\], it follows that $v^t= (1/\lambda)[A^*(y-Ax^t)+\subg(\cost,x^t)]$, with $\subg(\cost,x^t)$ the subgradient bounded in that lemma (cf. Eq. (\[eq:s(xt)\_defined\])). The condition then holds by Proposition \[propo:PSD\]. *Condition 5* follows from standard limit theorems on the singular values of Wishart matrices (cf. Theorem \[prop:marchenko-pastur\]). State evolution estimates ========================= This section contains a reminder of the state-evolution method developed in [@BM-MPCS-2010]. We also state some extensions of those results that will be proved in the appendices. State evolution --------------- $\AMP$, cf. Eq. (\[eq:dmm\]) is a special case of the general iterative procedure given by Eq. (3.1) of [@BM-MPCS-2010]. This takes the general form $$\begin{aligned} h^{t+1}&=& A^*m^t-\xi_t\, q^t\, ,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; m^t=g_t(b^t,w)\, ,\nonumber\\ b^t&=& A\,q^t-\lambda_t m^{t-1} \, ,\;\;\;\;\;\;\; q^t=f_t(h^t,x_0)\, ,\label{eq:mpMain} $$ where $\xi_t = \< g'(b^t,w)\>$, $\lambda_t={\frac}{1}{\delta} \< f'_t(h^{t},x^0)\>$ (both derivatives are with respect to the first argument). This reduction can be seen by defining $$\begin{aligned} h^{t+1} &= x_0-(A^*z^t+x^t)\, ,\label{eq:h-as-z-and-x}\\ q^{t} &= x^t-x_0\, ,\label{eq:q-as-x}\\ b^{t} &= w-z^t\, ,\label{eq:b-as-z}\\ m^{t} &= -z^t\, ,\label{eq:m-as-z}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} f_t(s,x_0)=\eta_{t-1}(x_0-s)-x_0\, ,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; g_t(s, w)=s-w\, , $$ and the initial condition is $q^0=-x_0$. Regarding $h^{t},b^t$ as column vectors, the equations for $b^0,\ldots,b^{t-1}$ and $h^1,\ldots,h^{t}$ can be written in matrix form as: $$\begin{aligned} \underbrace{\left[h^1+\xi_0q^0|h^2+\xi_1q^1|\cdots|h^t+\xi_{t-1}q^{t-1}\right]}_{X_t}&=A^*\underbrace{[m^0|\ldots|m^{t-1}]}_{M_t}\,,\label{eq:X=A*M}\\ \underbrace{\left[b^0|b^1+\lambda_1m^0|\cdots|b^{t-1}+\lambda_{t-1}m^{t-2}\right]}_{Y_t}&=A\underbrace{[q^0|\ldots|q^{t-1}]}_{Q_t}\,.\label{eq:Y=AQ} $$ or in short $Y_t=AQ_t$ and $X_t=A^*M_t$. Following [@BM-MPCS-2010], we define ${\mathfrak}{S}_{t}$ as the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $b^0,\ldots,b^{t-1}$, $m^0,\ldots,m^{t-1}$, $h^1,\ldots,h^{t}$, and $q^0,\ldots,q^{t}$. The conditional distribution of the random matrix $A$ given the $\sigma$-algebra ${{\mathfrak}{S}_{t}}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned} A|_{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t}}&{\stackrel{\text{\rm d}}{=}}E_{t} + \cP_{t}(\tA) \label{eq:Conditional_A}. $$ Here $\tA{\stackrel{\text{\rm d}}{=}}A$ is a random matrix independent of ${{\mathfrak}{S}_{t}}$, and $E_{t}=\E(A|{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t}})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} E_{t}&=Y_{t}(Q_{t}^*Q_{t})^{-1}Q_{t}^*+M_{t}(M_{t}^*M_{t})^{-1}X_{t}^*-M_{t}(M_{t}^*M_{t})^{-1}M_{t}^*Y_{t}(Q_{t}^*Q_{t})^{-1}Q_{t}^*\, .\label{eq:Et} $$ Further, $\cP_{t}$ is the orthogonal projector onto subspace $\mathrm{V}_{t}=\{A|AQ_{t}=0,A^*M_{t}=0\}$, defined by $$\cP_{t}(\tA) =P_{M_{t}}^\perp {\tA} P_{Q_{t}}^\perp.$$ Here $P_{M_{t}}^\perp = I-P_{M_{t}}$, $P_{Q_{t}}^\perp=I-P_{Q_{t}}$, and $P_{Q_{t}}$, $P_{M_{t}}$ are orthogonal projector onto column spaces of $Q_{t}$ and $M_{t}$ respectively. Before proceeding, it is convenient to introduce the notation $$\onsager_t\equiv{\frac}{1}{\delta}\<\eta'(A^*z^{t-1}+x^{t-1};\theta_{t-1})\>$$ to denote the coefficient of $z^{t-1}$ in Eq. . Using $h^t= x_0- A^*z^{t-1}-x^{t-1}$ and Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b) (proved in [@BM-MPCS-2010]) we get, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:LimOmega_t} \lim_{N\to\infty} \omega_t = \omega^{\infty}_t\equiv {\frac}{1}{\delta} \E\big[ \eta'(X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z;\theta_{t-1})\big]\, . $$ Notice that the function $\eta'(\,\cdot\,;\theta_{t-1})$ is discontinuous and therefore Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b) does not apply immediately. On the other hand, this implies that the empirical distribution of $\{(A^*z^{t-1}_i+x^{t-1}_i,x_{0,i})\}_{1\le i\le N}$ converges weakly to the distribution of $(X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z,X_0)$. The claim follows from the fact that $X_0+\tau_{t-1}Z$ has a density, together with the standard properties of weak convergence. Some consequences and generalizations ------------------------------------- We begin with a simple calculation, that will be useful. \[lemma:NormZ\] If $\{z^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ are the $\AMP$ residuals, then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty} {\frac}{1}{n}\, \|z^t\|^2 =\tau_t^2\, . $$ Using representation and Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b)(c), we get $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty} {\frac}{1}{n}\, \|z^t\|^2 {\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\lim_{n\to\infty} {\frac}{1}{n}\, \|m^t\|^2{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\lim_{N\to\infty} {\frac}{1}{N}\, \|h^{t+1}\|^2= \tau_t^2\, . $$ Next, we need to generalize state evolution to compute large system limits for functions of $x^t$, $x^s$, with $t\neq s$. To this purpose, we define the covariances $\{\covz_{s,t}\}_{s,t\ge 0}$ recursively by $$\begin{aligned} \covz_{s+1,t+1} = \sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\,\E\Big\{ [\eta(X_0+Z_s;\theta_s)-X_0]\, [\eta(X_0+Z_t;\theta_t)-X_0]\Big\}\, , \label{eq:2-times-SE} $$ with $(Z_s,Z_t)$ jointly gaussian, independent from $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$ with zero mean and covariance given by $\E\{Z^2_s\} = \covz_{s,s}$, $\E\{Z^2_t\} = \covz_{t,t}$, $\E\{Z_sZ_t\} = \covz_{s,t}$. The boundary condition is fixed by letting $\covz_{0,0} = \sigma^2 +\E\{X_0^2\}/\delta$ and $$\begin{aligned} \covz_{0,t+1} = \sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\,\E\Big\{ [\eta(X_0+Z_t;\theta_t)-X_0]\, (-X_0)\Big\}\, ,\label{eq:Initial-2times-SE} $$ with $Z_{t}\sim\normal(0,\covz_{t,t})$ independent of $X_0$. This determines by the above recursion $\covz_{t,s}$ for all $t\ge 0$ and for all $s\ge 0$. With these definition, we have the following generalization of Theorem \[prop:state-evolution\]. \[prop:state-evolution-2times\] Let $\{x_0(N), w(N), A(N)\}_{N\in\naturals}$ be a converging sequence of instances with the entries of $A(N)$ iid normal with mean $0$ and variance $1/n$ and let $\psi:\reals^3\to \reals$ be a pseudo-Lipschitz function. Then, for all $s\ge0$ and $t\ge 0$ almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:state-evolution-2times} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(x_{i}^{s}+(A^*z^s)_i,x_{i}^{t}+(A^*z^t)_i,x_{0,i}\big) = \E\Big\{\psi\big(X_0+Z_s, X_0+Z_t,X_0\big)\Big\}\, , $$ where $(Z_s,Z_t)$ jointly gaussian, independent from $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$ with zero mean and covariance given by $\E\{Z^2_s\} = \covz_{s,s}$, $\E\{Z^2_t\} = \covz_{t,t}$, $\E\{Z_sZ_t\} = \covz_{s,t}$. Notice that the above implies in particular, for any pseudo-Lipschitz function $\psi:\reals^3\to \reals$, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(x_{i}^{s+1},x_{i}^{t+1},x_{0,i}\big) = \E\Big\{\psi\big(\eta(X_0+Z_s;\theta_s), \eta(X_0+Z_t;\theta_t),X_0\big)\Big\}\, . $$ Clearly this result reduces to Theorem \[prop:state-evolution\] in the case $s=t$ by noting that $\covz_{t,t}=\tau^2_t$. The general proof can be found in Appendix \[app:state-evolution-2times\]. The following lemma implies that, asymptotically for large $N$, the $\AMP$ estimates converge. \[lemma:Convergence\] Under the condition of Theorem \[thm:Risk\], the estimates $\{x^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ and residuals $\{z^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ of $\AMP$ almost surely satisfy \[lemma:norm2(x(t)-x(t+1))is\_small\] $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N} \|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2=0\,,~~~~~\lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N} \|z^t-z^{t-1}\|^2=0\,.$$ The proof is deferred to Appendix \[app:Convergence\]. Proofs of auxiliary lemmas ========================== Proof of Lemma \[lemma:norm2(xt)is\_bounded\] {#sec:ProofNormBound} --------------------------------------------- In order to bound the norm of $x^t$, we use state evolution, Theorem \[prop:state-evolution\], for the function $\psi(a,b)=a^2$, $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\< x^t,x^t\>{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\E\left\{\eta(X_0+\tau_* Z;\theta_*)^2\right\} $$ for $Z\sim\normal(0,1)$ and independent of $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$. The expectation on the right hand side is bounded and hence $\lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\< x^t,x^t\>$ is bounded. For $\hx$, first note that $$\begin{aligned} {\frac}{1}{N}\cost(\hx)\le{\frac}{1}{N}\cost(0)&= {\frac}{1}{2N}\|y\|^2\nonumber\\ &={\frac}{1}{2N}\|Ax_0+w\|^2\nonumber\\ &\le \frac{\|w\|^2+\smaxA^2\|x_0\|^2}{2N}\le \finite_1. \label{eq:BoundCost} $$ The last bound holds almost surely as $N\to\infty$, using standard asymptotic estimate on the singular values of random matrices (cf. Theorem \[prop:marchenko-pastur\]) implying that $\smaxA$ has a bounded limit almost surely, together with the fact that $(x_0,w, A)$ is a converging sequence. Now, decompose $\hx$ as $\hx = \hx_{{\parallel}}+\hx_{\perp}$ where $\hx_{{\parallel}}\in\ker(A)$ and $\hx_{\perp}\in\ker(A)^\perp$ (the orthogonal complement of $\ker(A)$). Since, $\hx_{{\parallel}}$ belongs to the random subspace $\ker(A)$ with dimension $N-n=N(1-\delta)$, Kashin theorem (cf. Theorem \[thm:Kashin\]) implies that there exists a positive constant $c_1=c_1(\delta)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} {\frac}{1}{N}\|\hx\|^2&= {\frac}{1}{N}\|\hx_{{\parallel}}\|^2+ {\frac}{1}{N}\|\hx_{\perp}\|^2\\ &\le c_1 \left(\frac{\|\hx_{{\parallel}}\|_1}{N}\right)^2+\frac{1}{N} \, \|\hx_{\perp}\|^2\, . $$ Hence, by using triangle inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz, we get $$\begin{aligned} {\frac}{1}{N}\|\hx\|^2 &\le 2c_1\left(\frac{\|\hx\|_1}{N}\right)^2 +2c_1\left(\frac{\|\hx_{\perp}\|_1}{N}\right)^2+{\frac}{1}{N} \|\hx_{\perp}\|^2\\ &\le 2c_1\left(\frac{\|\hx\|_1}{N}\right)^2+{\frac}{2c_1+1}{N} \|\hx_{\perp}\|^2\, . $$ By definition of cost function we have $\|\hx\|_1\le \lambda^{-1}\cost(\hx)$. Further, limit theorems for the eigenvalues of Wishart matrices (cf. Theorem \[prop:marchenko-pastur\]) imply that there exists a constant $c = c(\delta)$ such that asymptotically almost surely $\|\hx_{\perp}\|^2\le c\, \|A\hx_{\perp}\|^2$. Therefore (denoting by $c_i:~i=2,3,4$ bounded constants), we have $$\begin{aligned} {\frac}{1}{N}\|\hx\|^2 &\le 2c_1\left(\frac{\|\hx\|_1}{N}\right)^2+{\frac}{c_2}{N} \|A\hx_{\perp}\|^2\\ &\le 2c_1\left(\frac{\|\hx\|_1}{N}\right)^2+{\frac}{2c_2}{N} \|y-A\hx_{\perp}\|^2+{\frac}{2c_2}{N}\|y\|^2\\ &\le c_3\left(\frac{\cost(\hx)}{N}\right)^2+2c_2 {\frac}{\cost(\hx)}{N} +{\frac}{2c_2}{N}\|Ax_0+w\|^2\, . $$ The claim follows by using the Eq. (\[eq:BoundCost\]) to bound $\cost(\hx)/N$ and using $\|Ax_0+w\|^2\le\smaxA^2\|x_0\|^2+\|w\|^2\le 2N\finite_1$ to bound the last term. [$\Box$]{} Proof of Lemma \[lemma:small-subgradient\] {#sec:small-subgradient} ------------------------------------------ First note that equation $x^t=\eta(A^*z^{t-1}+x^{t-1};\theta_{t-1})$ of $\AMP$ implies $$\begin{aligned} x_i^t+\theta_{t-1}\,\sign(x_i^t) = [A^*z^{t-1}]_i+x_i^{t-1},&&~~~\textrm{if } x_i^t\neq 0\,,\nonumber\\ &&\label{eq:x(t)=eta_interpreted}\\ \Big|[A^*z^{t-1}]_i+x_i^{t-1}\Big|\leq \theta_{t-1}, &&~~~\textrm{if }x_i^t=0\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the vector $\subg(\cost,x^t)\equiv\lambda\,s^t-A^*(y-Ax^t)$ where $$\label{eq:s(xt)_defined} s_i^t= \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \sign(x_i^t)&&~~~\textrm{if } x_i^t\neq 0\, ,\\ &&\\ \frac{1}{\theta_{t-1}}\Big\{[A^*z^{t-1}]_i+x_i^{t-1}\Big\} &&~~~\textrm{otherwise,} \end{array}\right.$$ is a valid subgradient of $\cost$ at $x^t$. On the other hand, $y-Ax^t=z^t-\onsager_tz^{t-1}$. We finally get $$\begin{aligned} \subg(\cost,x^t)&={\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}\left[\lambda\theta_{t-1}s^t-\theta_{t-1}A^*(z^t-\onsager_tz^{t-1})\right]\\ &={\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}\left[\lambda\theta_{t-1}s^t-\theta_{t-1}(1-\onsager_t)A^*z^{t-1}\right]-A^*(z^t-z^{t-1})\\ &=\underbrace{{\frac}{1}{\theta_{t-1}}\left[\lambda\theta_{t-1}s^t-\lambda A^*z^{t-1}\right]}_{(I)}-A^*(z^t-z^{t-1})+{\frac}{[\lambda -\theta_{t-1}(1-\onsager_t) ]}{\theta_{t-1}}\,A^*z^{t-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to see from Eqs. and that $(I)=\lambda(x^{t-1}-x^t)$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\|\subg(\cost,x^t)\|&\le \frac{\la}{\theta_{t-1}\sqrt{N}}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\| + \frac{\smaxA}{\sqrt{N}}\|z^t-z^{t-1}\|+{\frac}{|\lambda -\theta_{t-1}(1-\onsager_t)|}{\theta_{t-1}}\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\|z^{t-1}\|\,. $$ By Lemma \[lemma:norm2(x(t)-x(t+1))is\_small\], and the fact that $\smaxA$ is almost surely bounded as $N\to \infty$ (cf. Theorem \[prop:marchenko-pastur\]), we deduce that the two terms $\la\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|/(\theta_{t-1}\sqrt{N})$ and $\smaxA\|z^t-z^{t-1}\|^2/\sqrt{N}$ converge to $0$ when $N\to\infty$ and then $t\to\infty$. For the third term, using state evolution (see Lemma \[lemma:NormZ\]), we obtain $\lim_{N\to\infty}\|z^{t-1}\|^2/N<\infty$. Finally, using the calibration relation Eq. , we get $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\left|{\frac}{\lambda -\theta_{t-1}(1-\onsager_t)}{\theta_{t-1}}\right|&{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}{\frac}{1}{\theta_*}\left|\lambda -\theta_*(1-\frac{1}{\delta} \E\left\{\eta'(X_0+\tau_* Z;\theta_*)\right\})\right|= 0\, ,\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof. [$\Box$]{} Proof of Lemma \[lemma:MinS\] {#sec:ProofMinS} ----------------------------- The proof uses the representation (\[eq:Conditional\_A\]), together with the expression (\[eq:Et\]) for the conditional expectation. Apart from the matrices $Y_t$, $Q_t$, $X_t$, $M_t$ introduced there, we will also use $$\begin{aligned} B_t \equiv \Big[b^0\Big|b^1\Big|\cdots\Big|b^{t-1}\Big]\,, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; H_t \equiv \Big[h^1\Big|h^2\Big|\cdots\Big|h^{t}\Big]\, . $$ In this section, since $t$ is fixed, we will drop everywhere the subscript $t$ from such matrices. We state below a somewhat more convenient description. \[lemma:AvApprox\] For any $v\in\reals^N$, we have $$\begin{aligned} Av|_{{\mathfrak}{S}} = Y(Q^*Q)^{-1}Q^*P_Qv + M(M^*M)^{-1}X^*P_Q^{\perp}v + P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \, . $$ It is clearly sufficient to prove that, for $v = v_{\parallel}+v_{\perp}$, $P_Qv_{\parallel}=v_{\parallel}$, $P_Q^{\perp}v_{\perp}=v_{\perp}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} Ev_{\parallel} = Y(Q^*Q)^{-1}Q^*v_{\parallel}\, ,\;\;\;\;\; Ev_{\perp} = M(M^*M)^{-1}X^*v_{\perp}\, . $$ The first identity is an easy consequence of the fact that $X^*Q= M^*AQ = M^*Y$, while the second one follows immediately from $Q^*v_{\perp}=0$,. The following fact (see Appendix \[sec:Svalues\_t\] for a proof) will be used several times. \[lemma:Svalues\_t\] For any $t$ there exists $c>0$ such that, for $R\in \{ Q^*Q;\, M^*M;\, X^*X;\, Y^*Y\}$, as $N\to\infty$ almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} c\le \lambda_{\rm min}(R/N) \le \lambda_{\rm max}(R/N) \le 1/c\, . $$ Given the above remarks, we will immediately see that Lemma \[lemma:MinS\] is implied by the following statement. \[lemma:ConcreteMinS\] Let $S\subseteq [N]$ be given such that $|S|\le N(\delta-\gamma)$, for some $\gamma>0$. Then there exists $\alpha_1=\alpha_1(\gamma)>0$ (independent of $t$) and $\alpha_2=\alpha_2(\gamma,t)>0$ (depending on $t$ and $\gamma$) such that $$\begin{aligned} \prob\Big\{\min_{\|v\|=1,\,\supp(v)\subseteq S}\big\| Ev + P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|\le \alpha_2\,\Big|\, {\mathfrak}{S}_t\Big\}\le \, e^{-N\alpha_1}\, , $$ with probability (over ${\mathfrak}{S}_t$) converging to $1$ as $t\to\infty$. (With $Ev = Y(Q^*Q)^{-1}Q^*P_Qv + M(M^*M)^{-1}X^*P_Q^{\perp}v$.) In the next section we will show that this lemma implies Lemma \[lemma:MinS\]. We will then prove the lemma just stated. ### Lemma \[lemma:ConcreteMinS\] implies Lemma \[lemma:MinS\] We need to show that, for $S$ measurable on ${\mathfrak}{S}_t$ and $|S|\le N(\delta-c)$ there exist $a_1=a_1(c)>0$ and $a_2=a_2(c,t)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\prob\Big\{\min_{|S'|\le a_1N}\; \min_{\|v\|=1,\supp(v)\subseteq S\cup S'}\|Av\|< a_2\Big\} = 0\,. $$ Conditioning on ${\mathfrak}{S}_t$ and using the union bound, this probability can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned} \E\Big\{\prob\Big\{\min_{|S'|\le a_1N}\;& \min_{\|v\|=1,\supp(v)\subseteq S\cup S'}\|Av\|< a_2\Big|\,{\mathfrak}{S}_t\Big\} \Big\}\le\\ &\le e^{Nh(a_1)}\E\Big\{\max_{|S'|\le a_1N}\prob\Big\{ \min_{\|v\|=1,\supp(v)\subseteq S\cup S'}\|Av\|< a_2\Big|\,{\mathfrak}{S}_t\Big\} \Big\}\,, $$ where $h(p)=-p\log p-(1-p)\log(1-p)$ is the binary entropy function. The union bound calculation indeed proceeds as follows $$\begin{aligned} \prob\{\min_{|S'|\le Na_1}\sX_{S'}<a_2\big|{{\mathfrak}{S}_t}\}&\leq \sum_{|S'|\le Na_1}\prob\{\sX_{S'}<a_2\big|{{\mathfrak}{S}_t}\}\\ &\leq \Big[\sum_{k=1}^{Na_1}{N\choose k}\Big]\max_{|S'|\le Na_1}\prob\{\sX_{S'}<a_2\big|{{\mathfrak}{S}_t}\} \\ &\le e^{Nh(a_1)}\max_{|S'|\le Na_1}\prob\{\sX_{S'}<a_2\big|{{\mathfrak}{S}_t}\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sX_{S'}=\min_{\|v\|=1,\supp(v)\subseteq S\cup S'}\|Av\|$. Now, fix $a_1<c/2$ in such a way that $h(a_1)\le \alpha_1(c/2)/2$ (with $\alpha_1$ defined as per Lemma \[lemma:ConcreteMinS\]). Further choose $a_2=\alpha_2(c/2,t)/2$. The above probability is then upper bounded by $$\begin{aligned} e^{N\alpha_1(c/2)/2}\;\E\Big\{\max_{|S''|\le N(\delta-c/2)}\prob\Big\{ \min_{\|v\|=1,\supp(v)\subseteq S''}\|Av\|<\frac{1}{2} \alpha_2(c/2,t)\Big|\,{\mathfrak}{S}_t\Big\} \Big\} \, . $$ Finally, applying Lemma \[lemma:ConcreteMinS\] and using Lemma \[lemma:AvApprox\] to estimate $Av$, we get $$\begin{aligned} e^{N\alpha_1/2}\;\E\big\{\max_{|S''|\le N(\delta-c/2)} e^{-N\alpha_1} \big\}\to 0 \, . $$ This finishes the proof. [$\Box$]{} ### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:ConcreteMinS\] We begin with the following Pythagorean inequality. \[lemma:Pitagora\] Let $S\subseteq [N]$ be given such that $|S|\le N(\delta-\gamma)$, for some $\gamma>0$. Recall that $Ev =Y(Q^*Q)^{-1}Q^*P_Qv + M(M^*M)^{-1}X^*P_Q^{\perp}v$ and consider the event $$\begin{aligned} \cE_1 \equiv \Big\{ \big\| Ev + P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2\ge \frac{\gamma}{4\delta}\big\| Ev -P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2+ \frac{\gamma}{4\delta}\big\|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2\, \;\forall v\; \mbox{ s.t. }\; \|v\|=1\mbox{ and }\;\supp(v)\subseteq S\Big\}. $$ Then there exists $a=a(\gamma)>0$ such that $\prob\{\cE_1|{\mathfrak}{S}_t\}\ge 1-e^{-Na}$. We claim that the following inequality holds for all $v\in\reals^N$, that satisfy $\|v\|=1$ and $\supp(v)\subseteq S$, with the probability claimed in the statement $$\begin{aligned} |(Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \, ,\, \tA P_Q^{\perp}v)| &\le & \sqrt{1-\frac{\gamma}{2\delta}}\, \|Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \| \, \|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\|\, .\label{claim:ScalarProd} $$ Here the notation $(u,v)$ refers to the usual scalar product $u^*v$ of vectors $u$ and $v$ of the same dimension. Assuming that the claim holds, we have indeed $$\begin{aligned} \big\| Ev + P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2&\ge \big\| Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \big\|^2+\big\| \tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2-2 |(Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \, ,\, \tA P_Q^{\perp}v)|\\ &\ge\big\| Ev \big\|^2+\big\| P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2-2 \sqrt{1-\frac{\gamma}{2\delta}}\, \|Ev -P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\| \, \|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\|\\ &\ge \Big(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{\gamma}{2\delta}}\Big) \Big\{\big\| Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \big\|^2+\big\| \tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|^2\Big\}\, , $$ which implies the thesis. In order to prove the claim , we notice that for any $v$, the unit vector $\tA P_Q^{\perp}v /\|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \|$ belongs to the random linear space $\im(\tA P_Q^{\perp}P_S)$. Here $P_S$ is the orthogonal projector onto the subspace of vectors supported on $S$. Further $\im(\tA P_Q^{\perp}P_S)$ is a uniformly random subspace of dimension at most $N(\delta-\gamma)$. Also, the normalized vector $(Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v)/\|Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \|$ belongs to the linear space of dimension at most $2t$ spanned the columns of $M$ and of $B$. The claim follows then from a standard concentration-of-measure argument. In particular applying Proposition \[propo:Concentration\] for $$m=n,~~m\lambda=N(\delta-\gamma),~~d=2t~~{ and }~~\ve=\sqrt{1-\frac{\gamma}{2\delta}}-\sqrt{1-\frac{\gamma}{\delta}}$$ yields $$\left(\frac{Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v}{\|Ev-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \|}\,,~\frac{\tA P_Q^{\perp}v }{\|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v \|}\right)\leq \sqrt{\lambda}+\ve=\sqrt{1-\frac{\gamma}{2\delta}}\,.$$ (Notice that in Proposition \[propo:Concentration\] is stated for the equivalent case of a random sub-space of fixed dimension $d$, and a subspace of dimension scaling linearly with the ambient one.) Next we estimate the term $\|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\|^2$ in the above lower bound. \[lemma:Event2\] Let $S\subseteq [N]$ be given such that $|S|\le N(\delta-\gamma)$, for some $\gamma>0$. Than there exists constant $c_1=c_1(\gamma)$, $c_2 = c_2(\gamma)$ such that the event $$\begin{aligned} \cE_2 \equiv \Big\{ \big\|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\| \ge c_1(\gamma) \|P_Q^{\perp}v\big\| \, \;\;\forall v\; \mbox{ such that }\; \;\supp(v)\subseteq S\Big\}\, , $$ holds with probability $\prob\{\cE_2|{\mathfrak}{S}_t\}\ge 1-e^{-Nc_2}$. Let $V$ be the linear space $V=\im(P_Q^{\perp}P_S)$. Of course the dimension of $V$ is at most $N(\delta-\gamma)$. Then we have (for all vectors with $\supp(v)\subseteq S$) $$\begin{aligned} \big\|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\| \ge \sigma_{\rm min}(\tA|_{V}) \, \|P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|\, , $$ where $\tA|_V$ is the restriction of $\tA$ to the subspace $V$. By invariance of the distribution of $\tA$ under rotation, $\sigma_{\rm min}(\tA|_{V})$ is distributed as the minimum singular value of a gaussian matrix of dimensions $N\delta\times {\rm dim}(V)$. The latter is almost surely bounded away from $0$ as $N\to\infty$, since ${\rm dim}(V)\le N(\delta-\gamma)$ (see for instance Theorem \[prop:marchenko-pastur\]). Large deviation estimates [@LitvakEtAl] imply that the probability that the minimum singular value is smaller than a constant $c_1(\gamma)$ is exponentially small. Finally a simple bound to control the norm of $Ev$. \[lemma:EvBound\] There exists a constant $c = c(t)>0$ such that, defining the event, $$\begin{aligned} \cE_3 \equiv \big\{\|EP_Qv\|\ge c(t)\|P_Qv\|\, , \|EP_Q^{\perp}v\|\le c(t)^{-1}\|P^{\perp}_Qv\| ,\;\mbox{ for all }\;v\in \reals^N \big\}\, , $$ we have $\prob(\cE_3)\to 1$ as $N\to\infty$. Without loss of generality take $v = Qa$ for $a\in\reals^t$. By Lemma \[lemma:AvApprox\] we have $\|EP_Qv\|^2 = \|Ya\|^2\ge \lambda_{\rm min}(Y^*Y)\|a\|^2$. Analogously $\|P_Qv\|^2= \|Qa\|^2\le \lambda_{\rm max}(Q^*Q)\|a\|^2$. The bound $\|EP_Qv\|\ge c(t)\|P_Qv\|$ follows then from Lemma \[lemma:Svalues\_t\]. The bound $\|EP_Q^{\perp}v\|\le c(t)^{-1}\|P^{\perp}_Qv\|$ is proved analogously. We can now prove Lemma \[lemma:ConcreteMinS\] as promised. By Lemma \[lemma:EvBound\] we can assume that event $\cE_3$ holds, for some function $c= c(t)$ (without loss of generality $c<1/2$). We will let $\cE$ be the event $$\begin{aligned} \cE\equiv\Big\{ \min_{\|v\|=1,\,\supp(v)\subseteq S}\big\| Ev + P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|\le \alpha_2(t)\Big\}\, . $$ for $\alpha_2(t)>0$ small enough. Let us assume first that $\|P_Q^{\perp}v\|\le c^2/10$, whence $$\begin{aligned} \| E v-P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}\| &\ge \|EP_Qv\|-\|EP_Q^{\perp}v\|- \|P_M\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\|\\ &\ge c\|P_Qv\| - (c^{-1}+\|\tA\|_2)\|P_Q^{\perp}v\|\\ &\ge \frac{c}{2}-\frac{c}{10}-\|\tA\|_2\frac{c^2}{10} = \frac{2c}{5}-\|\tA\|_2\frac{c^2}{10}\,, $$ where the last inequality uses $\|P_Qv\|=\sqrt{1-\|P_Q^{\perp}v\|^2}\ge 1/2$. Therefore, using Lemma \[lemma:Pitagora\], we get $$\begin{aligned} \prob\{\cE|{\mathfrak}{S}_t\}\le \prob\Big\{\frac{2c}{5}-\|\tA\|_2\frac{c^2}{10}\le \sqrt{\frac{4\delta}{\gamma}} \alpha_2(t)\Big| {\mathfrak}{S}_t\Big\}+ e^{-Na}\, , $$ and the thesis follows from large deviation bounds on the norm $\|\tA\|_2$ [@Ledoux] by first taking $c$ small enough, and then choosing $\alpha_2(t)<\frac{c}{5}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{4\delta}}$. Next we assume $\|P_Q^{\perp}v\|\ge c^2/10$. Due to Lemma \[lemma:Pitagora\] and \[lemma:Event2\] we can assume that events $\cE_1$ and $\cE_2$ hold. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \big\| Ev + P_M^{\perp}\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|\ge \Big(\frac{\gamma}{4\delta}\Big)^{1/2} \|\tA P_Q^{\perp}v\big\|\ge \Big(\frac{\gamma}{4\delta}\Big)^{1/2}c_1(\gamma) \|P_Q^{\perp}v\|\,, $$ which proves our thesis. Proof of Lemma \[lemma:ConvergenceSupport\] {#sec:ConvergenceSupport} ------------------------------------------- The key step consists in establishing the following result, which will be instrumental in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Convergence\] as well (and whose proof is deferred to Appendix \[app:TauPlus\]). \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\] Assume $\alpha>\alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$ and let $\{\covz_{s,t}\}$ be defined by the recursion (\[eq:2-times-SE\]) with initial condition (\[eq:Initial-2times-SE\]). Then there exists constants $\finite_1$, $\ra_1>0$ such that for all $t\ge 0$ $$\begin{aligned} \big|\covz_{t,t}-\tau_*^2\big|& \le &\finite_1\, e^{-\ra_1\, t}\, , \label{eq:Exponential_1time}\\ \big|\covz_{t,t+1}-\tau_*^2\big|&\le &\finite_1\, e^{-\ra_1\, t}\, . \label{eq:Exponential_2times} $$ It is also useful to prove the following fact. \[lemma:PosDef\] For any $\alpha>0$ and $T\ge 0$, the $T\times T$ matrix $R_{T+1}\equiv\{\covz_{s,t}\}_{0\le s,t< T}$ is strictly positive definite. In proof of Theorem \[prop:state-evolution-2times\] we show that $$\covz_{s,t}=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<h^{s+1},h^{t+1}\>=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<m^{s},m^{t}\>\,,$$ almost surely. Hence, $R_{T+1}{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\delta\lim_{N\to\infty} (M_{T+1}^*M_{T+1}/N)$. Thus the result follows from Lemma \[lemma:Svalues\_t\]. It is then relatively easy to deduce the following. \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\_ell\] Assume $\alpha>\alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$ and let $\{\covz_{s,t}\}$ be defined by the recursion (\[eq:2-times-SE\]) with initial condition (\[eq:Initial-2times-SE\]). Then there exists constants $\finite_2$, $\ra_2>0$ such that for all $t_1,t_2\ge t\ge 0$ $$\begin{aligned} \big|\covz_{t_1,t_2}-\tau_*^2\big|\le \finite_2\, e^{-\ra_2\, t}\, . $$ By triangular inequality and Eq. (\[eq:Exponential\_1time\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} \big|\covz_{t_1,t_2}-\tau_*^2\big|\le \frac{1}{2} \big|\covz_{t_1,t_1}-2\covz_{t_1,t_2}+\covz_{t_2,t_2}\big|+ \finite_1\, e^{-\ra_1\, t}\, .\label{eq:ExpTriang} $$ By Lemma \[lemma:PosDef\] there exist gaussian random variables $Z_0,Z_1,Z_2,\dots$ on the same probability space with $\E\{Z_t\}=0$ and $\E\{Z_tZ_s\}= \covz_{t,s}$ (in fact in proof of Theorem \[prop:state-evolution-2times\] we show that $\{Z_i\}_{T\ge i\ge0}$ is the weak limit of the empirical distribution of $\{h^{i+1}\}_{T\ge i\ge0}$). Then (assuming, without loss of generality, $t_2>t_1$) we have $$\begin{aligned} \big|\covz_{t_1,t_1}-2\covz_{t_1,t_2}+\covz_{t_2,t_2}\big| &=\E\{(Z_{t_1}-Z_{t_2})^2\}\\ &= \sum_{i,j=t_1}^{t_2-1}\E\{(Z_{i+1}-Z_{i})(Z_{j+1}-Z_{j})\}\\ &\le \Big[\sum_{i=t_1}^{t_2-1}\E\{(Z_{i+1}-Z_{i})^2\}^{1/2}\Big]^2\\ &\le 4\finite_1\Big[\sum_{i=t_1}^{\infty}e^{-\ra_1i/2}\Big]^{2}\\ &\le \frac{4\finite_1}{(1-e^{-\ra_1/2})^2}\; e^{-\ra_1t_1}\, , $$ which, together with Eq. (\[eq:ExpTriang\]) proves our claim. We are now in position to prove Lemma \[lemma:ConvergenceSupport\]. We will show that, under the assumptions of the Lemma, $\lim_{N\to\infty}|S_{t_2}(\gamma)\setminus S_{t_1}(\gamma)|/N\le \xi$ almost surely, which implies our claim. Indeed, by Theorem \[prop:state-evolution-2times\] we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}&\,|S_{t_2}(\gamma)\setminus S_{t_1}(\gamma)| = \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\ind_{\big\{|v_i^{t_2}|\ge 1-\gamma, \;|v_i^{t_1}|< 1-\gamma\big\}}\\ &= \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \ind_{\big\{|x^{t_2-1}+A^*z^{t_2-1}-x^{t_2}|\ge (1-\gamma)\theta_{t_2-1}, \;|x^{t_1-1}+A^*z^{t_1-1}-x^{t_1}|< (1-\gamma)\theta_{t_2-1}\big\}}\\ & = \prob\big\{|X_0+Z_{t_2-1}|\ge (1-\gamma)\theta_{t_2-1},\; |X_0+Z_{t_1-1}|< (1-\gamma)\theta_{t_1-1}\big\}\equiv P_{t_1,t_2}\, , $$ where $(Z_{t_1},Z_{t_2})$ are jointly normal with $\E\{Z_{t_1}^2\} = \covz_{t_1,t_1}$, $\E\{Z_{t_1}Z_{t_2}\} = \covz_{t_1,t_2}$, $\E\{Z_{t_2}^2\} = \covz_{t_2,t_2}$. (Notice that, although the function $\ind\{\,\cdots\,\}$ is discontinuous, the random vector $(X_0+Z_{t_1-1},X_0+Z_{t_2-1})$ admits a density and hence Theorem \[prop:state-evolution-2times\] applies by weak convergence of the empirical distribution of $\{(x_{i}^{t_1-1}+(A^*z^{t_1-1})_i\,,\,\,x_{i}^{t_2-1}+(A^*z^{t_2-1})_i)\}_{1\le i\le N}$.) Let $a\equiv (1-\gamma)\alpha\tau_{*}$. By Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\], for any $\ve >0$ and all $t_*$ large enough we have $|(1-\gamma)\theta_{t_{i}-1}-a|\le \ve$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} P_{t_1,t_2}&\le \prob\big\{|X_0+Z_{t_2-1}|\ge a-\ve,\; |X_0+Z_{t_1-1}|< a+\ve\big\}\\ &\le \prob\big\{|Z_{t_1-1}-Z_{t_2-1}|\ge 2\ve\big\}+ \prob\{a-3\ve\le|X_0+Z_{t_{1}-1}|\le a+\ve\big\}\\ &\le \frac{1}{4\ve^2}[\covz_{t_1-1,t_1-1}-2\covz_{t_1-1,t_2-1}+\covz_{t_2-1,t_2-1}]+ \frac{4\ve}{\sqrt{2\pi\covz_{t_1-1,t_1-1}}}\\ &\le \frac{1}{\ve^2}\finite_2\, e^{-\ra_2t_*} +\frac{\ve}{\tau_*}\, , $$ where the last inequality follows by Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\_ell\]. By taking $\ve = e^{-\ra_2\, t_*/3}$ we finally get (for some constant $C$) $P_{t_1,t_2}\le C\, e^{-\ra_2t_*}$, which implies our claim. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== It is a pleasure to thank David Donoho and Arian Maleki for many stimulating exchanges. This work was partially supported by a Terman fellowship, the NSF CAREER award CCF-0743978 and the NSF grant DMS-0806211. Properties of the state evolution recursion =========================================== Proof of Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\] {#app:UniqFP} ------------------------------------- It is a straightforward calculus exercise to compute the partial derivatives $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \seF}{\partial\tau^2}(\tau^2,\theta) &= \frac{1}{\delta}\, \E\Big\{\Phi\Big(\frac{X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)+ \Phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)\Big\}- \frac{1}{\delta}\,\E\Big\{\frac{X_0}{\tau}\,\phi\Big (\frac{X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)-\frac{X_0}{\tau}\, \phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)\Big\}\, , \label{eq:deFtau2}\\ \frac{\partial \seF}{\partial\theta}(\tau^2,\theta) &= \frac{2\theta}{\delta}\, \E\Big\{\Phi\Big(\frac{X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)+ \Phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)\Big\}- \frac{2\tau}{\delta}\,\E\Big\{\phi\Big (\frac{X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)+ \phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\theta}{\tau}\Big)\Big\}\, . \label{eq:deFtheta} $$ From these formulae we obtain the total derivative $$\begin{aligned} \delta\, \frac{\de \seF}{\de\tau^2}(\tau^2,\alpha\tau) &= & (1+\alpha^2)\,\E\Big\{\Phi\Big(\frac{X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)+ \Phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)\Big\}\label{eq:deF}\\ &&-\E\Big\{\Big(\frac{X_0+\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)\,\phi\Big (\frac{X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)-\Big(\frac{X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)\, \phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)\Big\}\, .\nonumber $$ Differentiating once more $$\begin{aligned} \delta\frac{\de^2 \seF}{\de(\tau^2)^2}(\tau^2,\alpha\tau) = -\frac{1}{2\tau^2} \E\Big\{\Big(\frac{X_0}{\tau}\Big)^3\,\Big[\phi\Big (\frac{X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)-\, \phi\Big(\frac{-X_0-\alpha\tau}{\tau}\Big)\Big]\Big\}\, .\nonumber $$ Now we have $$\begin{aligned} u^3[\phi(u-\alpha)-\phi(-u-\alpha)]\ge 0\, , $$ with the inequality being strict whenever $\alpha>0$, $u\neq 0$. It follows that $\tau^2\mapsto\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$ is concave, and strictly concave provided $\alpha>0$ and $X_0$ is not identically $0$. From Eq. (\[eq:deF\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\tau^2\to\infty} \frac{\de \seF}{\de\tau^2}(\tau^2,\alpha\tau) = \frac{2}{\delta} \big\{(1+\alpha^2)\Phi(-\alpha)-\alpha\, \phi(\alpha)\big\}\, , $$ which is strictly positive for all $\alpha\ge 0$. To see this, let $f(\alpha)\equiv (1+\alpha^2)\Phi(-\alpha)-\alpha\, \phi(\alpha)$, and notice that $f'(\alpha) = 2\alpha\Phi(-\alpha)-2\phi(\alpha)<0$, and $f(\infty) = 0$. Since $\tau^2\mapsto\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$ is concave, and strictly increasing for $\tau^2$ large enough, it also follows that it is increasing everywhere. Notice that $\alpha\mapsto f(\alpha)$ is strictly decreasing with $f(0) = 1/2$. Hence, for $\alpha>\alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$, we have $\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)>\tau^2$ for $\tau^2$ small enough and $\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)<\tau^2$ for $\tau^2$ large enough. Therefore the fixed point equation admits at least one solution. It follows from the concavity of $\tau^2\mapsto\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$ that the solution is unique and that the sequence of iterates $\tau_t^2$ converge to $\tau_*$. [$\Box$]{} Proof of Proposition \[propo:Lambda\] {#app:Lambda} ------------------------------------- As a first step, we claim that $\alpha\mapsto\tau_*^2(\alpha)$ is continuously differentiable on $(0,\infty)$. Indeed this is defined as the unique solution of $$\begin{aligned} \tau_*^2 = \seF(\tau^2_*,\alpha\tau_*)\, . $$ Since $(\tau^2,\alpha)\mapsto \seF(\tau^2_*,\alpha\tau_*)$ is continuously differentiable and $ 0\le\frac{\de\seF}{\de\tau^2}(\tau^2_*,\alpha\tau_*)<1$ (the second inequality being a consequence of concavity plus $\lim_{\tau^2\to\infty}\frac{\de\seF}{\de\tau^2}(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)<1$, both shown in the proof of Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\]), the claim follows from the implicit function theorem applied to the mapping $(\tau^2,\alpha)\mapsto [\tau^2-F(\tau^2,\alpha)]$. Next notice that $\tau_*^2(\alpha)\to +\infty$ as $\alpha\downarrow \alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$. Indeed, introducing the notation $\seF'_{\infty}\equiv \lim_{\tau^2\to\infty}\frac{\de\seF}{\de\tau^2}(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)$, we have, again by concavity, $$\begin{aligned} \tau_*^2 \ge \seF(0,0)+ \seF'_{\infty}\tau_*^2\, , $$ i.e. $\tau_*^2\ge \seF(0,0)/(1- \seF'_{\infty})$. Now $ \seF(0,0)\ge\sigma^2$, while $\seF'_{\infty}\uparrow 1$ as $\alpha\downarrow\alpha_{\rm min}(\delta)$ (shown in the proof of Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\]), whence the claim follows. Finally $\tau_*^2(\alpha)\to \sigma^2+\E\{X_0^2\}/\delta$ as $\alpha\to\infty$. Indeed for any fixed $\tau^2>0$ we have $\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau)\to \sigma^2+\E\{X_0^2\}/\delta$ as $\alpha\to\infty$ whence the claim follows by uniqueness of $\tau_*$. Next consider the function $(\alpha,\tau^2)\mapsto g(\alpha,\tau^2)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} g(\alpha,\tau^2)\equiv \alpha\tau\Big\{1 - \frac{1}{\delta}\, \prob\{|X_0+\tau\,Z|\ge\alpha\tau\} \Big\} \, . $$ Notice that $\lambda(\alpha) = g(\alpha,\tauinf^2(\alpha))$. Since $g$ is continuously differentiable, it follows that $\alpha\mapsto \lambda(\alpha)$ is continuously differentiable as well. Next consider $\alpha\downarrow\alpha_{\rm min}$, and let $l(\alpha)\equiv 1 - \frac{1}{\delta}\, \prob\{|X_0+\tau_*\,Z|\ge\alpha\tau_*\}$. Since $\tau_*\to +\infty$ in this limit, we have $$\begin{aligned} l_*\equiv\lim_{\alpha\to\alpha_{\rm min}+}l(\alpha)= 1 - \frac{1}{\delta}\, \prob\{|Z|\ge\alpha_{\rm min}\} = 1 - \frac{2}{\delta}\, \Phi(-\alpha_{\rm min}) \, . $$ Using the characterization of $\alpha_{\rm min}$ in Eq.  (and the well known inequality $\alpha\Phi(-\alpha)\le\phi(\alpha)$ valid for all $\alpha>0$), it is immediate to show that $l_*<0$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\alpha\to\alpha_{\rm min}+}\lambda(\alpha) = l_*\lim_{\alpha\to\alpha_{\rm min}+} \alpha\tau_*(\alpha) = -\infty\, . $$ Finally let us consider the limit $\alpha\to\infty$. Since $\tau_*(\alpha)$ remains bounded, we have $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\prob\{|X_0+\tau_*\,Z|\ge\alpha\tau_*\}=0$ whence $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\lambda(\alpha) = \lim_{\alpha\to\infty} \alpha\tau_*(\alpha) = \infty\, . $$ [$\Box$]{} Proof of Corollary \[coro:AlphaUnique\] {#app:LambdaBis} --------------------------------------- By Proposition \[propo:Lambda\], it is sufficient to prove that, for any $\lambda>0$ there exists a unique $\alpha>\alpha_{\rm min}$ such that $\lambda(\alpha) = \lambda$. Assume by contradiction that there are two distinct such values $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$. Notice that in this case, the function $\alpha(\lambda)$ is not defined uniquely and we can apply Theorem \[thm:Risk\] to both choices $\alpha(\lambda)=\alpha_1$ and $\alpha(\lambda) = \alpha_2$. Using the test function $\psi(x,y) = (x-y)^2$ we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|\hx-x_0\|^2 = \E\big\{[\eta(X_0+\tau_*Z\,;\, \alpha\tau_*)-X_0]^2\big\} = \delta(\tau_*^2-\sigma^2)\, . $$ Since the left hand side does not depend on the choice of $\alpha$, it follows that $\tau_*(\alpha_1) = \tau_*(\alpha_2)$. Next apply Theorem \[thm:Risk\] to the function $\psi(x,y) = |x|$. We get $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|\hx\|_1 = \E\big\{|\eta(X_0+\tau_*Z\,;\, \alpha\tau_*)|\big\} \, . $$ For fixed $\tau_*$, $\theta\mapsto\E\big\{|\eta(X_0+\tau_*Z\,;\, \theta)|\big\}$ is strictly decreasing in $\theta$. It follows that $\alpha_1\tau_*(\alpha_1)=\alpha_2\tau_*(\alpha_2)$. Since we already proved that $\tau_*(\alpha_1) = \tau_*(\alpha_2)$, we conclude $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$. [$\Box$]{} Proof of Theorem \[prop:state-evolution-2times\] {#app:state-evolution-2times} ================================================ First note that using representation we have $x^t+A^*z^t=x_0-h^{t+1}$. Furthermore, using Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b) we have almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi \big(x_{0,i}-h_i^{s+1},x_{0,i}-h_{i}^{t+1},x_{0,i}\big) &= \E\Big\{\psi\big(X_0-\tZ_s,X_0-\tZ_t,X_0\big)\Big\}\,\\ &=\E\Big\{\psi\big(X_0+\tZ_s,X_0+\tZ_t,X_0\big)\Big\}\,\\ $$ for gaussian variables $\tZ_s$, $\tZ_t$ that have zero mean and are independent of $X_0$. Define for all $s\ge0$ and $t\ge0$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:R=Rhat} \tcovz_{t,s}\equiv \lim_{N\to\infty}\<h^{t+1},h^{s+1}\>=\E\{\tZ_t\tZ_s\}\,. $$ Therefore, all we need to show is that for all $s,t\ge0$: $\covz_{t,s}$ and $\tcovz_{t,s}$ are equal. We prove this by induction on $\max(s,t)$. - For $s=t=0$ we have using Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b) almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \tcovz_{0,0}\equiv \lim_{N\to\infty}\<h^{1},h^{1}\>=\tau_0^2=\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\E\{X_0^2\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ that is equal to $\covz_{0,0}$. - *Induction hypothesis:* Assume that for all $s\le k$ and $t\le k$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Rst-induc-hyp} \covz_{t,s}=\tcovz_{t,s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ - Then we prove Eq. for $t=k+1$ (case $s=k+1$ is similar). First assume $s=0$ and $t=k+1$ in which using Lemma \[lem:elephant\](c) we have almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \tcovz_{k+1,0}&=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<h^{k+2},h^{1}\>=\lim_{n\to\infty}\<m^{k+1},m^{0}\>\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\<b^{k+1}-w,b^{0}-w\>=\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\lim_{N\to\infty}\<q^{k+1},q^{0}\>\\ &=\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\E\left\{[\eta(X_0-\tZ_{k};\theta_{k})-X_0][-X_0]\right\}\,,\\ &=\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\E\left\{[\eta(X_0+\tZ_{k};\theta_{k})-X_0][-X_0]\right\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality uses $q^0=-x_0$ and Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b) for the pseudo-Lipschitz function $(h_i^{k+1},x_{0,i})\mapsto [\eta(x_{0,i}-h_i^{k+1};\theta_k)-x_{0,i}][-x_{0,i}]$. Here $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$ and $\tZ_{k}$ are independent and the latter is mean zero gaussian with $\E\{\tZ_{k}^2\}=\tcovz_{k,k}$. But using the induction hypothesis, $\tcovz_{k,k}=\covz_{k,k}$ holds. Hence, we can apply Eq. to obtain $\tcovz_{t,0}=\covz_{t,0}$. Similarly, for the case $t=k+1$ and $s>0$, using Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b)(c) we have almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \tcovz_{k+1,s}&=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<h^{k+2},h^{s+1}\>=\lim_{n\to\infty}\<m^{k+1},m^{s}\>\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\<b^{k+1}-w,b^{s}-w\>=\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\lim_{N\to\infty}\<q^{k+1},q^{s}\>\\ &=\sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\E\{[\eta(X_0+\tZ_{k};\theta_{k})-X_0][\eta(X_0+\tZ_{s-1};\theta_{s-1})-X_0]\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$ independent of zero mean gaussian variables $\tZ_{k}$ and $\tZ_{s-1}$ that satisfy $$\covz_{k,s-1}=\E\{\tZ_{k}\tZ_{s-1}\}\,,~~~\covz_{k,k}=\E\{\tZ_{k}^2\}\,,~~~~\covz_{s-1,s-1}=\E\{\tZ_{s-1}^2\}\,,$$ using the induction hypothesis. Hence the result follows. Proof of Lemma \[lemma:Convergence\] {#app:Convergence} ==================================== The proof of Lemma \[lemma:Convergence\] relies on Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\] which we will prove in the first subsection. Proof of Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\] {#app:TauPlus} ---------------------------------- Before proving Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\], we state and prove the following property of gaussian random variables. \[lemma:box-monotonicity\] Let $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ be jointly gaussian random variables with $\E(Z_1^2)= \E(Z_2^2)=1$ and $\E(Z_1Z_2)=c\ge 0$. Let $I$ be a measurable subset of the real line. Then $\prob(Z_1\in I,~Z_2\in I)$ is an increasing function of $c\in [0,1]$. Let $\{X_s\}_{s\in\reals}$ be the standard Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. Then $(Z_1,Z_2)$ is distributed as $(X_0,X_t)$ for $t$ satisfying $c=e^{-2t}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned} \prob(Z_1\in I,~Z_2\in I) = \E[f(X_0)f(X_t)] \, , $$ for $f$ the indicator function of $I$. Since the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process is reversible with respect to the standard gaussian measure $\mu_{\rm G}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \E[f(X_0)f(X_t)] = \sum_{\ell =0}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_{\ell}t} \, (\psi_\ell,f)^2_{\mu_{\rm G}} = \sum_{\ell =0}^{\infty} c^{\frac{\lambda_{\ell}}{2}} \, (\psi_\ell,f)^2_{\mu_{\rm G}} $$ with $0\le \lambda_0\le \lambda_1\le \dots$ the eigenvalues of its generator, $\{\psi_{\ell}\}_{\ell\ge 0}$ the corresponding eigenvectors and $(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)_{\mu_{\rm G}}$ the scalar product in $L^2(\mu_{\rm G})$. The thesis follows. We now pass to the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\]. It is convenient to change coordinates and define $$\begin{aligned} y_{t,1} \equiv \covz_{t-1,t-1}=\tau_{t-1}^2\, ,\;\;\; y_{t,2} \equiv \covz_{t,t}=\tau_{t}^2\, , \;\;\;\; y_{t,3} \equiv \covz_{t-1,t-1}-2\covz_{t,t-1}+\covz_{t,t}\, . $$ The vector $y_t=(y_{t,1},y_{t,2},y_{t,3})$ belongs to $\reals_+^3$ by Lemma \[lemma:PosDef\]. Using Eq. , it is immediate to see that this is updated according to the mapping $$\begin{aligned} y_{t+1} & = & \G(y_t)\, ,\nonumber\\ \G_1(y_t) & \equiv & y_{t,2}\, ,\\ \G_2(y_t) & \equiv & \sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta} \E\{[\eta(X_0+Z_t;\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,2}})-X_0]^2\}\, , \label{eq:G2}\\ \G_3(y_t) & \equiv & \frac{1}{\delta} \E\{[\eta(X_0+Z_t;\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,2}})-\eta(X_0+Z_{t-1};\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,1}})]^2\}\, .\label{eq:G3} $$ where $(Z_t,Z_{t-1})$ are jointly gaussian with zero mean and covariance determined by $\E\{Z_t^2\}=y_{t,2}$, $\E\{ Z_{t-1}^2\}=y_{t,1}$, $\E\{ (Z_t-Z_{t-1})^2\}=y_{t,3}$. This mapping is defined for $y_{t,3}\le 2(y_{t,1}+y_{t,2})$. Next we will show that by induction on $t$ that the stronger inequality $y_{t,3}< (y_{t,1}+y_{t,2})$ holds for all $t$. We have indeed $$\begin{aligned} y_{t+1,1}+y_{t+1,2}-y_{t+1,3} = 2\sigma^2+\frac{2}{\delta}\, \E\{\eta(X_0+Z_t;\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,2}})\,\eta(X_0+Z_{t-1};\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,1}})\}\, . $$ Since $\E\{Z_tZ_{t-1}\} = (y_{t,1}+y_{t,2}-y_{t,3})/2$ and $x\mapsto\eta(x;\theta)$ is monotone, we deduce that $y_{t,3}< (y_{t,1}+y_{t,2})$ implies that $Z_t$, $Z_{t-1}$ are positively correlated. Therefore $\E\{\eta(X_0+Z_t;\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,2}})\,\eta(X_0+Z_{t-1};\alpha \sqrt{y_{t,1}})\}\ge 0$, which in turn yields $y_{t+1,3}< (y_{t+1,1}+y_{t+1,2})$. The initial condition implied by Eq.  is $$\begin{aligned} y_{1,1} & = \sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\,\E\{X_0^2\}\,,\\ y_{1,2} & = \sigma^2+\frac{1}{\delta}\,\E\{[\eta(X_0+Z_0;\theta_0)-X_0]^2\}\,,\\ y_{1,3} & = \frac{1}{\delta}\,\E\{\eta(X_0+Z_0;\theta_0)^2\}\, , $$ It is easy to check that these satisfy $y_{1,3}<y_{1,1}+y_{1,2}$. (This follows from $\E\{X_0[X_0-\eta(X_0+Z_0;\theta_0)]\}>0$ because $x_0\mapsto x_0- \E_Z\eta(x_0+Z_0;\theta_0)$ is monotone increasing.) We can hereafter therefore assume $y_{t,3}< y_{t,1}+y_{t,2}$ for all $t$. We will consider the above iteration for arbitrary initialization $y_0$ (satisfying $y_{0,3}< y_{0,1}+y_{0,2}$) and will show the following three facts: - [**Fact $(i)$.**]{} As $t\to\infty$, $y_{t,1},y_{t,2}\to\tau_*^2$. Further the convergence is monotone. - [**Fact $(ii)$.**]{} If $y_{0,1}=y_{0,2}=\tau_*^2$ and $y_{0,3}\le 2\tau_*^2$, then $y_{t,1}=y_{t,2}=\tau_*^2$ for all $t$ and $y_{t,3}\to 0$. - [**Fact $(iii)$.**]{} The jacobian $J=J_{\G}(y_*)$ of $\G$ at $y_* = (\tau_*^2,\tau_*^2,0)$ has spectral radius $\sigma(J)<1$. By simple compactness arguments, Facts $(i)$ and $(ii)$ imply $y_t\to y_*$ as $t\to\infty$. (Notice that $y_{t,3}$ remains bounded since $y_{t,3}\le (y_{t,1}+y_{t,2})$ and by the convergence of $y_{t,1},y_{t,2}$.) Fact $(iii)$ implies that convergence is exponentially fast. *Proof of Fact $(i)$.* Notice that $y_{t,2}$ evolves independently by $y_{t+1,2} = \G_2(y_t) = \seF(y_{2,t},\alpha\sqrt{y_{2,t}})$, with $\seF(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)$ the state evolution mapping introduced in Eq. . It follows from Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\] that $y_{t,2}\to \tau_*^2$ monotonically for any initial condition. Since $y_{t+1,1} = y_{t,2}$, the same happens for $y_{t,1}$. *Proof of Fact $(ii)$.* Consider the function $\G_*(x) = \G_3(\tau_*^2,\tau_*^2,x)$. This is defined for $x\in [0,4\tau_*^2]$ but since $y_{t,3}<y_{t,1}+y_{t,2}$ we will only consider $\G_*:[0,2\tau^2_*]\to \reals_+$. Obviously $\G_*(0) = 0$. Further $\G_*$ can be represented as follows in terms of the independent random variables $Z$, $W\sim\normal(0,1)$: $$\begin{aligned} \G_*(x) = \frac{1}{\delta} \E\{[\eta(X_0+\sqrt{\tau_*^2-x/4}Z+(\sqrt{x}/2)W;\alpha \tau_*)-\eta(X_0+\sqrt{\tau_*^2-x/4}Z-(\sqrt{x}/2)W;\alpha \tau_*)]^2\}\, . $$ A straightforward calculation yields $$\begin{aligned} \G'_*(x) = \frac{1}{\delta}\E\{\eta'(X_0+Z_t; \alpha\tau_*) \eta'(X_0+Z_{t-1}; \alpha\tau_*)\} = \frac{1}{\delta}\prob\{|X_0+Z_t|\ge \alpha\tau_*,\; |X_0+Z_{t-1}|\ge \alpha\tau_*\}\, , $$ where $Z_{t-1}=\sqrt{\tau_*^2-x^2/4}Z+(x/2)W$, $Z_{t}=\sqrt{\tau_*^2-x^2/4}Z-(x/2)W$. In particular, by Lemma \[lemma:box-monotonicity\], $x\mapsto \G_*(x)$ is strictly increasing (notice that the covariance of $Z_{t-1}$ and $Z_{t}$ is $\tau_*^2-(x/2)$ which is decreasing in $x$). Further $$\begin{aligned} \G'_*(0) =\frac{1}{\delta}\E\{\eta'(X_0+\tau_*\, Z; \alpha\tau_*)\} \, . $$ Hence, since $\lambda>0$ using Eq. (\[eq:calibration\]) we have $\G'(0)<1$. Finally, by Lemma \[lemma:box-monotonicity\], $x\mapsto \G'(x)$ is decreasing in $[0,2\tau_*)$. It follows that $y_{t,3}\le \G'(0)^ty_{0,3}\to 0$ as claimed. *Proof of Fact $(iii)$.* From the definition of $\G$, we have the following expression for the Jacobian $$\begin{aligned} J_{\G}(y_*) = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & \seF'(\tau_*^2) & 0\\ a & \G_*'(0) & b\\ \end{array}\right) $$ where with an abuse of notation we let $\seF'(\tau_*^2) \equiv \left.\frac{\de\phantom{\tau^2}}{\de\tau^2}\seF(\tau^2,\alpha\tau) \right|_{\tau^2=\tau^2_*}$. Computing the eigenvalues of the above matrix, we get $$\begin{aligned} \sigma(J) = \max\big\{\, \seF'(\tau_*^2)\,,\, \G_*'(0) \,\big\}\, . $$ Since $\G_*'(0)<1$ as proved above, and $\seF(\tau_*^2)<1$ as per Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\], the claim follows. Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\] implies Lemma \[lemma:Convergence\] ------------------------------------------------------------- Using representations (\[eq:b-as-z\]) and (\[eq:q-as-x\]) (i.e., $b^t=w-z^t$ and $q^t=x_0-x^t$) and Lemma \[lem:elephant\](c) we obtain, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\|z^{t+1}-z^t\|_2^2&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\|b^{t+1}-b^t\|_2^2\\ &{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\frac{1}{\delta}\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|q^{t+1}-q^t\|_2^2\\ &=\frac{1}{\delta}\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|x^{t+1}-x^t\|_2^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality uses $q^t=x^t-x_0$. Therefore, it is sufficient to prove the thesis for $\|x^{t+1}-x^t\|_2$. By state evolution, Theorem \[prop:state-evolution-2times\], we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|x^{t+1}-x^t\|_2^2& = \E\big\{\big[\eta(X_0+Z_t;\theta_t)-\eta(X_0+Z_{t-1};\theta_{t-1})\big]^2\big\}\\ &\le 2(\theta_t-\theta_{t-1})^2+2\,\E\{(Z_t-Z_{t-1})^2\}= 2(\theta_t-\theta_{t-1})^2+2(\covz_{t,t}-2\covz_{t,t-1}+\covz_{t-1,t-1})\, . $$ The first term vanishes as $t\to\infty$ because $\theta_t=\alpha\tau_t\to\alpha\tau_*$ by Proposition \[propo:UniqFP\]. The second term instead vanishes since $\covz_{t,t}\to \tau_*$, $\covz_{t,t-1}\to \tau_*$ by Lemma \[lemma:Tau\_Plus\]. Proof of Lemma \[lemma:Svalues\_t\] {#sec:Svalues_t} =================================== First note that the upper bound on $\lambda_{\max}(R/N)$ is trivial since using representations , , $q^t=f_t(h^t,x_0)$, $m^t=g_t(b^t,w)$ and Lemma \[lem:elephant\](c)(d) all entries of the matrix $R/N$ are bounded as $N\to\infty$ and the matrix has fixed dimensions. Hence, we only focus on the lower-bound for $\lambda_{\min}(R/N)$. The result for $R=M^*M$ and $R=Q^*Q$ follows directly from Lemma \[lem:elephant\](g) and Lemma 8 of [@BM-MPCS-2010]. For $R=Y^*Y$ and $R=X^*X$ the proof is by induction on $t$. - For $t=1$ we have $Y_t=b^0$ and $X_t=h^1+\xi_0q^0=h^1-x_0$. Using Lemma \[lem:elephant\](b)(c) we obtain almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{Y_t^*Y_t}{N}&=\delta\lim_{n\to\infty}\<b^0,b^0\>=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<q^0,q^0\>=\E\{X_0^2\}\,,\\ \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{X_t^*X_t}{N}&=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<h^1-x^0,h^1-x^0\>=\E\{(\tau_0Z_0+X_0)^2\}=\sigma^2+\frac{\delta+1}{\delta}\E\{X_0^2\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where both are positive by the assumption $\prob\{X_0\neq 0\}>0$. - *Induction hypothesis:* Assume that for all $t\leq k$ there exist positive constants $c_X(t)$ and $c_Y(t)$ such that as $N\to\infty$ $$\begin{aligned} c_Y(t)&\leq\lambda_{\min}(\frac{Y_t^*Y_t}{N}) \,,\label{eq:induc-hyp-lambda_min(Y*Y)}\\ c_X(t)&\leq \lambda_{\min}(\frac{X_t^*X_t}{N}) \,.\label{eq:induc-hyp-lambda_min(X*X)}\end{aligned}$$ - Now we prove Eq. for $t=k+1$ (proof of is similar). We will prove that there is a positive constant $c$ such that as $N\to\infty$, for any vector $\va_t\in \reals^t$: $$\<Y_t\,\va_t,Y_t\,\va_t\>\ge c\|\va_t\|_2^2\,.$$ First write $\va_t=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)$ and denote its first $t-1$ coordinates with $\va_{t-1}$. Next, we consider the conditional distribution $A|_{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t-1}}$. Using Eqs. and we obtain (since $Y_t=AQ_t$) $$\begin{aligned} Y_t\,\va_t|_{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t-1}}&\ed A|_{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t-1}}(Q_{t-1}\,\va_{t-1}+a_tq^{t-1})\\ & = E_{t-1}(Q_{t-1}\,\va_{t-1}+a_tq^{t-1})+a_tP_{M_{t-1}}^{\perp}\tA q^{t-1}_{\perp}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, conditional on ${\mathfrak}{S}_{t-1}$ we have, almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Rep-Ya} \lim_{N\to\infty}\<Y_t\,\va_t,Y_t\,\va_t\> &= \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\|Y_{t-1}\,\va_{t-1}+a_tE_{t-1}q^{t-1}\|^2+a_t^2 \lim_{N\to\infty}\<q^{t-1}_{\perp},q^{t-1}_{\perp}\>\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the fact that $\tA$ is a random matrix with i.i.d. $\normal(0,1/n)$ entries independent of ${\mathfrak}{S}_{t-1}$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:prop-Gaussian-matrix\]) which implies that almost surely - $\lim_{N\to\infty}\<P_{M_{t-1}}^{\perp}\tA q^{t-1}_{\perp},P_{M_{t-1}}^{\perp}\tA q^{t-1}_{\perp}\>=\lim_{N\to\infty}\<q^{t-1}_{\perp},q^{t-1}_{\perp}\>$, - $\lim_{N\to\infty}\<P_{M_{t-1}}^{\perp}\tA q^{t-1}_{\perp},Y_{t-1}\,\va_{t-1}+a_tb^{t-1}+a_t\lambda_{t-1}m^{t-2}\>=0$. From Lemma \[lem:elephant\](g) we know that $\lim_{N\to\infty}\<q^{t-1}_{\perp},q^{t-1}_{\perp}\>$ is larger than a positive constant $\varsigma_t$. Hence, from representation and induction hypothesis $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\<Y_t\,\va_t,Y_t\,\va_t\> &\ge \lim_{N\to\infty}\left[\sqrt{c_Y(t-1)}\|\va_{t-1}\|-\frac{|a_t|}{\sqrt{N}}\|b^{t-1}+\lambda_{t-1}m^{t-2}\|\right]^2+a_t^2 \varsigma_t\,.\end{aligned}$$ To simplify the notation let $c'_t\equiv\lim_{N\to\infty}N^{-1/2}\|b^{t-1}+\lambda_{t-1}m^{t-2}\|$. Now if $c'_t|a_t|\leq \sqrt{c_Y(t-1)}\|\va_{t-1}\|/2$ then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\<Y_t\,\va_t,Y_t\,\va_t\> &\geq \frac{c_Y(t-1)}{4}\|\va_{t-1}\|^2+a_t^2 \varsigma_t\geq \min\left(\frac{c_Y(t-1)}{4}\,,\varsigma_t\right)\|\va_t\|_2^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the result. Otherwise, we obtain the inequality $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\<Y_t\,\va_t,Y_t\,\va_t\> &\geq a_t^2 \varsigma_t\ge \left(\frac{\varsigma_t\, c_Y(t-1)}{4(c'_t)^2+c_Y(t-1)}\right)\|\va_t\|_2^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ that completes the induction argument. A concentration estimate ======================== The following proposition follows from standard concentration-of-measure arguments. \[propo:Concentration\] Let $V\subseteq\reals^m$ a uniformly random linear space of dimension $d$. For $\lambda\in (0,1)$, let $P_{\lambda}$ denote the orthogonal projector on the first $m\lambda$ coordinates of $\reals^m$. Define $Z(\lambda) \equiv\sup\{ \|P_{\lambda}v\|\, :\; v\in V,\; \|v\|=1\}$. Then, for any $\ve>0$ there exists $c(\ve)>0$ such that, for all $m$ large enough (and $d$ fixed) $$\begin{aligned} \prob\{|Z(\kappa)-\sqrt{\lambda}|\ge \ve\}\le e^{-m\,c(\ve)}\, . $$ Let $Q\in\reals^{m\times d}$ be a uniformly random orthogonal matrix. Its image is a uniformly random subspace of $\reals^m$ whence the following equivalent characterization of $Z(\lambda)$ is obtained $$\begin{aligned} Z(\lambda) \ed\sup\{ \|P_{\lambda}Qu\|\, :\; u\in S^d\} $$ where $S^d\equiv\{x\in\reals^d\, :\, \|x\|=1\}$ is the $d$-dimensional sphere, and $\ed$ denotes equality in distribution. Let $N_d(\ve/2)$ be a $(\ve/2)$-net in $S_d$, i.e. a subset of vectors $\{u^1,\dots,u^M\}\in S^d$ such that, for any $u\in S^d$, there exists $i\in \{1,\dots,M\}$ such that $\|u-u^i\|\le \ve/2$. It follows from a standard counting argument [@Ledoux] that there exists an $(\ve/2)$-net of size $|N_d(\ve/2)|\equiv M\le (100/\ve)^d$. Define $$\begin{aligned} Z_{\ve/2}(\lambda) \equiv\sup\{ \|P_{\lambda}Qu\|\, :\; u\in N_d(\ve/2)\}\, . $$ Since $u\mapsto P_{\lambda}Qu$ is Lipschitz with modulus $1$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \prob\{|Z(\kappa)-\sqrt{\lambda}|\ge \ve\}&\le \prob\{|Z_{\ve/2}(\kappa)-\sqrt{\lambda}|\ge \ve/2 \}\\ &\le \sum_{i=1}^M\prob\{|\|P_{\lambda}Qu^i\|-\sqrt{\lambda}|\ge \ve/2 \}\, . $$ But for each $i$, $Qu^i$ is a uniformly random vector with norm $1$ in $\reals^m$. By concentration of measure in $S^m$ [@Ledoux], there exists a function $c(\ve)>0$ such that, for $x\in S^m$ uniformly random $$\begin{aligned} \prob\big\{\big|\|P_{\lambda}x\|-\sqrt{\lambda}\big|\ge \ve/2 \big\} \le e^{-m\, c(\ve)}\, . $$ Therefore we get $$\begin{aligned} \prob\{|Z(\kappa)-\sqrt{\lambda}|\ge \ve\}\le |N_{d}(\ve/2)| e^{-m\, c(\ve)}\le \Big(\frac{100}{\ve}\Big)^d\, e^{-m\, c(\ve)} $$ which is smaller than $e^{-mc(\ve)/2}$ for all $m$ large enough. Useful reference material ========================= In this appendix we collect a few known results that are used several times in our proof. We also provide some pointers to the literature. Equivalence of $\ell^2$ and $\ell^1$ norm on random vector spaces ----------------------------------------------------------------- In our proof we make use of the following well-known result of Kashin in the theory of diameters of smooth functions [@Kashin1977]. Let $L_{n,\upsilon}=\{x\in\reals^n| x_i=0\,,~~\forall~i\ge n(1-\upsilon) + 1\}$. \[thm:Kashin\] For any positive number $\upsilon$ there exist a universal constant $c_\upsilon$ such that for any $n\ge 1$, with probability at least $1-2^{-n}$, for a uniformly random subspace $V_{n,\upsilon}$ of dimension $n(1-\upsilon)$, $$\forall~x\in V_{n,\upsilon}:~~~ c_\upsilon\|x\|_2\le {\frac}{1}{\sqrt{n}}\|x\|_1\,. $$ Singular values of random matrices ---------------------------------- We will repeatedly make use of limit behavior of extreme singular values of random matrices. A very general result was proved in [@BaiYin] (see also [@BaiSilverstein]). \[prop:marchenko-pastur\] Let $A\in\reals^{n\times N}$ be a matrix with i.i.d. entries such that $\E\{A_{ij}\}=0$, $\E\{ A_{ij}^2\}=1/n$, and $n=M\delta$. Let $\smaxA$ be the largest singular value of $A$, and $\sigma_{\rm min}(A)$ be its smallest non-zero singular value. Then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\smaxA &{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}&{\frac}{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}+1\, ,\\ \lim_{N\to\infty}\sigma_{\rm min}(A) &{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}&{\frac}{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}-1\, . $$ We will also use the following fact that follows from the standard singular value decomposition $$\begin{aligned} \min\big\{ \|Ax\|_2\, :\; x\in \ker(A)^\perp, \; \|x\|=1\big\} = \sigma_{\rm min}(A)\, . $$ Two Lemmas from [@BM-MPCS-2010] {#sec:FromMPCS} ------------------------------- Our proof uses the results of [@BM-MPCS-2010]. We state copy here the crucial technical lemma in that paper. Notations refer to the general algorithm in Eq. . General state evolution defines quantities $\{\tau_t^2\}_{t\ge0}$ and $\{\sigma_t^2\}_{t\ge0}$ via $$\begin{aligned} \tau_{t}^2 = \E\big\{ g_t(\sigma_{t} Z,W)^2\big\}\, , \;\;\;\;\; \sigma_{t}^2 = \frac{1}{\delta}\, \E\big\{ f_t(\tau_{t-1} Z,X_0)^2\big\}\, ,\label{eq:tau-sigma-recursion} $$ where $W\sim {p_{W}}$ and $X_0\sim p_{X_0}$ are independent of $Z\sim\normal(0,1)$ \[lem:elephant\] Let $\{q_0(N)\}_{N\ge 0}$ and $\{A(N)\}_{N\ge 0}$ be, respectively, a sequence of initial conditions and a sequence of matrices $A\in\reals^{n\times N}$ indexed by $N$ with i.i.d. entries $A_{ij}\sim \normal(0,1/n)$. Assume $n/N\to\delta\in (0,\infty)$. Consider sequences of vectors $\{x_0(N),w(N)\}_{N\ge 0}$, whose empirical distributions converge weakly to probability measures $p_{X_0}$ and ${p_{W}}$ on $\reals$ with bounded $(2k-2)^{th}$ moment, and assume: - $\lim_{N\to\infty}\E_{{\hat{p}}_{x_0(N)}}(X_0^{2k-2}) =\E_{p_{X_0}}(X_0^{2k-2})<\infty$. - $\lim_{N\to\infty}\E_{{\hat{p}}_{w(N)}}(W^{2k-2})= \E_{{p_{W}}}(W^{2k-2})<\infty$. - $\lim_{N\to\infty} \E_{{\hat{p}}_{q_0(N)}}( X^{2k-2})<\infty$. Let $\{\sigma_t,\tau_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ be defined uniquely by the recursion with initialization $\sigma_0^2=\delta^{-1}\lim_{n\to\infty}\<q^0,q^0\>$. Then the following hold for all $t\in\naturals\cup\{0\}$ - $$\begin{aligned} h^{t+1}|_{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t+1,t}}&{\stackrel{\text{\rm d}}{=}}\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}{\alpha_i}h^{i+1}+ {\tA}^*m_\perp^t+{\tilde{Q}}_{t+1}{\vec{o}}_{t+1}(1)\, ,\label{eq:main-lem-h-c}\\ b^t|_{{\mathfrak}{S}_{t,t}}&{\stackrel{\text{\rm d}}{=}}\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}{\beta_i}b^{i} + {\tA}q_\perp^{t}+ {\tilde{M}}_t{\vec{o}}_t(1)\, ,\label{eq:main-lem-z-c} $$ where ${\tA}$ is an independent copy of $A$ and the matrix ${\tilde{Q}}_t$ (${\tilde{M}}_t$) is such that its columns form an orthogonal basis for the column space of $Q_t$ ($M_t$) and ${\tilde{Q}}_t^*{\tilde{Q}}_t=N\,\identity_{t\times t}$ (${\tilde{M}}_t^*{\tilde{M}}_t=n\,\identity_{t\times t}$). - For all pseudo-Lipschitz functions $\phi_h,\phi_b:\reals^{t+2}\to\reals$ of order $k$ $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\phi_h(h_i^1,\ldots,h_i^{t+1},x_{0,i}) &{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\E\big\{\phi_h(\tau_0 Z_0,\ldots,\tau_tZ_{t},X_0)\big\}\, ,\label{eq:main-lem-h-a}\\ \lim_{n\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\phi_b(b_i^0,\ldots,b_i^{t},w_i) &{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\E\big\{\phi_b(\sigma_0\hat{Z}_0,\ldots,\sigma_t\hat{Z}_t,W)\big\}\, ,\label{eq:main-lem-z-a} $$ where $(Z_0,\ldots,Z_{t})$ and $(\hat{Z}_0,\ldots,\hat{Z}_{t})$ are two zero-mean gaussian vectors independent of $X_0$, $W$, with $Z_i,\hat{Z}_i\sim \normal(0,1)$. - For all $0\leq r,s\leq t$ the following equations hold and all limits exist, are bounded and have degenerate distribution (i.e. they are constant random variables): $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\< h^{r+1},h^{s+1}\>&{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\lim_{n\to\infty}\< m^{r},m^{s}\>\, ,\label{eq:main-lem-h-b}\\ \lim_{n\to\infty}\< b^r,b^s\>&{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}{\frac}{1}{\delta}\lim_{N\to\infty}\< q^r,q^s\>\, .\label{eq:main-lem-z-b} $$ - For all $0\leq r,s\leq t$, and for any Lipschitz function $\varphi:\reals^2\to\reals$ , the following equations hold and all limits exist, are bounded and have degenerate distribution (i.e. they are constant random variables): $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\< h^{r+1}, \varphi(h^{s+1},x_0)\>&{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\lim_{N\to\infty}\< h^{r+1},h^{s+1}\> \< \varphi'(h^{s+1},x_0)\>,\label{eq:main-lem-h-d}\\ \lim_{n\to\infty} \< b^{r},\varphi(b^s,w)\>&{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}\lim_{n\to\infty}\< b^r,b^s\> \< \varphi'(b^s,w)\>\,. \label{eq:main-lem-z-d} $$ Here $\varphi'$ denotes derivative with respect to the first coordinate of $\varphi$. - For $\ell = k-1$, the following hold almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim\sup_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N (h_i^{t+1})^{2\ell}&<\infty\,,\label{eq:main-lem-h-e}\\ \lim\sup_{n\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n (b_i^t)^{2\ell}&<\infty.\label{eq:main-lem-z-e} $$ - For all $0\leq r\le t$: $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}{\frac}{1}{N}\< h^{r+1},q^0\>&{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}0\,.\label{eq:<ht,q0>=0}\end{aligned}$$ - For all $0\leq r\leq t$ and $0\leq s \leq t-1$ the following limits exist, and there exist strictly positive constants $\lbq_r$ and $\lbm_s$ (independent of $N$, $n$) such that almost surely $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N\to\infty}\< q^{r}_{\perp},q^{r}_{\perp}\>&>\lbq_r\,,\label{eq:main-lem-q-g}\\ \lim_{n\to\infty}\< m^{s}_\perp,m^{s}_\perp\>&>\lbm_s\,.\label{eq:main-lem-m-g} $$ It is also useful to recall some simple properties of gaussian random matrices. \[lem:prop-Gaussian-matrix\] For any deterministic $u\in\reals^N$ and $v\in\reals^n$ with $\|u\|=\|v\|=1$ and a gaussian matrix ${\tA}$ distributed as $A$ we have - $v^* {\tA} u{\stackrel{\text{\rm d}}{=}}Z/\sqrt{n}$ where $Z\sim \normal(0,1)$. - $\lim_{n\to\infty} \|{\tA}u\|^2 = 1$ almost surely. - Consider, for $d\le n$, a $d$-dimensional subspace $W$ of $\reals^n$, an orthogonal basis $w_1,\ldots,w_d$ of $W$ with $\|w_i\|^2=n$ for $i=1,\ldots,d$, and the orthogonal projection $P_W$ onto $W$. Then for $D=[w_1|\ldots|w_d]$, we have $P_W A u{\stackrel{\text{\rm d}}{=}}Dx$ with $x\in\reals^d$ that satisfies: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\|x\|{\stackrel{{{\rm a.s.}}}{=}}0$ (the limit being taken with $d$ fixed). Note that $x$ is ${\vec{o}}_d(1)$ as well. [^1]: Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University [^2]: Department of Statistics, Stanford University

--- abstract: 'We present Magnetic Resonance Force Microscopy (MRFM) measurements of Ferromagnetic Resonance (FMR) in a 50 nm thick permalloy film, tilted with respect to the direction of the external magnetic field. At small probe-sample distances the MRFM spectrum breaks up into multiple modes, which we identify as local ferromagnetic resonances confined by the magnetic field of the MRFM tip. Micromagnetic simulations support this identification of the modes and show they are stabilized in the region where the dipolar tip field has a component anti-parallel to the applied field.' author: - | E. Nazaretski$^{1}$, D.V. Pelekhov$^{2}$, I. Martin$^{1}$, M. Zalalutdinov$^{3}$,\ D. Ponarin$^{4}$, A. Smirnov$^{4}$, P. C. Hammel$^{2}$, and R. Movshovich$^{1}$ title: Observation of localized ferromagnetic resonance in a continuous ferromagnetic film via magnetic resonance force microscopy --- Magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) [@s:apl91] provides a route to detection of magnetic resonance with excellent spin sensitivity and spatial resolution and has received considerable attention. Detection of electron spin resonance [@r:esr], nuclear magnetic resonance [@r:nmr] and ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) [@zhang:apl96; @klein:loubens.prl2007:127601; @r:fmrimage; @nazaretski:APL2007] with this approach has been reported. The high sensitivity of MRFM when combined with the imaging mechanism of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) allows excellent spatial resolution in non-interacting spin systems [@r:90-nmresolutionimaging]. Studies of patterned films show FMR can be detected in individual microstructures with high sensitivity [@zhang:apl96; @r:fmrimage; @midzor:jap00; @klein:loubens.prl2007:127601]. As a consequence of the strong interactions between spins in a ferromagnet the excitations are collective (magnetostatic) modes, so the assumptions on which MRI is based are invalidated, however recent work shows MRFM is also a promising technique for spatially resolved FMR: Obukhov *et al.,* at OSU demonstrated that the large field gradient of the micromagnetic probe enables ferromagnetic resonance imaging of the magnetostatic modes of a 2 $\mu$m diameter permalloy dot with $\sim 250\; n$m resolution [@h:oboukhov.PRL.FMRdots2008]. Here we argue that the micromagnetic probe *locally stabilizes magnetostatic modes* detected in FMR thus indicating the potential for scanned probe imaging of magnetic properties of extended ferromagnetic films. Due to the strong interaction between the spins the resonance modes are collective excitations of spins in the entire sample, and in the case of the microfabricated samples, the FMR modes are defined by the geometry of the sample. We study the dependence of the mode resonance field on the orientation of the film relative to the external magnetic field, and on the probe-sample separation. We find that localized FMR modes are spatially confined immediately below the MRFM probe magnet. This occurs because off the axis of the micromagnetic probe its dipolar field is negative and, so [reduces]{} the magnitude of the total magnetic field stabilizing a confined mode. To understand the nature of these modes and their behavior, we performed micromagnetic simulations based on a finite element solution of the Landau-Lifshitz (LL) equation with damping. The simulations reveal that the degree of localization can be controlled not only by the sample-probe separation, but that it is also very sensitive to the tilt angle between the film and the applied magnetic field. These results demonstrate confinement of the magnetostatic mode by the localized inhomogeneous field of the probe, a mechanism distinct from geometrical confinement such as was studied in Ref. . ![(Color online) Schematic of the experiment. The sample is tilted and placed in the uniform external magnetic field $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$. Here $\hat{n}$ is the normal to the sample surface, $\Theta$ is the sample tilt angle with respect to $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ and $\Psi$ is the tilt angle of the equilibrium magnetization $\mathbf M_{s}$. The MRFM probe field is aligned with the direction of $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ and its dipolar field reduces the magnitude of $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ in the region off to the side of the magnetic tip $\mathbf m$.[]{data-label="fig:SetupScheme"}](Figure1_000.eps){width="6cm"} The MRFM experiments were performed with the low temperature dual MFM/MRFM apparatus at Los Alamos National Laboratory. We used a commercially available silicon nitride cantilever (resonance frequency $f_c \approx 8.0$ kHz and spring constant $k \sim 10$ mN/m). The micromagnetic probe tip is a 2.4 $\mu$m diameter spherical Nd$_2$Fe$_{14}$B particle. Its silicon nitride tip was removed by focused ion milling, and the magnetic sphere was manually glued to the cantilever in the presence of an aligning magnetic field of a few kOe. The saturation magnetization of Nd$_2$Fe$_{14}$B powder was determined to be $4 \pi M_s \approx 13.2$ kG at 10 K using SQUID magnetometery. The spatial field profile produced by the probe magnet has been carefully characterized [@h:nazaretski.tipchar.apl2008]. For a detailed description of the MRFM apparatus we refer the reader to Ref. . The 50 nm thick permalloy film was deposited on a 100 $\mu$m thick silicon wafer on top of a 20 nm thick Ti adhesion layer, and capped with a protective 20 nm Ti layer. An approximately 1.9 $\times$ 1.9 mm$^2$ sample was glued to the strip line microwave resonator. The temperature of the sample was stabilized at T = 11 K (temperature stability was better than 5 mK) and the frequency of the microwave field was set to $f_{RF}$ = 9.75 GHz. Fig. \[fig:SetupScheme\] shows a schematic diagram of the experiment. The in-phase component of the lock-in detected MRFM signal is shown in Fig. \[Figure 1\] as a function of the probe-sample separation for three values of the tilt angle $\Theta$ between the normal to the film plane and the direction of $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ (as shown in Fig. \[fig:SetupScheme\]). The sample tilt angle was determined by measuring the deflection of a laser beam reflected off the film surface at room temperature and found to be $1.0^\circ$, $3.4^\circ$ and $5.4^\circ$. While the absolute uncertainty of the sample tilt at low temperatures is $\approx \pm1.0^\circ$, mainly due to thermal contraction of the glue used to hold the sample in place, the relative uncertainty of the tilt angles at low temperature is better than 0.1 degree. These tilt angles were confirmed by the measured values of the resonance field $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ at large probe-sample separations (discussed further below). All spectra shown in Fig. \[Figure 1\] exhibit very similar evolution as a function of probe-sample separation. A single fundamental resonance mode is observed at distances greater than a few micrometers. The resonance field of this mode changes as the probe approaches the sample surface (Fig. \[Figure 1\]a). At larger values of $\Theta$ (Fig. \[Figure 1\]b, c) splitting of the fundamental mode is observed at small separations. The magnitude of the splitting increases with increasing $\Theta$ (Fig. \[Figure 1\]c). ![(Color online) The in-phase component of the MRFM signal. Each spectrum is plotted with an offset proportional to the probe-sample separation. This separation can be read off of the right-hand vertical axis far from resonance. Spectra were recorded at three different angles $\Theta$: a) $1.0^\circ$, b) $3.4^\circ$ and c) $5.4^\circ$ at T = 11 K and $f_{\rm RF}$ = 9.75 GHz. Note the different horizontal axis scales for each panel. The red dotted line traces the evolution of the fundamental resonance mode. Spectra were scaled for clarity of presentation. The inset in panel b) shows the shift of the entire resonance structure with the change of the microwave frequency from 9.75 to 9.65 GHz at a probe-film separation of $\sim$ 760 nm.[]{data-label="Figure 1"}](Figure2.eps){width="8cm"} In order to better understand the evolution of the MRFM signal, we performed FMR studies as a function of $\Theta$ in a conventional FMR spectrometer. In Fig. \[AngularDependence\] we show the angular dependence of the resonance field for the permalloy sample. Conventional FMR experiments were performed at NCSU. The data were obtained in a uniform applied field $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ and are equivalent to the MRFM resonance spectra acquired at large values of the probe-sample separation. In fact, the MRFM and conventional FMR sets of data exhibit excellent agreement as shown in Fig. \[AngularDependence\]. The value of the ferromagnetic resonance field in a continuous film for a given $\Theta$ is determined by the dispersion relation [@Wigen:ThinSolidFilms.1984]: $$\begin{aligned} &\left( \frac{\omega}{\gamma} \right)^2=[H_{\rm ext}\cos(\Theta-\Psi)-4\pi M_s \cos(2\Psi)]\times\nonumber \\ & [H_{\rm ext}\cos(\Theta-\Psi)-4\pi M_s \cos^2(\Psi)];\label{System1}\\ & H_{\rm ext}\sin(\Theta-\Psi)+2\pi M_s \sin(2\Theta)=0.\label{System2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\omega= 2 \pi f_{\rm RF}$ is the RF frequency, $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $4\pi M_s$ is the saturation magnetization and $\Psi$ is the tilt angle of the equilibrium magnetization as shown in Fig. \[fig:SetupScheme\]. We neglect the anisotropy contribution because it is typically small ($\sim$ few Gauss) in uniform permalloy films [@Frait:PermalloyFilms; @h:nazaretski.fmr.temperaturepermalloy.jap2007]. Equations \[System1\] and \[System2\] cannot be solved analytically, so we solved them numerically; the results are shown in Fig. \[AngularDependence\] by the solid line. We used the conventional FMR data set to verify the values of $4 \pi M_s = 11.3$ kG, and $ \gamma = 2.89 \pm 0.05 $ GHz/kOe. With conventional FMR we never observed any multiple resonance structures reminiscent of those appearing in Fig. \[Figure 1\]. ![(Color online) Angular dependence of the resonance field for the uniform $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$. Four data sets: conventional FMR data ($\triangle$), solution to Eg. 1 (solid line), MRFM data at large probe-sample separation ($\bullet$), and the results of the micromagnetic modeling ($\square$) are in good agreement. The numerical solution and the micromagnetic modeling were done using the same simulation parameters: 4$\pi M_s$=11.3 kG, $f_{RF}$ = 9.5 GHz, $ \gamma = 2.89 \pm 0.05 $ GHz/kOe. MRFM data were acquired at $f_{RF}$ = 9.75 GHz.[]{data-label="AngularDependence"}](Figure3.eps){width="7cm"} The origin of the isolated resonance modes seen in the MRFM studies can be understood in the following way. Conventional FMR theory assumes a uniform magnetic field throughout the sample [@FMR:Vonsovskii]. The LL analysis shows that the presence of a position dependent inhomogeneous magnetic field of the probe may result in a formation of localized FMR modes confined to the region where the field inhomogeneity exceeds the value of $\Delta H_{max} \simeq 2\pi M_s(L/a)$ (where $L$ is the thickness of the film and $a$ is the radius of the localization) [@h:oboukhov.PRL.FMRdots2008]. The MRFM probe produces an approximately dipolar field in the plane of the sample. In the simplest geometry ${\bf H}_{\rm ext}$ and the tip’s magnetic moment $\mathbf m$ are parallel to each other. In this case the total magnetic field directly under the tip (uniform external field plus the dipolar field due to the tip) is higher than the external field, but off to the side it is lower than ${\bf H}_{\rm ext}$ (see Fig. \[fig:SetupScheme\]). In these two loci the field at which resonance occurs is shifted to higher and lower fields, respectively relative to resonance in the external field alone. While the modes shifted down in field may overlap with the bulk magnetostatic modes, the modes shifted up in field are well isolated, so they can readily be used to perform local MRFM spectroscopy. In order to quantify this picture we have conducted micromagnetic simulations based on the Landau-Lifshitz (LL) equation with damping: $$\frac{\partial {\bf M}}{\partial t} = \gamma \mathbf M \times \mathbf H_{\rm tot} - \frac{\lambda}{M_s^2}\mathbf M \times \mathbf M \times \mathbf H_{\rm tot}, \label{LL}$$ where $\lambda$ is the damping coefficient. The total magnetic field $\mathbf H_{\rm tot}$ experienced by the sample magnetization $\mathbf M$ consists of the external, probe, dipolar, exchange and anisotropy fields. The numerical solution of Eq. \[LL\] for this field configuration provides the information about the spatial profile of the FMR modes excited in the sample and their corresponding resonance fields. The details of the numerical approach and its application to a variety of systems will be presented elsewhere [@Pelekhov:Numerics]. ![(Color online) Numerically calculated spatial profile of the excited transverse magnetization of the fundamental FMR mode in a $250 \times 250 \; \mu m^2$ permalloy film. The thickness of the film is 50 nm and it is tilted at an angle $\Theta$ with respect to the direction of the applied magnetic field. The probe magnet is a 2.4 $\mu$m diameter sphere placed at a distance $d$ over the center of the film, (0,0,d) a) $\Theta$ = $0^\circ$, no probe magnet b) $\Theta$ = $5.99^\circ$, $d$ = 1.0 $\mu$m, localized FMR mode at the location of the probe can be seen. c) Zoom-in onto the localized mode. Due to the sample tilt, the peak mode is localized to the side of the probe. All modes were calculated for the value of $H_{\rm ext}$ corresponding to $f_{RF}$ = 9.75 GHz.[]{data-label="fig:ModeShapes"}](Figure4a.eps){width="7cm"} As numerical simulation of an infinite ferromagnetic film with an inhomogeneous external field profile is difficult we simulated a finite ferromagnetic thin film that was large compared to the phenomena of interest (250 $\times$ 250 $\mu m^2$ square with thickness 50 nm). The magnetic parameters chosen for simulations were obtained from the conventional FMR experiment: $4 \pi M_s$ = 11.3 kG and $\gamma$ = 2.89 GHz/kOe. For the damping we used $\lambda$ = 0.005 $s^{-1}$, a typical value for permalloy. Eq. \[LL\] was linearized on a variable density pixel grid with higher pixel density in the vicinity of the probe magnet. The rare earth probe magnet was modeled as a 2.4 $\mu$m diameter uniformly magnetized sphere ($4 \pi M_s$ = 13.2 kG) placed at a height $d$ measured from the surface of the sphere. The probe was positioned over the center of the film. Probe magnet parameters were experimentally determined in Ref. [@nazaretski:APL2007; @h:nazaretski.tipchar.apl2008]. The orientation of the probe magnetic moment $\mathbf m$ is assumed to be aligned with the direction of $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$. The validity of the modeling approach was verified by comparing the modeling results for a tilted film (without MRFM tip) with the conventional FMR data (see Fig. \[AngularDependence\]). In the absence of the localized probe field, the fundamental (lowest frequency) resonance mode has a well known bell-shaped spatial profile, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ModeShapes\]a, and spans the entire sample. This result is in good agreement with earlier theoretical work [@kakazei:aplDotArrays]. In the presence of the probe magnet, however, the mode changes its shape dramatically and is spatially confined to the region immediately beneath the probe magnet (see Fig. \[fig:ModeShapes\]b). A closer look at the mode localization (see Fig. \[fig:ModeShapes\]c) reveals confinement on the order of a few $\mu m^2$. This is the region of the sample were the dipolar field of the probe magnet opposes the externally applied field $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$. The asymmetry in the shape of the localized FMR mode with respect to the position of the probe magnet is due to the tilt of the sample, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:SetupScheme\]. ![(Color online) Comparison of the numerically calculated evolution of the fundamental FMR mode (solid line) with data points taken from Fig. \[Figure 1\] (filled circles). The micromagnetic modeling was performed for the tilt angles obtained from the resonance fields of the fundamental mode at large probe-sample separations. To obtain the agreement shown in Fig. \[fig:ExperimentModel\] we had to increase the measured probe-sample separation by $\approx$ 1 $\mu m$ (depending on the tilt angle). The origin of the offset is the short range probe-sample interaction which causes the cantilever to snap to the film at probe-sample distances less than a micron. The nature of the interaction has been discussed in Ref. [@Jean:vdwCapacitiveForceAFM.JAP99; @Hudlet:CapacitiveForceAFM.EuPJB.1998] and the magnitude of the offset has been quantified in Ref. [@h:nazaretski.tipchar.apl2008].[]{data-label="fig:ExperimentModel"}](Figure5.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"} In Fig. \[fig:ExperimentModel\] we compare the micromagnetic simulations of the evolution of the fundamental mode with the experimental points taken from the dotted line in Fig. \[Figure 1\]. The values of the sample tilt angle $\Theta$ used in simulation where chosen to match the values of the resonance field $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ at large probe-sample separations. It can be seen that the value of $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ shifts towards higher values as the probe approaches the sample. This shift also increases with increasing tilt angle of the sample. This is consistent with the increase of the probe’s negative field, which would require higher values of $\mathbf H_{\rm ext}$ to satisfy the spin resonance condition at $f_{RF}$ = 9.75 GHz. In conclusion, we have observed FMR modes stabilized in a confined region defined by the localized field of micromagnetic probe field. These are observed when the sample is tilted with respect to the orientation of the probe axis thus subjecting the sample to the negative dipolar field produced off the axis of the probe magnet. Our micromagnetic simulations accurately describe the experiments and find the modes to be confined to a region of order a micron across. Our experiments point to the possibility of spatially resolved FMR (e.g. imaging and characterization of defects and magnetic inhomogeneities) in continuous ferromagnetic films. We thank Dr. T. Mewes for stimulating discussions and Dr. B. Houston and Dr. J. W. Baldwin for sample fabrication. The work performed at Los Alamos National Laboratory was supported by the US Department of Energy, Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies. The work at OSU was supported by the US Department of Energy through grant DE-FG02-03ER46054. This work was also supported by the Office of Naval Research through the Institute for Nanoscience at Naval Research Laboratory. The work at NCSU was supported by NSF grant ECS-0420775. [10]{} J. A. Sidles, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**58**]{}, 2854 (1991). D. Rugar, C. S. Yannoni, and J. A. Sidles, Nature [**360**]{}, 563 (1992). D. Rugar and O. Züger and S. Hoen and C. S. Yannoni and H. M. Vieth and R. D. Kendrick, Science [**264**]{}, 1560 (1994). Z. Zhang, P. C. Hammel, and P. E. Wigen, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2005 (1996). G. de Loubens, V.V. Naletov, O. Klein, J. B. Youssef, F. Boust, and N. Vukadinovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 127601 (2007). K. Wago, D. Botkin, C. S. Yannoni, and D. Rugar, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2757 (1998). E. Nazaretski, I. Martin, R. Movshovich, D. V. Pelekhov, P. C. Hammel, M. Zalalutdinov, J. W. Baldwin, B. Houston, and T. Mewes, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 234105 (2007). H. J. Mamin, M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, and D. Rugar, Nature Nanotechology [ **2**]{}, 301 (2007). M. M. Mizdor, P. E. Wigen, D. Pelekhov, W. Chen, P. C. Hammel, and M. L. Roukes, J. Appl. Phys. [**87**]{}, 6493 (2000). Yu. Obukhov, D.V. Pelekhov, J. Kim, P. Banerjee, I. Martin, E. Nazaretski, R. Movshovich, S. An, T. J. Gramila, S. Batra, and P. C. Hammel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 197601 (2008). E. Nazaretski, E. A. Akhadov, I. Martin, D. V. Pelekhov, P. C. Hammel, and R. Movshovich, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**92**]{}, 214104 (2008). E. Nazaretski, T. Mewes, D. Pelekhov, P. C. Hammel, and R. Movshovich, AIP Conf. Proc. [**850**]{}, 1641 (2006). P. Wigen, Thin Solid Films [**114**]{}, 135 (1984). Z. Frait, Physica B&C [**86**]{}, 1241 (1977). 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). S. V. Vonsovskii, [*Ferromagnetic Resonance*]{} (Pergamon: Oxford, New York, 1966). D. V. Pelekhov, I. Martin, and P. C. Hammel, preprint (2007). G. N. Kakazei, P. E. Wigen, K. Yu. Guslenko, V. Novosad, A. N. Slavin, V. O. Golub, N. A. Lesnik, and Y. Otani, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**85**]{}, 443 (2004). M. Saint Jean, S. Hudlet, C. Guthmann, and J. Berger, J. Appl. Phys. [ **86**]{}, 5245 (1999). S. Hudlet, M. Saint Jean, C. Guthmann, and J. Berger, European Physical Journal B [**2**]{}, 5 (1998).

--- abstract: 'Several situations, in which an empty wave causes an observable effect, are reviewed. They include an experiment showing “surrealistic trajectories” proposed by Englert et al. and protective measurement of the density of the quantum state. Conditions for observable effects due to empty waves are derived. The possibility (in spite of the existence of these examples) of minimalistic interpretation of Bohmian Quantum Mechanics in which only Bohmian positions supervene on our experience is discussed.' author: - Lev Vaidman title: 'The Reality in Bohmian Quantum Mechanics or Can You Kill with an Empty Wave Bullet?' --- School of Physics and Astronomy Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel INTRODUCTION {#intr} ============ I have my most vivid memories of Jim Cushing from “Bohmian conference” in 1995 which took place in Bielefeld, Germany and had the title “Quantum Theory without Observers”. The majority of participants were devoted Bohmians and most of the talks and discussions were about meaning and achievements of Bohmian quantum mechanics [@Bohm; @Gold]. At that time I already was an enthusiastic proponent of the Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI) [@Eve], and Bohmian interpretation, which close to the MWI, was very intriguing for me. Illuminating discussions with Jim Cushing led me to think more about Bohmian Interpretation. I am still a strong proponent of the MWI [@MWIStan]. The main reason for this is not the philosophical advantage of the plurality of worlds, but a desire to view physics as a theory of everything. The main obstacle for this is the collapse of the quantum wave. Collapse introduces randomness into physics, it puts limits on predictive power of physics. There is no attractive proposal for a physical theory of collapse, and, moreover, it seems impossible to define when collapse occur. I get used to the idea of plurality of worlds, but a theory without collapse and with a single world is clearly a better theory of everything. In some sense, Bohmian quantum mechanics is such theory. (Note, however, that Bohm himself never viewed his theory in that way. I had elaborate discussion with him in South Carolina in 1989 in which he explained that his theory is another step in the evolution of physics and there will never be the final theory of everything.) The main reason (apart from nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics) why I still prefer the MWI, is that it does not really eliminate the plurality of worlds. The formalism still has many, many “empty wave” worlds in which I walk, eat, slip and, in particular, write papers. Nevertheless, Bohmian mechanics achieves something that no other theory was able to do: to single out in a pretty natural way a single world out of the plurality of worlds in the MWI. (Note that in some special cases the Bohmian world might slightly differ from the world of the MWI [@AVBohm]). In the MWI, the Wave Function of the Universe is decomposed into superposition of branches in which the shape of the wave function yield a sensible picture, and the time evolution of the wave function of a branch yields a sensible story (with possible further branching). It is postulated that our experience corresponds to all branches with sensible stories. In the Bohmian mechanics, or, at least, in my approach to Bohmian mechanics, it is postulated that our experience corresponds to Bohmian positions. Bohmian positions correspond to a sensible picture in three dimensions which evolves in time and yields a sensible [*single*]{} story. The same arguments which start from the locality of known interactions (which are frequently named as decoherence theory) yield plurality of particular sensible stories in the MWI and a single story (usually identical to one of the MWI stories) in the Bohmian mechanics. In my approach our experience is related solely to Bohmian positions and not to the quantum state (the wave function). It is not a new approach: it seems to me that it is the [*pilot wave*]{} approach as Bell [@Bell] understood it, and maybe De Broglie imagined it. Bedard [@Beda] attributes this view also. to Holland [@Ho], Maudlin [@Mad] and Albert [@Alb]. In this paper I am going to analyze the significance of empty waves in the light of recent results about position measurements which do not show Bohmian positions. I will conclude with discussion of the interpretation, advocating minimalistic approach according to which our experience supervene only on Bohmian positions (and not on the quantum wave). I add a short discussion of Bedard’s arguments against minimalistic interpretation in the appendix. Can an empty wave kill? ======================= Consider a gedanken experiment in which a bullet splits its quantum wave at a “beam splitter” into two equal weight wave packets, one moving toward a cat, while another misses the cat. For simplicity, we consider equal, uniform density, spherical wave packets. Consider a situation that the Bohmian position of the bullet is inside the wave packet that misses the cat, see Fig. 1. It was generally believed that in this situation we should not worry about cat’s health. However, recently, there were several works showing that empty waves can have observable effects. Hardy [@Ha92] discussed empty waves in the interaction free measurements [@EV93], Englert et al. [@Sur] discovered “Surrealistic Bohmian trajectories” in which an empty wave leaves a trace of its trajectory and Aharonov et al. [@PMBohm1; @PMBohm2] showed that in protective measurements [@PM; @PM1] one can observe the shape of the quantum wave, while the Bohmian particle is essentially at rest and does not visit the regions where the value of the wave function is measured. [Fig. 1. A bullet is fired toward a cat, but after the beamsplitter only an empty wave of a bullet comes toward him. Bohmian particle position, signified by a black dot travels away with the other part of the quantum wave. ]{} .5cm An empty wave can, in the future, reach the Bohmian position of the particle and cease to be “empty”. Clearly, at this stage it can lead to observable changes, i.e. to change Bohmian trajectory. Bell [@Bell] pointed out that usually it will be a dominant influence. Consider the two wave packets of the “bullet” which are forced to overlap again (as in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer without second beam-splitter), see Fig. 2. At the point of the overlap, the empty wave “grabs” the Bohmian particle. Indeed, this result can be immediately seen from Bell’s presentation of Bohm’s theory in the form of the pilot wave where the velocity of Bohmian position of a particle depends on the current density and the wave density at the location of the Bohmian particle: $$\vec{v}={\vec{j} \over \rho} \ , \label{eqmot}$$ where $\rho(\vec{x} ) = |\psi(\vec{x} )|^2$, and $\vec{j}=\frac{\hbar}{2 i m} \{\psi^*\vec{\nabla}\psi-\psi\vec{\nabla}\psi^*\}$. The velocity in the region of the overlap of the two wave packets is given by $$\vec{v}={{\vec{j_1}+\vec{j_2}}\over { \rho_1 + \rho_2}}={{\vec{v_1} + \vec{v_2}}\over 2} \ , \label{eqmot12}$$ where indexes “1” and “2” correspond to the two wave packets. The horizontal component of the velocity of the Bohmian particle vanishes during the time it is inside both wave packets. So, from the moment of the overlap starts the competition between the two wave packet: which one will keep the point inside it longer? When one wave packet leaves, the point continue to move with the velocity of the second wave packet and it remains inside it. Since at the beginning of the overlap, the Bohmian position is at the boundary of the empty wave packet and it is inside the other one, the empty wave has longer way to go and it always “wins” the competition: the empty wave “grabs” the Bohmian particle. [Fig. 2. Trajectory of a Bohmian particle in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer without second beamsplitter. At the meeting point of empty and nonempty wave packets, the Bohmian particle “changes hands” and continues to move with what was before an empty wave.]{} .5cm The situation is different if the empty wave bullet on its way “kills” an “empty wave” cat, see Fig. 3. Even if the physics is such that the bullet goes through the cat without significant delay and the empty wave packet of the bullet comes in time to overlap with the non-empty wave packet, the empty wave does not grab the Bohmian particle in this case. Indeed, the velocity of the Bohmian particle in the region of the overlap is $$\vec{v}={{\vec{j_1}}\over { \rho_1 }}=\vec{v_1}, \label{eqmot13}$$ where $\vec{v_1}$ is the velocity of the non-empty wave packet. The reason is that at the time of the overlap of the wave packets of the bullet, the wave packets of some parts of the cat’s body do not overlap. The wave packets of these parts, entangled with an empty wave bullet, move relative to the case of the undisturbed cat. The Bohmian positions of the particles in the cat’s body are that of an uninjured cat, and therefore, the wave packets of some particles of the body entangled with the empty wave packet of the bullet do not contain the Bohmian particle inside it. In the configuration space of all involved particles (of the bullet and of the cat) there are two wave packets but the Bohmian position belongs only to one of them. [Fig. 3. Trajectory of Bohmian particle in a modified experiment. When the empty wave “kills” on its way, it does not influences the Bohmian trajectory in the future even if it overlaps with the nonempty wave as it was in Fig. 2.]{} Surrealistic trajectories ========================= The examples presented above are not too surprising (although we are not used in Newtonian mechanics to change in velocity without interaction as in Fig. 2): the empty wave influences other objects only when it cease to be an empty wave. A really surprising result was discovered by Englert et al. [@Sur]. They realized that if (instead of killing a cat) the bullet will flip spins on its way, then the Bohmian trajectory will be as if the wave packets move in a free space, see Fig. 4. Nevertheless, the flipped spins show a different trajectory. There were many discussions regarding the meaning and significance of this example [@ST1; @ST2; @ST3; @ST4; @Bar]. When I first heard about this result, I did not believe it until I checked it myself. [Fig. 4. Surrealistic trajectories. The trace of flipped spins and the actual trajectory of Bohmian particle are different. Which one is “surrealistic” is a matter of interpretation. (Note that flipped quantum waves of spins are only in one branch of the universal wave function, the branch corresponding to particular detection of the particle in the detector on the left.]{} .5cm My modification of this idea is to consider a very fast particle moving in a special bubble chamber in which the bubbles are developed slowly. During the time the particle moves inside the interferometer, the quantum states of electrons of excited atoms which later create the bubbles have no enough time to move out of the Bohmian positions of the electrons that are at rest at this time. The electron Bohmian positions are at rest because the excited states do not contribute to the Bohmian velocity when the Bohmian position of the wave packet of the particle moves in another place. The result of the experiment (which can be seen only much later) is a trace of bubbles corresponding to one trajectory while the trajectory of the Bohmian position is the other one, Fig. 5. The bubbles show the trajectory of the empty wave! [Fig. 5. The trace of (slow developing) bubbles shows trajectory which is different from the trajectory of the Bohmian particle. (Again, these are the bubbles of the branch of the wave function corresponding to a particular world.) This is an example in which the “world” of the MWI is different form the “world” of Bohmian Mechanics: in the Bohmian world the particle moved in the left arm of the interferometer, while in the (postselected) MWI world it moved in the right arm.]{} Protective Measurements ======================== Another situation in which position measurements do not show Bohmian positions are [*weak measurements*]{} [@AV90; @AVBohm] and in particular, weak adiabatic measurements of position of a particle in nondegenerate energy eigenstates. Such measurements are called [*protective measurements*]{} [@PM; @PM1; @PMBohm1; @PMBohm2]. In protective measurements we find, at the end, the wave function of the particle. In many energy eigenstates the Bohmian particle does not move, so it seems that the local values of the wave function obtained in the experiment arise without the Bohmian particle being at the vicinity of this location. However, it is not obvious that the measuring interaction in the process of the protective measurement does not move the Bohmian positions in such a way that the results of protective measurements could be explained as the time average of the presence of the Bohmian particle in a particular place. There have been an extensive analysis of this question and it has been shown that it is not the case, i.e. that the spacial profile of the wave function is obtained without the Bohmian particle being present in most of the regions of the non-vanishing wave function. Consider a particle in a potential well, whose initial wave function is the ground state, Fig. 6. We assume that Bohmian position is in point $A$ and we want to measure the density of the quantum wave at point $B$. If we introduce an adiabatic and weak perturbation of the potential which eventually goes to zero, we know that the wave function coincides at any moment with the ground state of the instantaneous Hamiltonian (we assume that the ground state is always nondegenerate). Our assumptions about the perturbation which is required for performing protective measurement of the density of the wave function at the vicinity of $B$ ensure that the change in the wave function is small at all times and eventually vanishes. The lemma proved by Aharonov et al. [@PMBohm2] tells us that the change in particle position is likewise small at all times. Thus, the perturbation of the potential at the vicinity of $B$ due to the measurement will not change the Bohmian position significantly (which was originally at $A$) and will not bring it to $B$. So, for a Bohmian particle in a given position, we can probe the wave function in most other positions without the particle ever being present there. [Fig. 6. Ground state of a particle in a one-dimensional box. We can measure the density of particle’s quantum wave at the vicinity of $B$ while the Bohmian position remains at the vicinity of $A$.]{} Conditions for observable effects of empty waves ================================================ To summarize above examples let us state clearly the conditions at which empty waves cause an observable effect. There are three conditions: i\) Counterfactually, the wave should cause an observable effect if at the particular time the Bohmian particle was inside it (i.e. the wave packet was a non-empty wave). The meaning of “observable effect” is that some other system changes significantly its quantum state. ii\) At the time of the observation of the effect, the Bohmian particle should be inside the wave. (At this later time the wave is not in the interaction region, so the direct effect is absent, and we still can consider it as an effect caused by an empty wave.) iii\) The change of the quantum waves of other objects (the “observable effect” of (i)) should be such that the spacial densities of their quantum waves are not changed significantly: they should not leave the locations of the Bohmian positions of the undisturbed objects. Trivially, (i) takes place in all our examples: in Surrealistic trajectories spins are flipped, in the bubble chamber experiment the bubbles leave an observable trace and in the protective measurement, the pointer of the measuring device changes its state. Figures 4 and 5 show that condition (ii) is satisfied both in the spin and in the bubble chamber experiments. In both cases, at the end of the experiment, the Bohmian particles inside the wave packet which was an empty wave packet before. In the experiment with spins, the spacial wave function of the spin particles remains without any change, i.e. (iii) is fulfilled. In the bubble chamber experiment there is some change in the spacial wave function of the particle, but it is insignificant. Indeed, (iii) is fulfilled due to the condition of the fast moving particle and slow developing bubbles. In the analysis of protective measurement, there is a difficulty with defining “empty” and “non-empty” wave packets. We have to divide the quantum wave of the particle into two parts: one includes point $A$, the location of the Bohmian particle, and another includes point $B$ where the measurement is performed. The problem is that, while the total wave function is essentially constant, the wave packet which is the part of the complete wave evolves in a nontrivial way. In particular, whatever part including $B$ we take, it will very soon evolve and reach $A$, i.e., it will cease to be an empty wave. This explains how (ii) is fulfilled in protective measurements. The basic property of weak measurements is that the position of the pointer of the measuring device has large quantum uncertainty (it is necessary for having small value of the conjugate momentum which appears in the interaction Hamiltonian). Thus, protective measurements fulfill property (iii). So, can an empty wave of a bullet kill? The answer is that only a very special bullet can do this. First, it should later reach the location of its Bohmian position. It sounds as a difficult, but not impossible task. Second, it should not cause immediate change of Bohmian positions of particles in the cat’s body, i.e., until the bullet reaches its Bohmian position. This tells us that the bullet cannot be a usual bullet, which makes holes immediately after it passes through the body. One might imagine that the bullet is just a single very fast particle. But then property (i) can hardly be satisfied. A single particle passing through a body does not kill. Interpretation ============== In Surrealistic Bohm trajectories [@Sur] as well as in the other examples described above, a seemingly correct experiment shows one trajectory, while calculations yield that Bohmian trajectory is different. Nevertheless, I do not see a direct contradiction with the minimalistic approach to Bohmian theory in which our experience supervene solely on Bohmian position. I believe that a Bohmian proponent has a good defense in the following argument: conceptually, in the framework of the Bohmian theory these experiments are [ *not*]{} good verification measurements. Prediction of Bohmian theory for the motion of the particle is a vector function of time $\vec{r}(t)$. To test it we have to test the location of the particle at different times. Since “reality” corresponds only to Bohmian positions, we have to read the locations using Bohmian positions of the measuring device at that time. In all our surprising examples Bohmian particles of measuring devices moved only much later, not at the time in which the particle position was observed. When the Bohmian position of the measuring device was measured at the same time (as in the example presented in Fig. 2), no surprising behavior was observed. So, the Bohmian picture in which our experience supervene on Bohmian positions is consistent. There are no experiments in which a “good” measurement of position (a measurement that records the position of a particle at a particular time using Bohmian positions of the measuring devices), shows results which are inconsistent with calculated Bohmian positions. Still, these surprising examples make Bohmian approach less attractive: We see that there are important causal structures which cannot be explained using Bohmian positions alone, without explicit description of the quantum wave. For me it adds to the objections of the proponent of the MWI to the Bohmian approach. It leaves in the formalism the structure of all parallel worlds, but claims that they are not related to our experience. But in these empty worlds the wave in the shape of Lev Vaidman might also write a paper in the empty wave copy of the Foundations of Physics Journal, so how You, the reader, know that this is not such an empty wave world? Appendix: Bedard’s Arguments ============================ The abstract of Bedard’s paper is: > According to the traditional presentation of Bohm’s interpretation we have immediate epistemic access to particle properties but not wave function properties, and mental states, pointer states, and ink patterns supervene on particle properties alone. I argue that these claims do not make physical sense, and I offer an alternative account that does. What I accept or postulate (in the framework of my understanding of Bohmian mechanics) is that mental states supervene on particle properties alone. My motivation is not to get “classicality” as Bedard suggests: the experiments show that Nature does not follow the laws of classical physics, so there is no reason to put physics into a classical picture. My reason to turn to Bohm is to find a way of seeing a single world corresponding to the formalism of the physical theory of the universe, since I see that many physicists and philosophers have considerable difficulty with accepting numerous parallel worlds which we do not observe directly. Bedard’s arguments have already been criticized by Dickson [@Dick]. As far as I can understand his philosophical jargon my refutation of Bedard is similar, but I believe it will be helpful to write here my arguments too. Bedard’s objection is that Bohmian positions at a single moment and without additional information of the properties of the particles are not enough to describe the reality. This is a correct statement, but Bohmians do not claim the opposite. The task of Bohmian (as well as any other) interpretation is to find correspondence between the mathematical formalism of the physical theory and our experience. Since conscious experience requires some period of time, we [*have*]{} to consider trajectories at some period of time and not just an instantaneous configuration for describing (defining) objects. Thus, an object made out of electrons only, in a configuration of a (real) cat made of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., will cease to have the configuration of a cat long time before it can be perceived as a cat. The configuration of Bohmian particles have the shape of a cat for a considerable time if, and only if, they related to the right kind of particles and they have appropriate quantum wave. It is possible to imagine Universe with different physical interactions in which my last statement is not true. But for physical interaction we have in our Universe it is true. Philosophical arguments of Dickson tell us that the situation in our Universe is relevant. Except for some very specific situations which are difficult to arrange and which probably were never arranged in real laboratories, everything we see or perceive in some other way is described correctly by trajectories of Bohmian particles. Bedard claims that there are problems also with color and television screen pictures. I do not think that it is so: I expect no conceptual problem with defining Bohmian positions for photons. However, I can also avoid this discussion using the research of perception by our brains made by Aicardi et al. [@GRWbrain] in order to answer the criticism of Albert and myself [@AlV] of a Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber collapse proposal [@GRW]. We pointed out that in a Stern-Gerlach experiment in which the particle with the spin hits a fluorescent screen, the GRW collapse might not take place until the light from the screen comes to our eyes in spite of the fact that macroscopic number of atoms become excited in this process. Aicardi et al.[@GRWbrain] answered that inside the brain, in the process of perception, numerous cells move macroscopic distance depending on what we see, so at least inside the brain one can find the shape of Bohmian particles corresponding to what we have seen. Thus, it is feasible that our mental states supervene on particle positions alone. **ACKNOWLEDGMENTS** It is a pleasure to thank Halina Abramowicz, Yakir Aharonov, Noam Erez and Shelly Goldstein for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by grant 62/01 of the Israel Science Foundation. [99]{} Bohm, D., Part I, Phys. Rev. **85**, 166; Part II, Phys. Rev. **85**,180 (1952). S. Goldstein, “Bohmian Mechanics”, in [*The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*]{} (Winter 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/qm-bohm/. H. Everett, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 454 (1957). L. Vaidman, “The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, [*The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*]{} (Summer 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/. Y. Aharonov, and L. Vaidman, in [*Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal*]{}, J.T. Cushing, A. Fine, S. Goldstein, eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1996). J.S. Bell, Int. J. Quan. Chem. [**14**]{}, 155 (1980). K. Bedard, Phil. Sci. [**66**]{}, 221 (1999). P.R. Holland, [*Quantum Theory of Motion*]{}, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). T. Maudlin, [*Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity*]{}, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994). D. Albert, [*Quantum Mechanics and Experience*]{} (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). L. Hardy, Phys. Lett. A [**167**]{}, 11 (1992). A. C. Elitzur, and L. Vaidman, Found. Phys. [**23**]{}, 987 (1993). B.G. Englert, M.O. Scully, G. Süssmann, and H.Z. Walther, Naturforsch. [**47a**]{}, 1175 (1992). Y. Aharonov, B.G. Englert, and M.O. Scully, Phys. Lett. A **263**, 137 (1999); **266**, 216 (2000). Y. Aharonov, N. Erez, and M.O. Scully, Phys. Scrip., to be published. Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, Phys. Lett. [**A 178**]{}, 38 (1993). Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. [**A 47**]{}, 4616 (1993). D. Dürr, W. Fusseder, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghi, Z. Naturforsch. **48a**, 1261 (1993). C. Dewdney, L. Hardy, E.J. Squires, Phys. Lett. A **184**, 6 (1993). K. Berndl, M. Daumer, D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghi, Nuovo Cimento **110B**, 737 (1995). H. R. Brown, C. Dewdney, and G. Horton, Found. Phys. **25**, 329 (1995). J.A. Barrett Phil. Sci. [**67**]{}, 680 (2000). Y. Aharonov, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. [**A 41**]{}, 11 (1990). M. Dickson, Phil. Sci. [**67**]{}, 704 (2000). F. Aicardi, A. Borsellino, G.C. Ghirardi, and R. Grassi, Found. Phys. Lett. [**4**]{}, 109 (1991). D. Albert and L. Vaidman, Phys. Let. [**A 139**]{}, 1 (1989). G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev.[**D 34**]{}, 470 (1986).

--- abstract: 'Time-constrained decision processes have been ubiquitous in many fundamental applications in physics, biology and computer science. Recently, restart strategies have gained significant attention for boosting the efficiency of time-constrained processes by expediting the completion times. In this work, we investigate the bandit problem with controlled restarts for time-constrained decision processes, and develop provably good learning algorithms. In particular, we consider a bandit setting where each decision takes a random completion time, and yields a random and correlated reward at the end, with unknown values at the time of decision. The goal of the decision-maker is to maximize the expected total reward subject to a time constraint $\tau$. As an additional control, we allow the decision-maker to interrupt an ongoing task and forgo its reward for a potentially more rewarding alternative. For this problem, we develop efficient online learning algorithms with $O(\log(\tau))$ and $O(\sqrt{\tau\log(\tau)})$ regret in a finite and continuous action space of restart strategies, respectively. We demonstrate an applicability of our algorithm by using it to boost the performance of SAT solvers.' author: - | Semih Cayci cayci.1@osu.edu\ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\ The Ohio State University\ Columbus, OH 43210, USA Atilla Eryilmaz eryilmaz.2@osu.edu\ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\ The Ohio State University\ Columbus, OH 43210, USA R. Srikant rsrikant@illinois.edu\ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\ University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\ Urbana, IL 61801, USA bibliography: - 'main.bib' title: 'Continuous-Time Multi-Armed Bandits with Controlled Restarts' --- Multi-Armed Bandits, Reinforcement Learning, Exploration-Exploitation Trade-off, Online Learning, $k$-SAT Problem Introduction ============ Time-constrained processes, which continue until the total time spent exceeds a given time horizon, have long been a focal point of scientific interest as a consequence of their universal applicability in a broad class of disciplines including physics, biochemistry and computer science [@redner2001guide; @condamin2007first]. Recently, it has been shown that any time-constrained process can employ controlled restarts with the goal of expediting the completion times, thus increasing the time-efficiency of stochastic systems [@pal2017first]. Consequently, restart strategies have attracted significant attention to boost the time-efficiency of stochastic systems in various contexts. They have been extensively used to study diffusion mechanics [@evans2011diffusion; @pal2016diffusion], target search applications [@kusmierz2014first; @eliazar2007searching], catalyzing biochemical reactions [@rotbart2015michaelis], throughput maximization [@asmussen2008asymptotic], and run-times of randomized algorithms [@hoos2004stochastic; @luby1993optimal; @selman1994noise]. In particular, they have been widely used as a tool for the optimization of randomized algorithms that employ stochastic local search methods whose running times exhibit heavy-tailed behavior [@luby1993optimal; @gomes1998boosting]. In this paper, we investigate the exploration-exploitation problem in the context of time-constrained decision processes under controlled restarts, and develop online learning algorithms to learn the optimal action and restart strategy in a knapsack bandit framework. This learning problem has unique dynamics: the cumulative reward function is a controlled and stopped random walk with potentially heavy-tailed increments, and the restart mechanism leads to right-censored feedback, which imposes a specific information structure. In order to design efficient learning algorithms that fully capture these dynamics, we incorporate new design and analysis techniques from bandit theory, renewal theory and statistical estimation. As a fundamental application of this framework, we investigate the learning problem for boosting the stochastic local search methods under restart strategies both theoretically and empirically. In particular, our empirical studies on various $k$-SAT databases show that the learning algorithms introduced in this paper can be efficiently used as a *meta-algorithm* to boost the time-efficiency of SAT solvers. Related Work ------------ Bandit problem with knapsack constraints and its variants have been studied extensively in the last decade. In [@gyorgy2007continuous; @badanidiyuru2013bandits; @combes2015bandits; @xia2015thompson; @tran2012knapsack; @cayci2020budget], the problem was considered in a stochastic setting. This basic setting was extended to linear contextual setting [@agrawal2016linear], combinatorial semi-bandit setting [@sankararaman2017combinatorial], adversarial bandit setting [@immorlica2019adversarial]. For further details in this branch of bandit theory, we refer to [@slivkins2019introduction]. As a substantial difference, these works do not incorporate a restart or cancellation mechanism into the learning problem. The restart mechanisms have been popular particularly in the context of boosting the Las Vegas algorithms. The pioneering work in this branch is [@luby1993optimal], where a minimax restart strategy is proposed to achieve optimal expected run-time up to a logarithmic factor. In [@gagliolo2007learning], a hybrid learning strategy between Luby scheme and a fixed restart strategy is developed in the adversarial setting. In [@streeter2009online], an algorithm portfolio design methodology that employs a restart strategy is developed as an extension of the Exp3 Algorithm in the non-stochastic bandit setting, and polynomial regret is shown with respect to a constant factor approximation of the optimal strategy. These works are designed in a non-stochastic setting for worst-case performance metric, thus they do not incorporate the statistical structure of the problem that we consider in this work. The most related paper in the budget-constrained bandit setting is [@cayci2019learning]. This current paper provides improves and extends [@cayci2019learning] in multiple directions. We propose algorithms that work on continuous set of restart times, incorporate empirical estimates to eliminate the necessity of the prior knowledge on the moments. We also investigate the impact of correlation between the completion time and reward on the behavior of the restart times. In light of the above related work, our main contributions in this paper are as follows: - This work intends to provide a principled approach to continuous-time exploration-exploitation problems that require restart strategies for optimal time efficiency. In order to achieve this, we study and explain the impact of restart strategies in a general knapsack bandit setting that includes potentially heavy-tailed and correlated time-reward pairs for each arm. From a technical perspective, the design and regret analysis of learning algorithms requires tools from renewal theory and stochastic control, as well as novel concentration inequalities for rate estimation, which can be useful in other bandit problems as well. - For a finite set of restart times, we propose algorithms that use variance estimates and the information structure that stems from the right-censored feedback so as to achieve order-optimal regret bounds with no prior knowledge. In particular, we propose: - The UCB-RB Algorithm based on empirical rate estimation to achieve particularly good performance for small restart times, - The UCB-RM Algorithm based on median-boosted rate estimation to achieve good performance in a very general setting of large (potentially infinite) restart times at the expense of degraded performance for small restart times. These algorithms utilize empirical estimates as a surrogate for unknown parameters, hence they provably achieve tight regret bounds with no prior information on the parameters. - For a continuous decision set for restart strategies, we propose an algorithm called UCB-RC that achieves $O(\sqrt{\tau\log(\tau)})$ regret. - We evaluate the performance of the learning algorithm developed in this paper for the $k$-SAT problem on a SATLIB dataset by using WalkSAT, and empirically show its efficiency by comparing the results with benchmark strategies including Luby strategy. Notation -------- In this subsection, we define some notation that will be used throughout the paper. $\mathbb{I}$ denotes the indicator function. For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$, $[k]$ denotes the set of integers from 1 to $k$, i.e., $[k]=\{1,2,\ldots,k\}$. For $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $(x)_+=\max\{0,x\}$. For two real numbers $x,y$, we define $x\wedge y = \min\{x, y\}$ and $x\vee y = \max\{x, y\}$. In the following section, we describe the problem setting in detail. System Setup {#sec:problem} ============ We consider a time-constrained decision process with a given time horizon $\tau > 0$. The increments of the process are controlled as follows: if arm $k\in[K]$ is selected at the $n$-th trial, the random completion time is $X_{k,n}$, that is independent across $k$ and independent over $n$ for each $k$ with the following weak conditions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:moment-assn} {\mathbb{E}}[X_{k,1}^p] &< \infty,~p \geq 4,\\ X_{k,n}&>0,~a.s.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $X_{k,n}$ can potentially be a heavy-tailed random variable. Pulling arm $k$ at trial $n$ yields a reward $R_{k,n}$ at the end. Note that we allow $R_{k,n}$ to be possibly correlated with $X_{k,n}$, and for simplicity, we assume that $R_{k,n}\in[0,1]$ almost surely. In our framework, the controller has the option to interrupt an ongoing task and restart it with a potentially different arm. Namely, for a set of *restart* (or *cutoff*) times $\mathbb{T}\subset [0,\infty]$, the controller may prefer to restart the task from its initial state after time $t\in\mathbb{T}$ at the loss of the ultimate rewards and possible additional time-varying cost of restarting the process. The additional cost is included, since in some applications, it may take a *resetting time* to return to the initial state after a reset decision [@evans2011diffusion]. We model the resetting time as $C_k(t)\in[0,t]$, which is a deterministic function of $t\in\mathbb{T}$ known by the controller for simplicity. Note that the design and analysis presented in this paper can be extended to random resetting time processes in a straightforward way. If the $n$-th trial of arm $k$ is restarted at time $t\in\mathbb{T}$, then the resulting total time and reward are as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:ukl} U_{k,n}(t) &= \min\{X_{k,n}, t\}+C_k(t)\mathbb{I}\{X_{k,n}>t\},\\ V_{k,n}(t) &= R_{k,n}\mathbb{I}\{X_{k,n}\leq t\},\end{aligned}$$ Note that the feedback $(U_{k,n}(t),V_{k,n}(t))$ in this case is right-censored. Incorporating the restart mechanism, the control of the decision-maker consists of two decisions at $n$-th trial: $$\pi_{n} = (I_n, \nu_n)\in[K]\times\mathbb{T}.$$ Here, $I_n\in[K]$ denotes the arm decision, and $\nu_n\in\mathbb{T}$ denotes the restart time decision. Under a policy $\pi=\{\pi_n:n\geq 1\}$, let $$\mathcal{F}_n^\pi=\sigma\big(\{(U_{I_i,i}(\nu_i),V_{I_i,i}(\nu_i):i=1,2,\ldots,n\}\big),$$ be the history until $n$-th trial. We call a policy $\pi$ admissible if $\pi_{n+1}\in\mathcal{F}_n^\pi$ for all $n\geq 1$. For a given time horizon $\tau > 0$, the objective of the decision-maker is to maximize the expected cumulative reward collected in the time interval $[0,\tau]$. Specifically, letting $$N_\pi(\tau) = \inf\{n:\sum_{i=1}^nU_{I_i,i}(\nu_i)>\tau\},$$ be the number of pulls under policy $\pi$, the cumulative reward under $\pi$ is defined as follows: $${\tt REW}_\pi(\tau) = \sum_{n=1}^{N_\pi(\tau)}V_{I_n,n}(\nu_n).$$ The decision-maker attempts to achieve the optimal reward: $$\label{eqn:opt-reward} {\tt OPT}(\tau) = \max\limits_{\pi\in\Pi}~{\mathbb{E}}[{\tt REW}_\pi(\tau)],$$ where $\Pi$ is the set of all admissible policies. Equivalently, it aims to minimize the expected regret: $${\tt REG}_\pi(\tau) = {\tt OPT}(\tau)-{\mathbb{E}}[{\tt REW}_\pi(\tau)].$$ In the following section, we provide a notable example that falls within the scope of this framework. Application: Boosting the Local Search for $k$-SAT ================================================== Boolean satisfiability (SAT) is a canonical NP-complete problem [@hoos2004stochastic; @arora2009computational]. As a consequence, the design of efficient SAT solvers has been an important long standing challenge, and an annual SAT Competition is held for SAT solvers [@heule2019sat]. In these competitions, the objective of a SAT solver is to solve as many problem instances as possible within a given time interval $[0,\tau]$, which defines a time-constrained decision process. As a result of the completion time distributions, the restart strategies have been an essential part of the SAT solvers [@luby1993optimal; @selman1994noise]. The WalkSAT Algorithm is one of the most fundamental SAT solvers [@papadimitriou1991selecting; @hoos2004stochastic]. In its most basic form, it employs a randomized local search methodology to converge to a valid assignment of the problem instance: at each trial, it randomly chooses an assignment, then a chosen variable is flipped, and its new value is kept if the number of satisfied clauses increases [@papadimitriou1991selecting]. Experimental studies indicate that the completion time of $n$-th trial, $X_{1,n}$, is a heavy-tailed random variable with potentially infinite mean [@gomes1998boosting]. Moreover, the successive trials of the same instance have iid completion times as a result of the random initialization. As such, the problem of maximizing the number of solved problem instances within $[0,\tau]$ can be formulated as with $R_{1,n}=1$ for all $n$, and the online learning algorithms in this paper can be used as meta-algorithms to boost the performance of the WalkSAT. We will use this problem for testing the benefits of our design for boosting SAT solvers. Near-Optimal Policies ===================== The control problem described in is a variant of the well-known unknown stochastic knapsack problem [@kleinberg2006algorithm]. In the literature, there are similar problems that are known to be PSPACE-hard [@papadimitriou1999complexity; @badanidiyuru2013bandits]. Therefore, we need tractable algorithms to approximate the optimal policy. In this section, we will propose a simple policy for the problem introduced in Section \[sec:problem\], and prove its efficiency by using the theory of renewal processes and stopping times. In the following, we will first provide an upper bound for ${\tt OPT}(\tau)$. The quantity of interest will be the (renewal) reward rate, which is defined next. For a decision $(k, t)$, the renewal reward rate is defined as follows: $$\label{eqn:rew-rate} r_k(t) = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R_{k,1}\mathbb{I}\{X_{k,1}\leq t\}]}{\mathbb{E}[(X_{k,1}\wedge t)+C_{k}(t)]} = \frac{{\mathbb{E}}[V_{k,1}(t)]}{{\mathbb{E}}[U_{k,1}(t)]}.$$ The reward rate $r_k(t)$ is the growth rate of the expected total reward over time if the controller persistently chooses the action $(k,t)$. In other words, as a consequence of the elementary renewal theorem [@gut2009stopped], the reward of the static policy that persistently makes a decision $(k,t)$ is $\mathbb{E}[{\tt REW}_\pi(\tau)] = r_k(t)\cdot\tau+o(\tau).$ In the following, we provide an upper bound based on $r_k(t)$ and the time horizon $\tau$. \[prop:rew-opt\] Let the optimal reward rate be defined as follows: $$r^*=\arg\max\limits_{(k,t)}~r_k(t).$$ If there exists a $p_0>2$ and $u<\infty$ such that $\mathbb{E}[(X_{k,1})^{p_0}]\leq u$ holds for all $k\in[K]$, then we have the following upper bound for ${\tt OPT}$: $${\tt OPT}(\tau) \leq r^*\big(\tau+\Phi(u)\big),$$ for any $\tau>0$ where $\Phi(u)$ is a constant that is independent of $\tau$. The proof generalizes the optimality gap results in [@xia2015thompson; @cayci2020budget]. Under any admissible policy $\pi\in\Pi$, an extension of Wald’s identity yields the following upper bound: $$\mathbb{E}[{\tt REW}_\pi(\tau)] \leq r^*\mathbb{E}[S_{N_\pi(\tau)}],$$ where $N_\pi(\tau)$ is the first-passage time of the controlled random walk under $\pi$. The excess over the boundary, $\mathbb{E}[S_{N_\pi(\tau)}]-\tau$, is known to be $o(\tau)$ for simple random walks by the elementary renewal theorem [@gut2009stopped]. For controlled random walks, [@lalley1986control] shows that $\mathbb{E}[S_{N_\pi(\tau)}]-\tau=O(u)$, which is independent of $\tau$, if $\mathbb{E}[X_{k,1}^{p_0}]\leq u<\infty$ holds for all $k\in[K]$ for some $p_0>2$. Thus, under the moment assumption , we have $\mathbb{E}[S_{N_\pi(\tau)}]-\tau=O(1)$ as $\tau\rightarrow\infty$. From the discussion above, it is natural to consider an algorithm that optimizes $r_k(t)$ among all decisions $(k,t)$ as an approximation of the optimal policy. Accordingly, the optimal static policy, denoted as $\pi^{\tt st}$, is given in Algorithm \[alg:opt-st\]. $n=0$ $S_n=0$ The performance analysis of $\pi^{\tt st}$ is fairly straightforward since the random process it induces is a simple random walk. \[prop:rew-st\] The reward under $\pi^{\tt st}$ is bounded as follows: $$r^*\tau \leq \mathbb{E}[{\tt REW}_{\pi^{\tt st}}(\tau)] \leq r^*\Big(\tau + \frac{\mathbb{E}[Y_*^2]}{\big(\mathbb{E}[Y_*]\big)^2}\Big),$$ where $Y_* = U_{k^*,1}(t^*)$ is the completion time of an epoch under $\pi^{\tt st}$, and $(k^*, t^*)$ is defined in Algorithm \[alg:opt-st\]. The proof of Proposition \[prop:rew-st\] follows from Lorden’s inequality for renewal processes [@asmussen2008applied]. As a consequence of Proposition \[prop:rew-opt\] and Proposition \[prop:rew-st\], the optimality gap of the static policy is bounded for all $\tau>0$. For any $\tau>0$, the optimality gap of $\pi^{\tt st}$ is bounded: $${\tt OPT}(\tau)-\mathbb{E}[{\tt REW}_{\pi^{\tt st}}(\tau)] \leq r^*\Phi(u),$$ where $\Phi(u)$ is the constant in Prop. \[prop:rew-opt\]. In this section, we observed that the reward rate $r_k(t)$ is the dominant component of the cumulative reward. In the next section, we will analyze the behavior of $r_k(t)$ with respect to the restart time $t$. Finiteness of Optimal Restart Times {#sec:opt-restart} =================================== For any given arm $k\in[K]$ and any set of restart times $\mathbb{T}$, let the optimal restart time be defined as follows: $$t_k^* \in \arg\max_{t\in\mathbb{T}}~r_k(t). \label{eqn:opt-restart-time}$$ If the completion time $X_{k,n}$ and reward $R_{k,n}$ are independent, then it was shown in [@cayci2019learning] that it is optimal to restart a cycle at a finite time if the following condition holds: $$\label{eqn:opt-int-ind} \mathbb{E}[X_{1,k}-t|X_{1,k}>t] > \mathbb{E}[X_{1,k}]$$ for $t\in \mathbb{T}\setminus\{\infty\}$, and it is noted that all heavy-tailed and some light-tailed completion time distributions satisfy this condition. If $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ are correlated, this is no longer true and the situation is more complicated. In the following, we extend this result to correlated $(X_{k,n},R_{k,n})$ pairs, and investigate the effect of the return time $C_{k}(t)$. \[thm:opt-int\] For a given arm $\big(X_{k,n},R_{k,n},C_{k}(t)\big)$, we have $t_k^*<\infty$ if and only if the following holds: $$\frac{\mathbb{E}\big[R_{k,n}\big|X_{k,n}>t\big]}{\mathbb{E}\big[X_{k,n}-\big(t+C_{k}(t)\big)\big|X_{k,n}>t\big]} < \frac{{\mathbb{E}}[R_{k,1}]}{{\mathbb{E}}[X_{k,1}]}, \label{eqn:opt-restart}$$ for some $t > 0$. The proof follows from showing is equivalent to $r_k(t) > {\mathbb{E}}[R_{k,1}]/{\mathbb{E}}[X_{k,1}]$ for any $t >0$. Interpretation of Theorem \[thm:opt-int\] is as follows: for any restart time $t \in \mathbb{T}\setminus\{\infty\}$, if the reward rate of waiting until the completion (i.e., *the residual reward rate*) is lower than the reward rate of a new trial, then it is optimal to restart. Note that is a special case of Theorem \[thm:opt-int\] with immediate returns, i.e., $C_{k}(t)=0$, and $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ are independent. The correlation between $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ has a substantial impact on whether the optimal restart times are finite or not. As an example, let $X_{k,n}\sim Pareto(1, \alpha)$ for some $\alpha \in (1,2)$, and $C_k(t) = 0$ for all $t$. 1. If $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ are independent, then holds and $t_k^* < \infty$, i.e., it is optimal to restart after a finite time. 2. If $R_{k,n}=\omega X_{k,n}^\gamma$ for some $\omega>0$ and $\gamma \geq 1$, then it is optimal to wait until the end of the task, i.e., $t_k^* = \infty$. 3. If $R_{k,n}=\omega X_{k,n}^\gamma$ for $\omega>0$ and $\gamma<1$, then we have $t_k^*<\infty$. The impact of the correlation between $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ on the behavior of optimal restart time is illustrated in Figure \[fig:pareto-correlation\]. ![Impact of correlation between $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ on the optimal restart time for $X_{k,n}\sim Pareto(1,1.2)$ and $\gamma\in[-1,1]$. Positive correlation between the completion time and reward leads to higher restart times, and waiting until the completion of every task is optimal for $\gamma\geq 1$ since waiting becomes more rewarding.[]{data-label="fig:pareto-correlation"}](figs/pareto-correlation.pdf) In the next section, we develop online learning algorithms for the problem, and present the regret bounds. Online Learning Algorithms for Controlled Restarts ================================================== In this section, we develop online learning algorithms with provably good performance guarantees. The right-censored nature of the feedback due to the restart mechanism imposes an interesting information structure to this problem. We first describe the nature of this information structure. Right-Censored Feedback and Information Structure {#subsec:info-structure} ------------------------------------------------- Recall that the feedback we obtain for a decision of $(k, t)$ is the pair of right-censored random variables $(U_{k,n}(t), V_{k,n}(t))$ as in . As a consequence, for any $t^\prime \leq t$, we have the following: $$\begin{aligned} U_{k,n}(t^\prime) &\in \sigma\big(U_{k,n}(t)\big),\\ V_{k,n}(t^\prime) &\in \sigma\big(V_{k,n}(t)\big).\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the feedback from a restart time decision $t>0$ can be faithfully used as a feedback for another restart time decision $t^\prime \leq t$. This implies that the information gain by a large $t\in\mathbb{T}$ is larger compared to $t^\prime\leq t$. Finite Set of Restart Times: [UCB-RB]{} and UCB-RM -------------------------------------------------- We consider a finite $\mathbb{T}=\{t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_L\}$ such that $$t_1< t_2 < \ldots < t_L \leq \infty.$$ Throughout the paper, we assume that any action set $\mathbb{T}$ satisfies the following assumption: Given a decision set $\mathbb{T}$, there exists $\epsilon, \mu_*>0$ that satisfies the following: $${\mathbb{E}}[\min\{X_{k,1},t_1\}] \geq \mu_*,$$ and $${\mathbb{P}}(X_{k,1}\leq t_1|R_{k,1}=\rho) \geq \epsilon,~\forall \rho \in[0,1],$$ for all $k\in[K]$, where $t_1=\min \mathbb{T}$. \[assn:action-set\] Note that Assumption \[assn:action-set\] is a simple technical condition that ensures efficient estimation of $r_k(t)$ from the samples of $(X_{k,n}, R_{k,n})$ for all $t\in\mathbb{T}$. In order to capture the benefits of the information structure, for arm $k$ and restart time decision $t_l$, let $$\mathcal{I}_{k,l}(n) = \{i\leq n:\pi_n = (k, t_l)\}.$$ Then, the available feedback for a decision $(k, t_l)$ is as follows: $$\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n) = \bigcup\limits_{l^\prime \geq l}\mathcal{I}_{k,l}(n).$$ The size of $\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)$, i.e., the number of samples available for $(k,l)$ is defined as follows: $$T_{k,l}^*(n) = |\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)| = \sum_{l^\prime\geq l}T_{k,l^\prime}(n),$$ From above, it is observed that the information structure increases the number of samples substantially for each decision, i.e., $T_{k,l}^*(n) \geq T_{k,l}(n)$ for all $k,l$. The radius of the action set $\mathbb{T}$ has a crucial impact in algorithm design and performance, depending on the tail distributions of the completion times. In the following, we propose two algorithms for small and large (potentially infinite) $t_L$, and compare their characteristics. ### UCB-RB Algorithm The analysis in Section \[sec:opt-restart\] indicates that in many cases, the optimal restart time is finite for arm $k$, i.e., $t_k^*<\infty$. In such cases, the action set $\mathbb{T}$ is localized around the potential optimal restart times, i.e., $t_L$ has a finite value. As a direct consequence of this observation, the support set of the completion times $U_{k,n}(t)$ is small for all $t\in\mathbb{T}$, which enables the use of fast estimation techniques. Below, we propose an algorithm for this setting based on empirical Bernstein inequality inspired by the UCB-B2 Algorithm in the classical stochastic bandits with knapsacks setting [@cayci2020budget]. The UCB-RB Algorithm is based on empirical estimation, and inherently assumes that $t_L<\infty$. For an index set $S\subset \mathbb{Z}_+$, let the empirical mean $\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_S$ and empirical variance $\mathbb{V}_S$ of a random sequence $\{Y_i:i\geq 1\}$ be defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{\mathbb{E}}_S(Y) &= \frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{i\in S}Y_i,\label{eqn:emp-mean}\\ \mathbb{V}_S(Y) &= \frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{i\in S}\Big(Y_i-\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_S[Y]\Big)^2.\label{eqn:emp-var}\end{aligned}$$ For any $(k,t_l)$ pair, let: $$\label{eqn:emp-rate} \widehat{r}_{k,l,n} = \frac{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}[V_{k}(t_l)]}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}[U_{k}(t_l)]},$$ be the empirical reward rate. For $\alpha > 2$ and $\beta \in (0,1)$, let $$\label{eqn:emp-radius} c_{k,l,n} = \frac{(\beta+1)^2}{1-\beta}\frac{\eta_{k,l,n}+\widehat{r}_{k,l,n}\epsilon_{k,l,n}}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}[U_{k}(t_l)]},$$ for the confidence radii $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{k,l,n} &= \frac{3t_l\log(n^\alpha)}{T_{k,l}^*(n)}+\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(U_k(t_l))\log(n^\alpha)}{T_{k,l}^*(n)}},\\ \eta_{k,l,n} &= \frac{3\log(n^\alpha)}{T_{k,l}^*(n)}+\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(V_k(t_l))\log(n^\alpha)}{T_{k,l}^*(n)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the controller under UCB-RB makes a decision at $(n+1)$-th stage as follows: $$(I_{n+1},\nu_{n+1})\in\underset{(k,t_l)\in[K]\times\mathbb{T}}{\arg\max}~\big\{\widehat{r}_{k,l,n}+c_{k,l,n}\big\}.$$ The [UCB-RB]{} Algorithm is defined in detail in Algorithm \[alg:ucb-r\]. $n=1, i=1$ $S_0=0$ // Begin initialization for [init]{} trials\ Note that the information structure that stems from the right-censored feedback is utilized in [UCB-RB]{}. As we will see in the performance analysis, this information structure leads to substantial improvements in the performance. In the following, we provide problem-dependent regret upper bounds for the UCB-RB Algorithm. \[thm:ucb-rb\] For any arm $k$ and restart time $t_l$, let $\Delta_{k,l} = r_*-r_k(t_l)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{C}_{k,l} &= \mathbb{C}^2\big(U_{k,1}(t_l)\big)+\mathbb{C}^2\big(V_{k,1}(t_l)\big),\\ \mathbb{K}_{k,l} &= \mathbb{K}\big(U_{k,1}(t_l)\big)+\mathbb{K}\big(V_{k,1}(t_l)\big),\\ \mathbb{B}_{k,l} &= \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[V_{k,1}(t_l)]} + \frac{2t_l}{\mathbb{E}[U_{k,1}(t_l)]}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{C}(X)$ and $\mathbb{K}(X)$ is the coefficient of variation and kurtosis of a random variable $X$, respectively [@asmussen2008asymptotic]. Then, the regret under the UCB-RB Algorithm is bounded as follows: $${\tt REG}_{\pi^{\tt B}}(\tau) \leq \sum_{k}3\alpha \min\{\xi_k,\xi_k^{\prime}\}\log(\tau)+O(KL),$$ where for each $k\in[K]$ $$\begin{aligned} \xi_k &= \sum_{l=1}^L\Delta_{k,l}\cdot\mu_{k,l}\cdot \Big\{z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{k,l}\frac{r_*^2}{\Delta_{k,l}^2}+\frac{2z(\beta)r_*\mathbb{B}_{k,l}}{\Delta_{k,l}}+8\big(\mathbb{K}_{k,l}+\mathbb{B}_{k,l}^2\big)\Big\},\\ \tilde{\xi}_k &= \max_l\{\Delta_{k,l}\cdot\mu_{k,l}\}\cdot \max_l\Big\{z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{k,l}\frac{r_*^2}{\Delta_{k,l}^2}+2z(\beta)\mathbb{B}_{k,l}\frac{r_*}{\Delta_{k,l}}+8\big(\mathbb{K}_{k,l}+\mathbb{B}_{k,l}^2\big)\Big\}, \end{aligned}$$ for $\alpha > 2$, $\mu_{k,l} = \mathbb{E}[U_{k,1}(t_l)]$ and $$z(\beta) = \max\Big\{2\sqrt{2}\frac{(1+\beta)^2}{(1-\beta)^3}, \frac{1}{\beta}\Big\},~\beta\in(0,1),\label{eqn:z-beta}$$ which stems from using the empirical estimates for unknown quantities. For any arm $k$, $\xi_k$ corresponds to the coefficient without using the information structure, and grows linearly with $L$, and shows that the dependence of the regret on $\Delta_{k,l}$ is $O(1/\Delta_{k,l})$. On the other hand, $\tilde{\xi}_k$ reflects the effect of exploiting the structure, and it is usually much lower than $C_k$. Hence, we have the following order result for the regret: $${\tt REG}_{\tt RB}(B) = O\Big(t_L^2\big(\sum_{k \neq k^*}\frac{1}{\Delta_k}+\frac{1}{\min_l\Delta_{k^*,l}}+\sum_k\max_l\Delta_{k,l}\big)\log(\tau)\Big),$$ since $\Delta_k \leq \Delta_{k,l}$ for all $l$ for $k\neq k^*$, and $\mathbb{K}(Z)\leq b^2$ for a bounded random variable $Z\in[0,b]$. In other words, as a result of exploiting the information structure, the effect of large $L$ on the regret is eliminated. \[rem:tl-dependence\] The regret upper bound in Theorem \[thm:ucb-rb\] grows at a rate $O(t_L^2\log(\tau))$, where the constant additive term is independent of $\tau$ and $t_L$ if ${\mathbb{E}}[X_{k,1}^p]<\infty$ for some $p>2$. Therefore, if the optimal restart time can take on a large value, then the regret performance deteriorates significantly. This dependence on $t_L$ stems from the nature of the empirical mean estimator used for estimating the reward rate, and it is inevitable [@audibert2009exploration]. Therefore, the UCB-RB Algorithm is suitable only for the cases where the restart times are small. The proof of Theorem \[thm:ucb-rb\] follows a similar strategy as [@cayci2019learning], and can be found in detail in Appendix \[app:ucb-rb\]. We will provide a proof sketch here. The main challenge in the proof is two-fold: analyzing the effect of using empirical estimates, and finding tight upper and lower bounds for the expectation of the total reward ${\tt REW}_\pi(\tau)$, which is a controlled and stopped random walk with non-i.i.d. increments. For any $(k, t_l)\in[K]\times\mathbb{T}$, let $T_{k,l}(n)$ be the number of times the controller makes the decision $(k, t_l)$ in the first $n$ stages, and $\Delta_{k,l}$ be the expected ’regret per unit time’ if $(k,t_l)$ is chosen. Then, by using tools from renewal theory and martingale concentration inequalities, we express the regret as follows: $${\tt REG}_{\tt \pi^B}(\tau) \leq \sum_{(k,l):\Delta_{k,l}>0}O(1)~{\mathbb{E}}[T_{k,l}(n_0(\tau))]{\mathbb{E}}[U_{k,1}(t_l)]\Delta_{k,l} + O(KL),$$ where $n_0(\tau)$ is a high-probability upper bound for $N_{\tt \pi^B}(\tau)$, the total number of pulls in $[0,\tau]$. By using a clean-event bandit analysis akin to [@audibert2009exploration] to bound ${\mathbb{E}}[T_{k,l}(n_0(\tau))]$, we prove the theorem. Note that the UCB-RB Algorithm makes use of the empirical mean and variance estimates to achieve improved regret performance without any prior knowledge, and we devise novel tools to analyze the impact of using empirical estimates on the regret. Remark \[rem:tl-dependence\] emphasizes a crucial shortcoming of the UCB-RB Algorithm in dealing with large (potentially infinite) waiting times. In order to achieve $O(\log(\tau))$ regret in a more general setting, we design a more general algorithm in the following. ### UCB-RM Algorithm If the completion time distributions are such that the optimal restart time is very large or potentially infinite for some arms, the empirical rate estimation fails to provide fast convergence rates, which leads to substantially deteriorated regret bounds. In order to overcome this, we will design a UCB-type policy that incorporates a median-based rate estimator to achieve good performance in a very general setting that allows not restarting as a possible action, i.e., we consider a decision set $$\mathbb{T}=\{t_1<t_2<\ldots<t_L = \infty\},$$ where $t_L=\infty$ implies the controller can wait until the task is completed. Consider $(k,t_l)\in[K]\times\mathbb{T}$, and let $G_1,G_2,\ldots,G_m$ be a partition of $\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)$ such that $G_j = \lfloor T_{k,l}^*(n)/m \rfloor,~\forall j\in[m]$ for $m=\lfloor 3.5\alpha\log(n)\rfloor + 1$. The median-of-means estimator for $U_{k,n}(t_l)$ is defined as follows: $$\label{eqn:med-of-means} \mathbb{M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(U_{k}(t_l)) = {\tt median}\Big\{\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{G_1}[U_{k}(t_l)],\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{G_2}[U_{k}(t_l)],\ldots,\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{G_m}[U_{k}(t_l)]\Big\},$$ where $\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_S[X]$ is the empirical mean of a sequence $X$ over the index set $S$ defined in . Then, the median-based rate estimator for the action $(k,t_l)$ is defined as follows: $$\label{eqn:med-rate} \widehat{r}^{\tt M}_{k,l,n} = \frac{\mathbb{M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(V_{k}(t_l))}{\mathbb{M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(U_{k}(t_l))}.$$ Similarly, let $$\mathbb{V}^{\tt M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(U_k(t_l)) = {\tt median}\Big\{\mathbb{V}_{G_1}(U_k(t_l)),\ldots,\mathbb{V}_{G_m}(U_k(t_l))\Big\},$$ where $\mathbb{V}_S$ is the empirical variance defined in . By using this median-based variance estimator, let $$c_{k,l,n}^{\tt M} = \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{(1-\beta)}\cdot \frac{\eta^{\tt M}_{k,l,n}+\widehat{r}^{\tt M}_{k,l,n}\cdot\epsilon^{\tt M}_{k,l,n}}{\mathbb{M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(U_k(t_l)},~\beta\in(0,1),\label{eqn:med-radius}$$for the confidence radii defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{k,l,n}^{\tt M} &= 11\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}^{\tt M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(U_k(t_l))\log(n^\alpha)}{T_{k,l}^*(n)}},\\ \eta_{k,l,n}^{\tt M} &= 11\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}^{\tt M}_{\mathcal{I}_{k,l}^*(n)}(V_k(t_l))\log(n^\alpha)}{T_{k,l}^*(n)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the inequality $\widehat{r}_{k,l,n}^{\tt M}+{c}_{k,l,n}^{\tt M} > r_k(t_l)$ holds with high probability for sufficiently large $T_{k,l}^*(n)$. Based on this construction, the UCB-RM Algorithm makes a decision for the $(n+1)$-th arm pull as follows: $$(I_{n+1},\nu_{n+1}) \in \underset{(k,l)\in[K]\times[L]}{\arg\max}~\big\{\widehat{r}_{k,l,n}^{\tt M}+c_{k,l,n}^{\tt M}\big\}.$$ In the following theorem, we analyze the performance of the UCB-RM Algorithm. \[thm:ucb-rm\] The regret under the UCB-RM Algorithm is bounded as follows: $${\tt REG}_{\pi^{\tt M}}(\tau) \leq \sum_{k}3\alpha \min\{\xi_k^{\tt M},\tilde{\xi}_k^{\tt M}\}\log(\tau)+O(KL),$$ where for each $k\in[K]$ $$\begin{aligned} \xi_k^{\tt M} &= \sum_{l=1}^L\Big\{11^2z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{k,l}\frac{r_*^2}{\Delta_{k,l}}+1024\big(\mathbb{K}_{k,l}+\zeta\big)\Delta_{k,l}\Big\},\\ \tilde{\xi}_k^{\tt M} &= \max_l\Delta_{k,l}\cdot \max_l\Big\{11^2z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{k,l}\frac{r_*^2}{\Delta_{k,l}^2}+1024\big(\mathbb{K}_{k,l}+\zeta\big)\Big\}, \end{aligned}$$ for some constant $\zeta > 0$, $\alpha > 2$ and $z(\beta)$ defined in . Notice that the regret upper bound in Theorem \[thm:ucb-rm\] is upper bounded by functions that depend only the first- and second-order moments of $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$, independent of $t_L$. Therefore, the UCB-RM Algorithm is efficient for the cases with very large (potentially infinite) $t_L$ unlike UCB-RB, whose regret grows at a rate $O(t_L^2\log(\tau))$. This generality comes at a price: comparing the coefficients of the $\log(\tau)$ term in Theorem \[thm:ucb-rb\] and Theorem \[thm:ucb-rm\], we observe that the UCB-RM Algorithm suffers from a considerably large scaling coefficient. This suggests that if the optimal restart times are known to be small, then the UCB-RB Algorithm is more efficient than the UCB-RM Algorithm. Also, note that the UCB-RM Algorithm does not require any prior knowledge unlike the median-based algorithm [UCB-BwI]{} in [@cayci2019learning]. Instead, it uses empirical estimates for reward rate, mean completion time and variances. The regret upper bound for UCB-RM is tighter compared to [UCB-BwI]{}. In the next section, we will develop a learning algorithm for the case $\mathbb{T}$ is continuous. Continuous Set of Restart Times: UCB-RC --------------------------------------- For a broad class of completion time and reward distributions, the reward rate function $r_k(t)$ has a smooth and unimodal structure. By exploiting this property, we can design learning algorithms for a continuous set of restart times $\mathbb{T}$ achieving sublinear regret. In the following, we will propose a learning algorithm for smooth and unimodal $r_k(t)$ based on the UCB-RB Algorithm and the bandit optimization methodology in [@combes2014unimodal]. Note that the information structure discussed in Section \[subsec:info-structure\] For the sake of simplicity in exposition, we will consider learning the optimal restart time for a single arm. The extension to $K>1$ is straightforward. We make the following assumptions on the action set $\mathbb{T}$ and reward rate function $r_1(t)$. 1. Compactness: The decision set $\mathbb{T}$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}_+$: $$\mathbb{T}=[t_{min},t_{max}], \label{eqn:compactness}$$ where $0<t_{min}\leq t_{max}<\infty$. Furthermore, $\mathbb{T}$ satisfies Assumption \[assn:action-set\] for some $\epsilon,\mu_*>0$ for efficient estimation of $r_1(t)$. 2. Unimodality: There is an optimal restart time $t_{1}^*\in[t_{min},t_{max}]$ such that $$r_* = r_1(t_{1}^*) \geq r_1(t),$$ for all $t\in\mathbb{T}\backslash\{t_{1}^*\}$. 3. Smoothness: There exists $\delta_0>0, q > 1$ such that: - For all $t, t^\prime\in [t_{1}^*,t_{1}^*+\delta_0]$ (or $[t_{1}^*-\delta_0, t_{1}^*]$), the following holds: $$a_1|t-t^\prime|^q \leq |r_1(t)-r_1(t^\prime)|,~a_1 >0,$$ - For some $\delta \leq \delta_0$, if $|t-t_{1}^*|\leq \delta$, we have: $$r_*-r_1(t) \leq a_2\delta^q.$$ \[assn:ucb-rc\] Note that Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\] is satisfied for a broad class of distributions. For example, if $X_{k,n}$ and $R_{k,n}$ are independent and $X_{k,n}$ has a uniform, exponential or Pareto distribution, then the conditions are trivially satisfied. The UCB-RC Algorithm is defined as follows: 1. For $\delta = \Big(\sqrt{\log(\tau)/\tau}\Big)^{1/q}$ and ${\tt rad}(\mathbb{T}) = t_{max}-t_{min}$, let $L(\delta) = {\tt rad(\mathbb{T})}/{\delta}$ and $\mathbb{T}_Q = \{t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_{L(\delta)}\}$ where $$t_l = t_{min}+(l-1)\cdot\lceil 1/\delta\rceil,~l=1,2,\ldots,L(\delta).$$ 2. Run the UCB-RB Algorithm over the action set $\mathbb{T}_Q$. The following theorem provides a regret bound for the UCB-RC Algorithm. Under Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\], the regret under the UCB-RC Algorithm satisfies the following asymptotic upper bound: $$\lim\sup_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}~\frac{{\tt REG}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau)}{\sqrt{\tau\log(\tau)}} \leq a_26^q\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[X_{1,1}]}{\mu_*} + \frac{3\alpha q}{a_1(q-1)}\mathbb{C}^\star z^2(\beta)r_*^2,$$ where $$\mathbb{C}^\star = \Big(\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[X_{1,1}^2]}{\mu_*^2}+\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[R_{1,1}^2]}{\epsilon^2\big({\mathbb{E}}[R_{1,1}]\big)^2}\Big).$$ \[thm:ucb-rc\] The detailed proof of Theorem \[thm:ucb-rc\] can be found in Appendix \[app:ucb-rc\]. Note that the UCB-RC Algorithm is based on quantizing the decision set $\mathbb{T}$, and running the UCB-RB Algorithm over the quantized decision set $\mathbb{T}_Q$. In the proof, we show that the step size $\delta$ is chosen such that the optimal reward rate over $\mathbb{T}_Q$ is close enough to $r_*$ while the number of quantization levels are kept sufficiently small at the same time. Under the compactness and smoothness assumptions summarized in Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\], the regret upper bound is obtained. The UCB-RC Algorithm is based on an extension of the UCB-type algorithm for unimodal discrete-time stochastic bandits proposed in [@combes2015bandits]. A straightforward extension of the algorithm in [@combes2015bandits] would yield $O(\log(\tau)\sqrt{\tau})$ regret. However, the UCB-RC Algorithm achieves $O(\sqrt{\tau\log(\tau))}$ regret in this case. The order reduction by a factor of $O(\sqrt{\log(\tau)})$ is because UCB-RC incorporates the information structure that stems from the right-censored feedback, discussed in Section \[subsec:info-structure\]. Numerical Experiments ===================== In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed learning algorithm for boosting the WalkSAT Algorithm on Random-SAT benchmark sets. The experiments are conducted in a similar manner as the SAT Competition: for a given time interval $[0,\tau]$, the performance metric is the number of solved problem instances, thus there is a unit reward for each successful assignment, i.e., $R_{1, n}=1$. **SAT Solver:** We used the C implementation of the WalkSAT Algorithm provided in [@kautz-imp] with the heuristics [Rnovelty]{}. **Methodology:** For a fair and universal comparison, we measure the completion time of a problem by the number of flips performed by the WalkSAT Algorithm. We allowed at most 10 restarts for each problem instance. As the number of benchmark instances is small, we generated i.i.d. random samples from the empirical distribution of the completion times by using the inverse transform method whenever the number of samples exceeds the dataset length [@ross2014introduction]. Uniform Random-3-SAT -------------------- In the first example, we will evaluate the performance of the [UCB-RB]{} Algorithm on a Random-3-SAT dataset. **Dataset Description:** We evaluated the performance of the meta-algorithms over the widely used Uniform Random-3-SAT benchmark set of satisfiable problem instances in the SATLIB library [@hoos2000satlib]. In the dataset [uf-100-430]{}, there are 1000 uniformly generated problem instances with 100 variables and 430 clauses, therefore it is reasonable to assume i.i.d. completion times. Each successful assignment yields a reward $R_{1,n}=1$. **Completion Time Statistics:** The empirical reward rate as a function of the restart time for the data set is given in Figure \[fig:uf100\](a). It is observed that the controlled restarts are essential for optimal performance, in accordance with the power-law completion time distributions [@gomes1998boosting] and Theorem \[thm:opt-int\]. This implies that our design is suitable for this scenario. **Performance Results:** In this set of experiments, we used the UCB-RB Algorithm with $\alpha = 2.01$, $(1+\beta)^2/(1-\beta)=1.01$ and $\mathbb{T}=\{10^{-0.5+i\times 0.125}:i = 0,1,\ldots,8\}$. For initialization, the controller performed 40 trials for each $(k,t_l)$ decision. For comparison, we used Luby restart strategy with various hand-tuned base cutoff values as a benchmark [@luby1993optimal]. Note that without any prior knowledge, the performance of Luby restart strategy is hit-or-miss, depending on how close the chosen (guessed) base cutoff value is to the optimal restart time. The number of solved problem instances for different $\tau$ values are given in Figure \[fig:uf100\]. We observe that the [UCB-RB]{} Algorithm learns the optimal restart strategy fast without any prior information, and its performance outperforms alternatives especially at large time horizons. On the other hand, Luby restart strategy, which requires the base cutoff value as an input, is prone to perform badly with inaccurate prior information. Even a genie provides a well-chosen base cutoff value to Luby restart strategy, it is outperformed linearly over $\tau$ by the UCB-RB Algorithm, which requires no prior information. ![Performance of the restart strategies on the Random-3-SAT data set [cbs-k3]{}.[]{data-label="fig:uf100"}](figs/stats-uf100_430.pdf "fig:") ![Performance of the restart strategies on the Random-3-SAT data set [cbs-k3]{}.[]{data-label="fig:uf100"}](figs/ucbrb_uf100_430.pdf "fig:") Random-3-SAT Instances with Controlled Backbone Size ---------------------------------------------------- In this example, we will evaluate the performance of the UCB-RB Algorithm on a Random-3-SAT dataset with controlled backbone size. **Dataset Description:** We evaluated the performance of the meta-algorithms over the widely used Random-3-SAT benchmark set of satisfiable problem instances in [@hoos2000satlib]. In the dataset [CBS\_k3\_n100\_m403\_b30]{}, there are 1000 uniformly random generated problem instances with 100 variables and 403 clauses with backbone size 30, therefore it is reasonable to assume i.i.d. completion times. **Completion Time Statistics:** The empirical reward rate as a function of the restart time for the data set is given in Figure \[fig:cbs-k3\](a). **Performance Results:** In this set of experiments, we used the UCB-RB Algorithm with $\alpha = 2.01$, $(1+\beta)^2/(1-\beta)=1.01$ and $\mathbb{T}=\{10^{-0.5+i\times 0.125}:i = 0,1,\ldots,12\}$. Similar to the previous example, we used Luby restart strategy with various hand-tuned base cutoff values as a benchmark. The number of solved problem instances for different $\tau$ values are given in Figure \[fig:cbs-k3\]. ![(Left) Empirical reward rate as a function of restart time for the dataset [CBS\_k3\_n100\_m403\_b30]{}. Restart strategies lead to substantial gains on the number of problems solved per unit time. (Right) Performance of the UCB-RB Algorithm and Luby strategy for various base cutoff values.[]{data-label="fig:cbs-k3"}](figs/stats-cbs_k3.pdf "fig:") ![(Left) Empirical reward rate as a function of restart time for the dataset [CBS\_k3\_n100\_m403\_b30]{}. Restart strategies lead to substantial gains on the number of problems solved per unit time. (Right) Performance of the UCB-RB Algorithm and Luby strategy for various base cutoff values.[]{data-label="fig:cbs-k3"}](figs/ucbrb_cbs_k3.pdf "fig:") Figure \[fig:cbs-k3\] indicates that the [UCB-RB]{} Algorithm learns the optimal restart strategy with low regret without any prior information. The performance gap between the UCB-RB Algorithm and Luby strategy increases linearly over $\tau$. Conclusions =========== In this paper, we considered the continuous-time bandit learning problem with controlled restarts, and presented a principled approach with rigorous performance guarantees. For correlated and potentially heavy-tailed completion time and reward distributions, we proposed a simple, intuitive and near-optimal offline policy with $O(1)$ optimality gap, and characterized the nature of optimal restart strategies by using this approximation. For online learning, we considered discrete and continuous action sets, and proposed bandit algorithms that exploit the statistical structure of the problem to achieve tight performance guarantees. In addition to the theoretical analysis, we evaluated the numerical performance to boost the speed of SAT solvers in random 3-SAT instances, and observed that the learning solution proposed in this paper outperforms Luby restart strategy with no prior information. Concentration Inequalities for Reward Rate Estimation ===================================================== In this section, we will provide tight concentration inequalities that employ empirical estimates. The following lemma will provide a basis to design these concentration inequalities. \[lem:rate-conc\] Consider a pair of parameters $\mu_X,\mu_R > 0$, and their estimators $\widehat{\mu}_X$ and $\widehat{\mu}_R$, respectively. Let $\widehat{r}= \widehat{\mu}_R/\widehat{\mu}_X$ and $r = \mu_R/\mu_X$. Then, for any $\beta \in (0,1)$, we have the following inequality: $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(|\widehat{r}-r| > \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\frac{\eta+\widehat{r}\cdot\epsilon}{\widehat{\mu}_X}\Big) \leq {\mathbb{P}}(|\mu_X-\widehat{\mu}_X|>\epsilon)+{\mathbb{P}}(|\mu_R-\widehat{\mu}_R| > \eta),$$ for any $\eta \leq \beta\mu_R$,and $\epsilon \leq \beta\mu_X$. Let $$A(\epsilon,\eta) = \{|\mu_X-\widehat{\mu}_X|\leq \epsilon\}\cap\{|\mu_R-\widehat{\mu}_R|\leq \eta\},$$ be the high-probability event. Then, by Proposition 1 in [@cayci2020budget], we have the following set relation: $$A(\epsilon,\eta) \subset \Big\{ |\widehat{r}-r| \leq \frac{\eta+r\epsilon}{\mu_X-\epsilon} \Big\}.$$ For any $\beta \in (0,1)$, if $\epsilon\leq\beta\mu_X$ and $\eta\leq\beta\mu_R$ is satisfied, then we have: $$\frac{\eta+r\epsilon}{\mu_X-\epsilon} \leq\frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta} \frac{\eta+\widehat{r}\epsilon}{\widehat{\mu}_X},$$ within the set $A(\epsilon,\eta)$. By taking the compliment and using union bound, we obtain the result. By using Lemma \[lem:rate-conc\], we can prove tight concentration bounds for the renewal rate as follows. \[prop:concentration\] Let $\{(X_n,R_n):n\geq 1\}$ be a renewal reward process. 1. If $X_n\in[0,a]$ and $R_n\in [0,b]$, let $$\widehat{r}_n = \frac{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[n]}[X]}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[n]}[R]},$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_n(\delta) &= \sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}_{[n]}(X)\log(1/\delta)}{n}}+\frac{3a\log(1/\delta)}{n},\\ \eta_n(\delta) &= \sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}_{[n]}(R)\log(1/\delta)}{n}}+\frac{3b\log(1/\delta)}{n}. \end{aligned}$$ Then, for any $\beta \in (0,1)$ and $\delta \in (0,1)$, we have: $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(|\widehat{r}_n-r| > \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\cdot \frac{\eta_n(\delta)+\widehat{r}_n\epsilon_n(\delta)}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[n]}[X]}\Big) \leq 12\delta,$$ for any $n\geq 8\Big(\mathbb{K}(X_1)+\mathbb{K}(R_1)+\frac{a^2}{Var(X_1)}+\frac{b^2}{Var(R_1)}\Big) + 3\Big(\frac{\mathbb{C}^2(X_1)}{\beta^2} + \frac{a}{\beta{\mathbb{E}}[X_1]} + \frac{\mathbb{C}^2(R_1)}{\beta^2} + \frac{b}{\beta{\mathbb{E}}[R_1]}\Big)$. 2. Consider a renewal reward process such that ${\mathbb{E}}[X_1^4]<\infty$ and ${\mathbb{E}}[R_1^4]<\infty$. For $m = \lfloor 3.5\log(1/\delta)\rfloor + 1$, let $G_1,G_2,\ldots, G_m$ be a partition of $[n]$ such that $|G_j|=\lfloor n/m\rfloor$. Then, we define the median-based mean and variance estimators as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{M}_{[n]}(X) &= {\tt median}\{ \widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{G_1}[X],\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{G_2}[X],\ldots,\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{G_m}[X] \},\\ \mathbb{V}^{\tt M}_{[n]}(X) &= {\tt median}\{ \mathbb{V}_{G_1}[X],\mathbb{V}_{G_2}[X],\ldots,\mathbb{V}_{G_m}[X] \}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\widehat{r}_{n}^{\tt M} = \frac{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[n]}^{\tt M}[R]}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[n]}^{\tt M}[X]},$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_n^{\tt M}(\delta) &= 11\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}^{\tt M}_{[n]}(X)\log(1/\delta)}{n}},\\ \eta_n^{\tt M}(\delta) &= 11\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}^{\tt M}_{[n]}(R)\log(1/\delta)}{n}}. \end{aligned}$$ Then, for any $\beta \in (0,1)$ and $\delta \in (0,1)$, we have: $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(|\widehat{r}_n^{\tt M}-r| > \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\cdot \frac{\eta_n^{\tt M}(\delta)+\widehat{r}_n^{\tt M}\epsilon_n^{\tt M}(\delta)}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}^{\tt M}_{[n]}[X]}\Big) \leq 16.8\delta,$$ for $n \geq 1024\big(\mathbb{K}(X_1)+\mathbb{K}(R_1)+\frac{\mathbb{C}^2(X_1)+\mathbb{C}^2(R_1)}{\beta^2}+\zeta\big)$ for some $\zeta > 0$. <!-- --> 1. If $n \geq 8\big(\mathbb{K}(X_1)+\frac{a^2}{Var(X_1)}\big)$, then the following holds with probability at least $1-4\delta$: $$|\mathbb{V}_{[n]}(X_1)-Var(X_1)| \leq Var(X_1)/2,$$ where $\mathbb{K}(X)=\frac{{\mathbb{E}}|X-{\mathbb{E}}X|^2}{Var^2(X)}$ is the kurtosis of a random variable $X$. Therefore, with probability at least $1-4\delta$, we have the following: $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{\frac{3Var(X_1)\log(1/\delta)}{n}}+\frac{3a\log(1/\delta)}{n} &\leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[X_1]. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, if $n \geq 3\Big(\frac{\mathbb{C}^2(X_1)}{\beta^2} + \frac{a}{\beta{\mathbb{E}}[X_1]}\Big)$ also holds, then the above inequality is automatically satisfied, where $\mathbb{C}(X)=\sqrt{Var(X)}/{\mathbb{E}}[X]$ is the coefficient of variation. Therefore, if $$n\geq 8\Big(\mathbb{K}(X_1)+\mathbb{K}(R_1)+\frac{a^2}{Var(X_1)}+\frac{b^2}{Var(R_1)}\Big) + 3\Big(\frac{\mathbb{C}^2(X_1)}{\beta^2} + \frac{a}{\beta{\mathbb{E}}[X_1]} + \frac{\mathbb{C}^2(R_1)}{\beta^2} + \frac{b}{\beta{\mathbb{E}}[R_1]}\Big),$$ then we have $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_n(\delta) &\leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[X_1],\\ \eta_n(\delta) &\leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[R_1], \end{aligned}$$ with probability at least $1-8\delta$. Then we use Lemma \[lem:rate-conc\] in conjunction with empirical Bernstein inequality (see [@audibert2009exploration]) to conclude the proof. 2. The proof follows from identical steps as Part 1, and uses Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 4.2 in [@minsker2015geometric] for the concentration results. Proof of Theorem \[thm:ucb-rb\] {#app:ucb-rb} =============================== The number of trials $N_\pi(\tau)$ under an admissible policy $\pi$ is a random stopping time, which makes the regret computations difficult. The following proposition provides a useful tool for regret computations. \[lem:reg-dec\] Let $T_{k,l}(n)$ be the number of steps where the decision is $(k,t_l)$ in $n$ trials, and $\mu_* = \min_{k,t}{\mathbb{E}}[U_{k,1}(t_l)]$. The following upper bound holds for any admissible policy $\pi\in\Pi$ and $\tau > \mu_*/2$: $$\label{eqn:reg-dec} {\tt REG}_\pi(\tau) \leq \sum_{k,l} {\mathbb{E}}\Big[T_{k,l}\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\mu_*}\Big)\Big]\Delta_{k,l}{\mathbb{E}}[U_{k,1}(t_l)] + \frac{\exp(-\tau\mu_*/t_1^2)}{1-\exp\big(\mu_*^2/(2t_1^2)\big)}\sum_{k,l} \Delta_{k,l}{\mathbb{E}}[U_{k,1}(t_l)]+r^*\Phi,$$ where $\Phi$ is a constant. The proof of Lemma \[lem:reg-dec\] relies on Azuma-Hoeffding inequality for controlled random walks, which can be found in [@cayci2019learning; @cayci2020budget]. Note that $2\tau/\mu_*$ is a high-probability upper bound for the total number of pulls $N_\pi(\tau)$, and $\Delta_{k,l}{\mathbb{E}}[U_{k,1}(t_l)]$ is the average regret per pull for a decision $(k,t_l)$. Lemma \[lem:reg-dec\] implies that the expected regret after $2\tau/\mu^*$ pulls is $O(1)$. In the following lemma, we quantify the scaling effect of using empirical estimates. Under the UCB-RB Algorithm, we have the following upper bounds: 1. If $k=k^*,t_l>t_{k^*}^*$ or $k\neq k^*,\forall l$, we have: $$\sum_{j=l}^L\mathbb{E}[T_{k,j}(N)]\leq 3\Big(z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{k,j}\frac{r_*^2}{\Delta_{k,j}^2}+2z(\beta)\mathbb{B}_{k,j}\frac{r_*}{\Delta_{k,j}}+8\big(\mathbb{K}_{k,j}+\mathbb{B}_{k,j}^2\big)\Big)\log(N^\alpha)+O(L),$$ 2. If $k=k^*$ and $t_l < t_{k^*}^*$, we have $\mathbb{E}[T_{k,l}(n)] = O(1)$ for all $n$. \[lem:sample-complexity\] Consider a suboptimal decision $(k,t_l)$ where either $\{k=k^*, t_l > t_k^*\}$ or $\{k\neq k^*\}$ is true, and let $$\begin{aligned} E_{1,n} &= \Big\{\widehat{r}_*+c_* \leq r_*\Big\},\\ E_{2,n} &= \bigcup_{j\geq l}\Big\{\widehat{r}_{k,j,n}\geq c_{k,j,n} + r_k(t_j)\Big\},\\ E_{3,n} &= \bigcup_{j\geq l}\{2c_{k,j,n} \geq \Delta_{k,j}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, it is trivial to show by using contradiction that $\{(I_{n+1},\nu_{n+1}) = (k,t_j):j\geq l\} \subset \cup_{i=1}^3E_{i,n}$. In the following, we provide a sample complexity analysis for the events above. For notational simplicity, for $j\geq l$, let $U_n:=U_{k,n}(t_j)$ and $V_n:=V_{k,n}(t_j)$ for all $n$. For sample size $s$ and any $\delta \in(0,1)$, let $\widehat{r}_s = \frac{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[s]}[V]}{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[s]}[U]}$, and $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_s &= \sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}_{[s]}(U)\log(1/\delta)}{s}}+\frac{3t_j\log(1/\delta)}{s},\\ \eta_s &= \sqrt{\frac{2\mathbb{V}_{[s]}(V)\log(1/\delta)}{s}}+\frac{3\log(1/\delta)}{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by Proposition \[prop:concentration\], the following holds with probability at least $1-4\delta$: $$\Big|\widehat{r}_s-r_k(t_j)\Big| \leq \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\frac{\eta_s+\widehat{r}_s\epsilon_s}{{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[s]}[U]}}, \label{eqn:concentration-0}$$ given $s$ is sufficiently large such that $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \epsilon_s &\leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[U_1], \\ \eta_s&\leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[V_1]. \end{aligned} \label{eqn:stability-condition}\end{aligned}$$ By using empirical Bernstein inequality and union bound for the empirical variance, we have the following inequalities with probability at least $1-8\delta$: $$\begin{aligned} |\mathbb{V}_{[s]}(U)-Var(U_1)|\leq Var(U_1)/2,\\ |\mathbb{V}_{[s]}(V)-Var(V_1)|\leq Var(V_1)/2,\end{aligned}$$if $s \geq s_{1,j}(\delta) := 8\big(\mathbb{K}(U_1)+\mathbb{K}(V_1)+\frac{4t_j^2}{Var(U_1)}+\frac{1}{Var(V_1)}\Big)\log(1/\delta)$. Therefore, the condition implies the following with probability at least $1-8\delta$ for $s \geq s_{1,j}(\delta)$: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \tilde{\epsilon}_s&:=\sqrt{\frac{3Var(U_1)\log(1/\delta)}{s}}+\frac{3t_j\log(1/\delta)}{s} \leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[U_1],\\ \tilde{\eta}_s&:=\sqrt{\frac{3Var(V_1)\log(1/\delta)}{s}}+\frac{3\log(1/\delta)}{s} \leq \beta{\mathbb{E}}[V_1]. \end{aligned} \label{eqn:stability-condition-2}\end{aligned}$$ The inequalities in simultaneously hold if $$s \geq s_{2,j}(\delta) := 3\Big(\frac{1}{\beta^2}\big(\mathbb{C}^2(U_1)+\mathbb{C}^2(V_1)\big) + \frac{1}{\beta}\big(\frac{t_j}{{\mathbb{E}}[U_1]}+\frac{1}{{\mathbb{E}}[V_1]}\big)\Big)\log(1/\delta).$$ Also, note that $$\frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\frac{\eta_s+\widehat{r}_s\epsilon_s}{{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[s]}[U]}} \leq \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{(1-\beta)^3}\frac{\tilde{\eta}_s+r_k(t_j)\tilde{\epsilon}_s}{{{\mathbb{E}}[U]_1}},$$ holds if is true. Thus, by using this result, we show that $$2\frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\frac{\eta_s+\widehat{r}_s\epsilon_s}{{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[s]}[U]}} \leq 2\frac{(1+\beta)^2}{(1-\beta)^3}\frac{\tilde{\eta}_s+r_k(t_j)\tilde{\epsilon}_s}{{{\mathbb{E}}[U]_1}} \leq \Delta_{k,j},$$ with probability at least $1-8\delta$ if $s \geq \max\{s_{1,j}(\delta),s_{2,j}(\delta), s_{3,j}(\delta)\}$ for $$s_{3,j}(\delta) = 3\Big(8\frac{(1+\beta)^4}{(1-\beta)^6}\frac{r_*^2}{\Delta_{k,j}^2}(\mathbb{C}^2(U_1)+\mathbb{C}^2(V_1))+2\frac{(1+\beta)^2}{(1-\beta)^3}(\frac{1}{{\mathbb{E}}[V_1]}+\frac{2t_j}{{\mathbb{E}}[U_1]})\Big)\log(1/\delta).$$ In summary, the following events simultaneously hold with probability at least $1-12\delta$: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \Big|\widehat{r}_s-r_k(t_j)\Big| &\leq \frac{(1+\beta)^2}{1-\beta}\frac{\eta_s+\widehat{r}_s\epsilon_s}{{\widehat{{\mathbb{E}}}_{[s]}[U]}}\leq \Delta_{k,j}/2, \end{aligned} \label{eqn:concentration}\end{aligned}$$ if $s \geq \max\{s_{1,j}(\delta), s_{2,j}(\delta), s_{3,j}(\delta)\}$. Note that the UCB-RB Algorithm is designed such that $s=T_{k,j}^*(n)$ and $\delta = n^{-\alpha}$. Now we will use the above analysis to provide an upper bound for $\sum_{j\geq l}{\mathbb{E}}[T_{k,j}(n)]$. First, let $$A_j = \{T_{k,j}^*(n) \leq u_j\},~j\geq l$$ for $u_j=\max_i\{s_{i,j}(N^{-\alpha})\}$. Then, by and , we have the following inequality: $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big(\cup_{j\geq l}A_j\big)\cap\big(E_{1,n}\cup E_{2,n}\cup E_{3,n}\big)\Big) \leq 16(L-l)/n^{\alpha-1}, \label{eqn:decomposition}$$ where we used union bound to deal with the random sample size $T_{k,j}*(n)\leq n$ in computing probabilities. Now, recall that $T_{k,j}^*(n) = \sum_{j^\prime\geq j}T_{k,j^\prime}(n)$ by definition, and we have the following relation: $$\bigcup_{j\geq l}A_j \subset \Big\{\sum_{j\geq l}T_{k,j}(n) \leq \max_{j\geq l}u_j\Big\}, \label{eqn:decomposition-2}$$ which follows from the fact that $\cup_{j\geq l}A_j = A_L\cup (A_{L-1}\cap A_L^c)\cup\ldots\cup (A_l\cap (\cup_{l< j \leq L}A_j)^c)$, and $$A_j\cap (\cup_{j^\prime > j}A_{j^\prime})^c\subset A_j\cap A_{j+1}^c \subset \{T_{k,j} \leq \max\{0,u_j-u_{j+1}\}\}.$$ Therefore, we have the following inequality: $$\sum_{j\geq l}T_{k,l}(N) \leq \max_{j \geq l}u_j + \sum_{i=\max_{j\geq l}u_j+1}^N\mathbb{I}\{E_{1,i}\cup E_{2,i}\cup E_{3,i}\}.$$ Taking the expectation in the above equality, and using and , we have the following result: $${\mathbb{E}}[\sum_{j\geq l}T_{k,l}(N)] \leq \max_{j\geq l}u_j + \frac{16(L-l)\alpha}{\alpha-2},$$ which yields the result in part (i). For part (ii), let $(k, t_l)$ be such that $k = k^*$ and $t_l < t_k^*$. Following a similar analysis as part (i) yields ${\mathbb{E}}[T_{k,l}(N)] \leq O(\log(N^\alpha))$, which implies that ${\mathbb{E}}[T_{k^*,l_{k^*}^*}(N)] = \Omega(N-\log(N))$. Therefore, since the number of samples satisfies $T_{k,l}^*(N) \geq T_{k^*,l_{k^*}^*}(N) = \Omega(N-\log(N))$, the decision $(k^*, t_l)$ is chosen at most $O(1)$ times [@lattimore2014bounded; @cayci2017learning]. Proof of Theorem \[thm:ucb-rc\] {#app:ucb-rc} =============================== The proof incorporates a variant of the regret analysis for quantized continuous decision sets given in [@combes2014unimodal] into the regret analysis for budget-constrained bandits presented in Appendix \[app:ucb-rb\]. **Step 1.** First, we bound the regret that stems from using a quantized decision set. Recall from Proposition \[prop:rew-opt\] that $${\tt OPT}(\tau) \leq \tau\cdot r_*+O(1),$$ and $${\tt OPT}_Q(\tau) \geq \tau \max_{t\in\mathbb{T}_Q}~r_1(t),$$ where ${\tt OPT}_Q(\tau)$ is the optimal reward in the quantized decision set $\mathbb{T}_Q$, and $r_*=\max_{t\in\mathbb{T}}~r_1(t)$. Then, the regret under the UCB-RC Algorithm is bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {\tt REG}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau) &= {\tt OPT}(\tau)-{\mathbb{E}}[{\tt REW}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau)],\\ &={\tt OPT}(\tau)-{\tt OPT}_{Q}(\tau)+{\tt OPT}_{Q}(\tau)-{\mathbb{E}}[{\tt REW}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau)],\\ &\leq \tau\big(r_*-\max_{t\in\mathbb{T}_Q}~r_1(t)\big)+{\tt REG}_{{\tt \pi^C},Q}(\tau)+O(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $${\tt REG}_{{\tt \pi^C},Q}(\tau) = {\tt OPT}_Q(\tau)-{\mathbb{E}}[{\tt REW}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau)],$$ is the regret under the UCB-RC Algorithm with respect to the optimal policy in the quantized decision set. By Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\], we have: $$r_*-\max_{t\in\mathbb{T}_Q}~r_1(t) \leq a_2\delta^q,$$ since $|t_1^*-\arg\max_{t\in\mathbb{T}_Q}~r_1(t)| \leq \delta$. Thus, we have the following inequality: $${\tt REG}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau) \leq a_2\tau \delta^q + {\tt REG}_{{\tt \pi^C},Q}(\tau) + O(1). \label{eqn:ucb-rc-decomposition-1}$$ **Step 2.** After we quantify the regret from using a quantized decision set, now we bound ${\tt REG}_{{\tt C},Q}(\tau)$, the regret of the UCB-RC Algorithm with respect to the optimal algorithm in the quantized decision set. We first present a variation of the decomposition in . Let $l^*=\arg\max_j~r_1(t_j)$, and $r_{Q}^*=\max_j~r_1(t_j)$ be the optimal reward rate in the quantized decision set $\mathbb{T}_Q$. For any $l\neq l^*$, let $\Delta_{1,l}=r_{Q}^*-r_1(t_l)$, and $$z_l = 3\Big(z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{1,l}\frac{(r_Q^*)^2}{\Delta_{1,l}}+O(1)\Big)\log(N^\alpha). \label{eqn:z-l}$$ Then, we have the following for any $l\leq k \leq L(\delta)$: $${\mathbb{E}}[\sum_{j=l,j\neq l^*}^k\Delta_{1,j}T_{1,j}(N)]\leq z_l + \sum_{\substack{j=l+1\\j\neq l^*}}^k z_{j}\Big(1-\frac{\Delta_{1,j-1}}{\Delta_{1,j}}\Big)^+ + \frac{16L(\delta)\alpha}{\alpha-2}.$$ \[claim:ucb-rc\] We have the following relation for any $l\leq k \leq L(\delta)$: $$\cup_{j=l}^kA_j \subset \Big\{\sum_{j= l, j\neq l^*}^k\Delta_{1,j}T_{1,j}(N) \leq z_l + \sum_{\substack{j=l+1\\j\neq l^*}}^k z_{j}\Big(1-\frac{\Delta_{1,j-1}}{\Delta_{1,j}}\Big)^+\Big\},$$ which can be proved by induction. Note that the $O(1)$ term in the RHS of is bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned} 2z(\beta)\mathbb{B}_{1,l}r_Q^*+8\big(\mathbb{K}_{1,l}+\mathbb{B}_{1,l}^2\big)\Delta_{1,l}\leq 2z(\beta)b_0r_*+8r_*(\kappa + b_0^2), \end{aligned}$$ where $b_0 \geq \max_l~B_{1,l}$ and $\kappa\geq \max_l~\mathbb{K}_{1,l}$ are constants independent of $\delta$, but depend on ${\tt rad}(\mathbb{T})$, $\epsilon$ and $\mu_*$ under Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\]. By following the same steps as Lemma \[lem:sample-complexity\], the proof follows. By and Proposition \[lem:reg-dec\], the regret under UCB-RC is bounded as follows: $${\tt REG}_{\tt C}(\tau) \leq a_2\delta^q\tau+\mu\sum_{l\in [L(\delta)]}{\mathbb{E}}[\Delta_{1,l}T_{1,l}(2\tau/\mu_*)] + O\big(L(\delta)\big). \label{eqn:reg-c}$$ where $\mu = \max_{t\in\mathbb{T}}{\mathbb{E}}[U_{1,1}(t)]$ and $\mu_*=\min_t{\mathbb{E}}[U_{1,1}(t)]$. Let the sets $A, B, D$ be defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} A &= \{l^*-1,l^*,l^*+1\},\\ B &= \{l:t_{min}+(l-1)\delta \in \mathcal{B}(t_1^*,\delta_0)\}\cap A^c, \\ D &=[L(\delta)]\cap (A\cup B)^c,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{B}(x,\epsilon_0)$ denotes the ball in $\mathbb{R}$ centered at $x$ with radius $\epsilon_0>0$. - For any $l\in A\backslash\{l^*\}$, we have the following by Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\]: $$\Delta_{1,l} \leq r_*-r_1(t_l) \leq a_2(2\delta)^q,$$ since $r_* \geq r_Q^*$ and $\Big|t_1^*-\big(t_{min}+(l-1)\delta\big)\Big|\leq 2\delta$. Thus, we have: $$\sum_{l\in A\backslash\{l^*\}}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Delta_{1,l}T_{1,l}\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\mu_*}\Big)\Big] \leq a_2\mu\cdot \frac{2\tau}{\mu_*}(2\delta)^q. \label{eqn:reg-a}$$ - For $l\in B$, note that $$\Big| \big(t_{min}+(l^*-1)\delta\big) - \big(t_{min}+(l-1)\delta\big) \Big| \geq \delta(\big|l^*-l\big|-1\big),$$ which implies the following by Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\]: $$\Delta_{1,l} \geq a_1 \big||l^*-l|-1\big|^q\delta^q.$$ By using this result and Claim \[claim:ucb-rc\], we have the following bound: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}\Big[\sum_{l\in B}\Delta_{1,l}T_{1,l}\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\mu_*}\Big)\Big] &\leq \alpha\sum_{l=1}^{L(\delta)}\frac{3z^2(\beta)\mathbb{C}_{1,l}r_*^2\log(\tau)}{a_1 (l\cdot \delta)^q} + O(\log(\tau)|B|), \\ & \leq 3\alpha z^2(\beta)r_*^2\frac{\log(\tau)}{a_1\delta^q}\mathbb{C}^\star\sum_{l=1}^\infty\frac{1}{l^q} + O(\log(\tau)|B|), \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{C}_{1,l}\leq \mathbb{C}^\star$ for all $l\in L(\delta)$ with $$\mathbb{C}^\star = \Big(\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[X_{1,1}^2]}{\mu_*^2}+\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[R_{1,1}^2]}{\epsilon^2\big({\mathbb{E}}[R_{1,1}]\big)^2}\Big).$$ Therefore, we have the following bound: $${\mathbb{E}}\Big[\sum_{l\in B}\Delta_{1,l}T_{1,l}\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\mu_*}\Big)\Big] \leq 3\alpha z^2(\beta)r_*^2\frac{\log(\tau)}{a_1\delta^q}\frac{\mathbb{C}^\star q}{q-1} + O(\log(\tau)|B|). \label{eqn:reg-b}$$ - For $l\in D$, we have $\Big| \big(t_{min}+(l^*-1)\delta\big) - \big(t_{min}+(l-1)\delta\big) \Big| \geq \delta_0/2$, hence the following holds by Assumption \[assn:ucb-rc\]: $$\Delta_{1,l} \geq a_1(\delta_0/2)^q.$$ Consequently, we have the following upper bound: $${\mathbb{E}}\Big[\sum_{l\in D}\Delta_{1,l}T_{1,l}\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\mu_*}\Big)\Big] \leq 3\alpha z^2(\beta)r_*^2\mathbb{C}^\star\frac{\log(\tau)L(\delta)}{a_1(\delta_0/2)^q}+O(\log(\tau)|D|). \label{eqn:reg-d}$$ Substituting the results in , and into , we obtain the following upper bound: $${\tt REG}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau) \leq a_2\frac{2\mu}{\mu_*}\tau(3\delta)^q + \frac{3\alpha q}{q-1}\mathbb{C}^\star z^2(\beta)r_*^2\frac{\log(\tau)}{a_1\delta^q} + O(\log(\tau)L(\delta)).$$ With the choice $\delta^q = \sqrt{\log(\tau)/\tau}$, we have $\log(\tau)L(\delta) = o(\sqrt{\tau\log(\tau)})$. Therefore, $$\lim\sup_{\tau\rightarrow}\frac{{\tt REG}_{\tt \pi^C}(\tau)}{\sqrt{\tau\log(\tau)}} \leq 6^q a_2\frac{ \mu}{\mu_*} + \frac{3\alpha q}{a_1(q-1)}\mathbb{C}^\star z^2(\beta)r_*^2.$$ 0.2in

--- abstract: 'We analyze positivity of a tensor product of two linear qubit maps, $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$. Positivity of maps $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for positivity of $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$. We find a non-trivial sufficient condition for positivity of the tensor product map beyond the cases when both $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are completely positive or completely co-positive. We find necessary and (separately) sufficient conditions for $n$-tensor-stable positive qubit maps, i.e. such qubit maps $\Phi$ that $\Phi^{\otimes n}$ is positive. Particular cases of 2- and 3-tensor-stable positive qubit maps are fully characterized, and the decomposability of 2-tensor-stable positive qubit maps is discussed. The case of non-unital maps is reduced to the case of appropriate unital maps. Finally, $n$-tensor-stable positive maps are used in characterization of multipartite entanglement, namely, in the entanglement depth detection.' author: - 'Sergey N. Filippov' - 'Kamil Yu. Magadov' title: 'Positive tensor products of maps and $n$-tensor-stable positive qubit maps' --- \[section-introduction\] Introduction ===================================== Tensor product structures play a vital role in quantum information theory: entanglement of quantum states is defined with respect to a particular bipartition [@werner-1989] or multipartition (see, e.g., the reviews [@horodecki-2009; @guhne-toth-2009]); communication via quantum channels involves multiple uses of the same channel, which results in the map of the form $\Phi^{\otimes n}$ (see, e.g., [@holevo-giovannetti-2012]); propagation of multipartite physical signals through separated communication lines $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ is described by a tensor product of corresponding maps $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$; local operations and measurements have the tensor product structure too. Properties of quantum channels may drastically change with tensoring as it takes place, for instance, in superactivation of zero-error capacities [@cubitt-2011; @shirokov-2015]. Positive maps, in their turn, are an important auxiliary tool in quantum information theory and are widely used in the analysis of bipartite entanglement [@peres-1996; @horodecki-1996; @terhal-2001; @chen-2004; @breuer-2006; @hall-2006; @chruscinski-kossakowski-2007; @ha-2011; @chruscinski-sarbicki-2014; @collins-2016], multipartite entanglement [@huber-2014; @lancien-2015], entanglement distillation [@horodecki-1998; @horodecki-1999; @divincenzo-2000; @clarisse-2005], distinguishability of bipartite states [@yu-2014; @horodecki-2015; @bandyopadhyay-2015], description of open system dynamics [@shaji-2005; @carteret-2008; @chruscinski-2014], monotonicity of relative entropy [@muller-hermes-2015], and evaluation of quantum channel capacities [@holevo-werner-2001]. Positivity of linear maps under tensor powers was analyzed in the recent seminal paper [@muller-hermes-2016], where the notions of $n$-tensor-stable positive and tensor-stable positive maps were introduced. Tensor-stable positive maps were found to provide new bounds on quantum channel capacities. The aim of this paper is to study positivity of the tensor product maps $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$, where both $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are qubit maps (${\cal M}_2 \mapsto {\cal M}_2$). We focus special attention on 2-tensor-stable positive maps $\Phi$, i.e. such maps $\Phi$ that $\Phi^{\otimes 2}$ is positive, and then extend our results to 3- and $n$-tensor-stable positive maps. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[section-notation\], we review notations and general properties of linear maps, and formulate some sufficient conditions for positivity of the tensor product map $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$. In Sec. \[section-depolarizing\], an exact characterization of bipartite locally depolarizing positive maps is presented. In Sec. \[section-unital-general\], sufficient conditions for positivity of the tensor product unital map $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$ are derived. In Sec. \[section-2-tensor-stable-positive-unital\], we find the necessary and sufficient condition for 2-tensor positivity of unital qubit maps. Sec. \[section-decomposable\] is devoted to the question of decomposability of the tensor products of qubit maps. In Sec. \[section-2-tensor-stable-positive-non-unital\], 2-tensor-stable positivity of non-unital qubit maps is studied by a reduction to the problem of 2-tensor-stable positivity of corresponding unital maps. In Sec. \[section-3-tensor-stable-positive-unital\], criteria for 3-tensor positivity of unital qubit maps are found and checked numerically. In Sec. \[section-n-tsp\], we find necessary and (separately) sufficient conditions for $n$-tensor-stable positive maps. Sec. \[section-witness\] is devoted to witnessing particular forms of multipartite entanglement via $n$-tensor-stable positive maps. In Sec. \[section-conclusions\], brief conclusions are given. \[section-notation\] Notations and general properties ===================================================== Consider a finite dimensional Hilbert space (unitary space) ${\cal H}_d$, ${\rm dim}{\cal H} = d$, and the set ${\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ of operators acting on ${\cal H}_d$. The operator $R\in{\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ is called positive semidefinite if ${\langle \psi|} R {| \psi \rangle } \geqslant 0$ for all vectors ${| \psi \rangle }\in{\cal H}_d$ (hereafter we use the Dirac notation). For positive semidefinite operators $R$ we write $R \geqslant 0$. We will denote the set of all positive semidefinite operators by ${\cal B}({\cal H}_d)^{+}$. The linear map $\Phi: {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)^{+} \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)^{+}$ is called positive. By ${\rm Id}_k$ denote the identity transformation on ${\cal B}({\cal H}_k)$. The linear map $\Phi$ is called $k$-positive if the map $\Phi\otimes{\rm Id}_k$ is positive. 2-positive maps of the form $\Phi^{\otimes n}$ are analyzed in the paper [@stormer-2010] and play an important role in the distillation problem [@divincenzo-2000]. A linear map $\Phi$ is called completely positive if it is $k$-positive for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ (see, e.g., [@breuer-petruccione]). By $\top_d$ we denote the transposition map on ${\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ associated with some orthonormal basis $\{{| i \rangle }\}_{i=1}^d$ in ${\cal H}_d$, $X^{\top}=\sum_{i,j} {| i \rangle } {\langle j|} X {| i \rangle } {\langle j|}$. Maps of the form $\top\circ\Phi$, where $\Phi$ is completely positive, are called completely co-positive. Duality relations between cones of different maps are discussed, e.g., in [@skowronek-2009]. A linear map $\Phi: {\cal B}({\cal H}_d) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ is called $n$-tensor-stable positive if the map $\Phi^{\otimes n}$ is positive [@muller-hermes-2016]. Obviously, if $m > n$, then the set of $n$-tensor-stable positive maps comprises the set of $m$-tensor-stable positive maps (nested structure). A linear map $\Phi: {\cal B}({\cal H}_d) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ is called tensor-stable positive (or tensor product positive) if it is $n$-tensor-stable positive for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ [@muller-hermes-2016; @hayashi-2006]. Completely positive and completely co-positive maps $\Phi$ are trivial tensor-stable positive maps [@muller-hermes-2016]. In subsequent sections, we exploit some properties of maps with regard to their action on entangled states. Quantum states are described by density operators, i.e. positive semidefinite operators $\varrho \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)^+$ with unit trace, ${\rm tr}\varrho = \sum_{i=1}^d {\langle i|}\varrho{| i \rangle } =1$. A positive semidefinite operator $R \in ({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}))^+$ is called separable [@werner-1989] if it can be represented in the form $\varrho = \sum_{k} R_k^{(1)} \otimes R_k^{(2)}$, where $R_k^{(1)} \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1})^+$ and $R_k^{(2)} \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2})^+$, otherwise $R$ is called entangled. Denote the cone of separable operators by ${\cal S}({\cal H}_{d_1}\otimes{\cal H}_{d_2})$. We will refer to completely positive maps $\Phi: {\cal B}({\cal H}_d) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ of the form $\Phi[X] = \sum_j {\rm tr}[E_j X] R_j$ with $E_j,R_j \geqslant 0$ as entanglement breaking (quantum–classical–quantum, measure-and-prepare) [@holevo-1998; @king-2002; @shor-2002; @ruskai-2003; @horodecki-2003; @holevo-2008]. A positive map $\Phi: ({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}))^+ \mapsto {\cal S}({\cal H}_{d_1}\otimes{\cal H}_{d_2})$ is called positive entanglement annihilating [@moravcikova-ziman-2010; @filippov-ziman-2013; @filippov-melnikov-ziman-2013; @filippov-ziman-2014]. Action of a linear map $\Phi: {\cal B}({\cal H}_d) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ can be defined through the Choi operator $\Omega_{\Phi} \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_d) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H}_d)$ via the so-called Choi-Jamio[ł]{}kowski isomorphism  [@pillis-1967; @jamiolkowski-1972; @choi-1975] reviewed in [@jiang-2013; @majewski-2013]: $$\begin{aligned} && \label{choi-matrix} \Omega_{\Phi} = (\Phi \otimes {\rm Id}_d) [{| \psi_+ \rangle }{\langle \psi_+|}], \\ && \label{map-through-choi} \Phi [X] = d \, {\rm tr}_2 [ \Omega_{\Phi} (I \otimes X^{\top}) ], \end{aligned}$$ where ${| \psi_+ \rangle } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{i=1}^{d} {| i \rangle } \otimes {| i \rangle }$ is a maximally entangled state, $I$ is the identity operator on ${\cal H}_d$, ${\rm tr}_2 [Y] = \sum_{i=1}^d (I \otimes {\langle i|}) Y (I \otimes {| i \rangle })$ denotes the partial trace operation for operators $Y \in {\cal B}({\cal H}) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H})$. Let us remind the known properties of Choi operator: 1. $\Phi$ is positive if and only if $\Omega_{\Phi}$ is block-positive, i.e. ${\langle \varphi|} \otimes {\langle \chi|} \Omega_{\Phi} {| \varphi \rangle } \otimes {| \chi \rangle } \geqslant 0$ for all ${| \varphi \rangle },{| \chi \rangle }\in{\cal H}_d$ [@jamiolkowski-1972]; 2. $\Phi$ is completely positive (quantum operation) if and only if $\Omega_{\Phi} \geqslant 0$ [@choi-1975]; 3. $\Phi$ is entanglement breaking if and only if $\Omega_{\Phi}$ is separable (see, e.g., [@horodecki-2003]); 4. $\Phi$ is positive entanglement annihilating if and only if ${\rm tr}[\Omega_{\Phi} \xi_{1|2} \otimes R_{12} ] \geqslant 0$ for all $R \in ({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}))^+$ and all block-positive operators $\xi_{1|2} \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2})$ [@filippov-ziman-2013]. The general problem addressed in this paper is to determine under which conditions a tensor product $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$ of two linear maps $\Phi_1: {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1})$ and $\Phi_2: {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2})$ is a positive map. Acting on a factorized positive operator $R_1 \otimes R_2 \geqslant 0$, it is not hard to see that the positivity of maps $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ is a necessary condition. This condition, however, is not sufficient in general as $({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}))^+ \otimes ({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}))^+ \subsetneq ({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}) \otimes {\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}))^+$. (Characterization of the cone $({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_1}))^+ \otimes ({\cal B}({\cal H}_{d_2}))^+$ is given in Ref. [@majewski-2001].) For instance, the maps $\Phi_1 = {\rm Id}$ and $\Phi_2 = \top$ are both positive, but the map $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2 = {\rm Id} \otimes \top$ is not positive. An apparent sufficient condition for positivity of the map $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$ is $\{\Phi_1\otimes\Phi_2$ is completely positive or completely co-positive$\}$, which takes place if $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are both completely positive, or if $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are both completely co-positive. Generalization of the problem to a number of maps $\Phi_1, \ldots, \Phi_n$ is to determine when the map $\bigotimes_{k=1}^{n} \Phi_n$ is positive. Setting all the maps $\Phi_i$ to be identical ($\Phi_i = \Phi$), we get the problem of characterizing $n$-tensor-stable positive maps posed in Ref. [@muller-hermes-2016]. We restrict our analysis to the case of linear qubit maps $\Phi_i: {\cal B}({\cal H}_2) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_2)$. It was shown in Ref. [@muller-hermes-2016] that all tensor-stable positive qubit maps are trivial (completely positive or completely co-positive). However, $n$-tensor-stable positive qubit maps for a fixed $n$ are not necessarily trivial and their characterization is still missing, so we partially fill this gap in the present paper. Also, we provide a full characterization for the cases $n=2$ and $n=3$. First, we obtain results for unital maps, i.e. such linear maps $\Phi$ that $\Phi[I]=I$. Then, we extend these results to the case of non-unital maps. Denote the concatenation of two maps $\Phi$ and $\Lambda$ by $\Phi \circ \Lambda$, i.e. $(\Phi \circ \Lambda) [X] = \Phi \left[ \Lambda[X] \right]$. \[proposition-positive-one-sided\] Suppose a map $\Phi_1\otimes\Phi_2$ is positive entanglement annihilating and ${\cal P}$ is positive, then the maps $\Phi_1\otimes({\cal P}\circ\Phi_2)$ and $({\cal P}\circ\Phi_1)\otimes\Phi_2$ are positive. By definition of positive entanglement annihilating map, for any positive semidefinite operator $R$ we have: $(\Phi_1\otimes\Phi_2)[R] = \sum_{k} R_k^{(1)} \otimes R_k^{(2)} \geqslant 0$, where $R_k^{(1)} \geqslant 0$ and $R_k^{(2)} \geqslant 0$. Since ${\cal P}[R_k^{(2)}] \geqslant 0$, the operator $\left( \Phi_1\otimes({\cal P}\circ\Phi_2) \right) [R] = \sum_{k} R_k^{(1)} \otimes {\cal P}[R_k^{(2)}] \geqslant 0$ for all $R \geqslant 0$. Similarly, $\left( ({\cal P}\circ\Phi_1)\otimes\Phi_2 \right) [R] \geqslant 0$ for all $R \geqslant 0$. Proposition \[proposition-positive-one-sided\] enables one to use known criteria for entanglement-annihilating maps [@filippov-ziman-2013; @filippov-rybar-ziman-2012] to find corresponding criteria for positive maps. Particular results of that kind are found in Sec. \[section-unital-general\]. \[proposition-eb-otimes-positive\] If $\Phi_1$ is entanglement breaking and $\Phi_2$ is positive, then the map $\Phi_1\otimes\Phi_2$ is positive. Since $\Phi_1$ is entanglement breaking, the operator $(\Phi_1\otimes{\rm Id})[R] = \sum_{k} R_k^{(1)} \otimes R_k^{(2)}$ is separable for any positive semidefinite $R$. Then, $(\Phi_1\otimes\Phi_2)[R] = \sum_{k} R_k^{(1)} \otimes \Phi_2[R_k^{(2)}] \geqslant 0$ in view of positivity of $\Phi_2$. \[section-depolarizing\] Depolarizing qubit maps ================================================ To illustrate the problem of positivity of tensor product maps, let us consider an exactly solvable case of depolarizing qubit maps. The action of a depolarizing qubit map ${\cal D}_{q}$ is defined as follows: $${\cal D}_{q}[X] = q X + (1-q) {\rm tr}[X] \frac{1}{2} I,$$ The map ${\cal D}_{q}$ is known to be positive if $q \in [-1,1]$ and completely positive if $q \in [-\frac{1}{3},1]$ (see, e.g., [@king-ruskai-2001; @ruskai-2002]). In what follows, we analyze when the two-qubit map ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ is positive. Entanglement-annihilating properties of the map ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ and their generalizations (acting in higher dimensions) are considered in papers [@filippov-ziman-2013; @filippov-2014; @lami-huber-2016]. Due to the convex structure of positive operators, if $({\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}) [{| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}] \geqslant 0$ for all ${| \psi \rangle } \in {\cal H}_2 \otimes {\cal H}_2$, then the map ${\cal D}_1\otimes{\cal D}_2$ is positive. Since the norm of a vector ${| \psi \rangle }$ is not relevant for the analysis of positivity, let us consider pure input states $\omega={| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}$ with ${{\langle \psi|}{ \psi \rangle }} = 1$. We use the Schmidt decomposition ${| \psi \rangle }=\sqrt{p}{| \phi\otimes\chi \rangle }+\sqrt{p_\perp}{| \phi_{\perp}\otimes\chi_{\perp} \rangle }$, where $\{{| \phi \rangle },{| \phi_{\perp} \rangle }\}$ and $\{{| \chi \rangle },{| \chi_{\perp} \rangle }\}$ are suitable orthonormal bases in Hilbert spaces of the first and second qubits, respectively, and $p$ and $p_{\perp}$ are real non-negative numbers such that $p+p_{\perp}=1$. ![\[figure-depolarizing\] Shaded area is the region of parameters $q_1$ and $q_2$, where the map ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ is positive. Solid line regions correspond to completely positive (CP) and completely co-positive (CcP) maps ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$. Proposition \[proposition-unital-positive\] detects positivity of the map ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ inside the dashed line region.](figure1){width="8cm"} Action of the two-qubit map ${\cal D}_1\otimes{\cal D}_2$ on $\omega$ yields $$\begin{aligned} &&\omega_{\rm out} = ({\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}) [\omega] = q_1 q_2 \omega + \frac{1}{2} (1-q_1) q_2 I \otimes \omega_2 \nonumber \\ && + \frac{1}{2} q_1 (1-q_2) \omega_1\otimes I + \frac{1}{4} (1-q_1)(1-q_2) I \otimes I, \end{aligned}$$ with the reduced states $\omega_1 = p {| \phi \rangle }{\langle \phi|} + p_{\perp} {| \phi_{\perp} \rangle }{\langle \phi_{\perp}|}$ and $\omega_2 = p {| \chi \rangle }{\langle \chi|} + p_{\perp} {| \chi_{\perp} \rangle }{\langle \chi_{\perp}|}$. The condition $\omega_{\rm out} \geqslant 0 $ reduces to $$\label{depolarizing-intermediate-condition} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} A_{+} + B_{+} & 0 & 0 & C \\ 0 & A_{-} + B_{-} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & A_{-} - B_{-} & 0 \\ C & 0 & 0 & A_{+} - B_{+} \\ \end{array} \right) \geqslant 0,$$ where $A_{\pm} = 1 \pm q_1 q_2$, $B_{\pm} = (2p-1)(q_1 \pm q_2)$, and $C = 4 \sqrt{p(1-p)} \, q_1 q_2$. After some algebra, we obtain that the condition holds true for all $0 \leqslant p \leqslant 1$ if $$\label{depolarizing-condition} q_1 q_2 \geqslant -\frac{1}{3}, \qquad -1 \leqslant q_1 \leqslant 1, \qquad -1 \leqslant q_2 \leqslant 1.$$ Inequalities  define the conditions under which the two-qubit map ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ is positive. We depict the corresponding area of parameters $q_1$ and $q_2$ in Fig. \[figure-depolarizing\]. Note that ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ is completely positive if $-\frac{1}{3} \leqslant q_1, q_2 \leqslant 1$. Analogously, ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$ is completely co-positive if $-1 \leqslant q_1, q_2 \leqslant \frac{1}{3}$. Let us demonstrate the use of Proposition \[proposition-positive-one-sided\]. Consider the reduction map ${\cal R}[X] = {\rm tr}[X] I - X$, which is known to be positive in qubit case [@horodecki-1999]. The concatenation ${\cal R} \circ {\cal D}_{q} = {\cal D}_{-q}$, i.e. the depolarizing map with parameter $-q$. The map ${\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{-q_2}$ is known to be positive entanglement annihilating if $q_1(-q_2) \leqslant \frac{1}{3}$ and $-1 \leqslant q_1, q_2 \leqslant 1$. According to Proposition \[proposition-positive-one-sided\], these relations are sufficient for positivity of the map ${\cal D}_{q_1} \otimes ({\cal R}\circ{\cal D}_{-q_2}) = {\cal D}_{q_1}\otimes{\cal D}_{q_2}$. In this particular case, these relations turn out to be the same as the necessary and sufficient conditions . \[section-unital-general\] Unital qubit maps ============================================ A unital qubit map $\Phi$ satisfies $\Phi[I]=I$ and can be expressed in the form [@king-ruskai-2001; @ruskai-2002] $$\label{Phi-through-Upsilon} \Phi[X] = W(\Upsilon[V X V^{\dag}])W^{\dag},$$ where $V$ and $W$ are appropriate unitary operators such that the map $\Upsilon$ has the Pauli form, i.e. $$\label{Upsilon} \Upsilon[X]=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{3}\lambda_{j}{\rm tr}[\sigma_{j}X]\sigma_{j} = \sum_{j=0}^3 q_j \sigma_j X \sigma_j,$$ where $\sigma_0=I$ and $\{\sigma_{i}\}_{i=1}^{3}$ is a conventional set of Pauli operators. Thus, up to a unitary preprocessing $(V \cdot V^{\dag})$ and postprocessing $(W \cdot W^{\dag})$ the unital map $\Phi$ reduces to the map $\Upsilon$. From Eq.  it is not hard to see that the two-qubit unital map $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$ is positive if and only if $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$ is positive. In this section, we will consider properties of maps $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$. The relation between parameters $\{\lambda_j\}$ and $\{q_j\}$ in formula  is given by $$\left( \begin{array}{c} q_0 \\ q_1 \\ q_2 \\ q_3 \\ \end{array} \right) = \frac{1}{4} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 \\ \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} \lambda_0 \\ \lambda_1 \\ \lambda_2 \\ \lambda_3 \\ \end{array} \right),$$ i.e. ${\bf q} = \frac{1}{2}H \boldsymbol{\lambda}$, where ${\bf q} = (q_0,q_1,q_2,q_3)^{\top}$, $H$ is the $4 \times 4$ Hadamard matrix, and $\boldsymbol{\lambda} = (\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)^{\top}$. For hermicity-preserving maps $\Upsilon$ the parameters $\{\lambda_j\}$ and $\{q_j\}$ are real. Positive maps correspond to parameters $\lambda_0 \geqslant 0$, $-\lambda_0 \leqslant \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3 \leqslant \lambda_0$. Completely positive maps correspond to $q_j \geqslant 0$, $j=0,\ldots,3$. Trace preserving maps are those with $\lambda_0 = 1$. Completely positive trace preserving unital qubit maps are called unital qubit channels and are essentially the random unitary channels [@audenaert-scheel-2008]. \[proposition-unital-positive\] A unital two-qubit map $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$ is positive if $\Upsilon_1^2$ and $\Upsilon_2^2$ are both entanglement breaking. Consider a map $\overline{\Upsilon}_2 = {\cal R} \circ \Upsilon_2$, where ${\cal R}$ is the qubit reduction map. Then $\overline{\Upsilon}_2^2 = \Upsilon_2^2$ is the entanglement breaking map. If $\Upsilon_1^2$ and $\overline{\Upsilon}_2^2$ are both entanglement breaking, then the map $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \overline{\Upsilon}_2$ is positive entanglement annihilating according to the Proposition 1 of Ref. [@filippov-rybar-ziman-2012]. By Proposition \[proposition-positive-one-sided\] of the present paper, the map $\Upsilon_1 \otimes ({\cal R} \circ \overline{\Upsilon}_2) = \Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$ is positive. The “power” of Proposition \[proposition-unital-positive\] can be illustrated by the example of the local two-qubit depolarizing map ${\cal D}_{q_1} \otimes {\cal D}_{q_2}$. Since ${\cal D}_{q}^2 = {\cal D}_{q^2}$, the maps ${\cal D}_{q_1}^2$ and ${\cal D}_{q_2}^2$ are both entanglement breaking if $q_1^2, q_2^2 \leqslant \frac{1}{3}$ [@ruskai-2003], i.e. $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \leqslant q_1, q_2 \leqslant \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$. Corresponding region of parameters is depicted in Fig. \[figure-depolarizing\]. Clearly, Proposition \[proposition-unital-positive\] provides only a sufficient but not a necessary condition for positivity. Being applied to the unital map $\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon$, Proposition \[proposition-unital-positive\] guarantees that the map $\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon$ is positive if $\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 \leqslant \lambda_0^2$ ($\Upsilon^2$ is entanglement breaking). The corresponding ball (for $\lambda_0 = 1$) is depicted in Fig. \[figure-geometry-simple\]. Usual powers of linear maps (self-concatenations $\Upsilon^{n}$) also find applications in quantum information theory, for instance, in noise quantification [@de-pasquale-2012; @lami-giovannetti-2015]. ![\[figure-geometry-simple\] Regions of parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ determining particular properties of the unital qubit map $\Upsilon$ defined by Eq. . Tetrahedrons represent trivial tensor-stable positive maps (yellow one corresponds to completely positive maps, blue one corresponds to completely co-positive maps). Sphere corresponds to positive entanglement annihilating maps $\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon$ (see Proposition \[proposition-unital-positive\]).](figure2){width="8cm"} Comparison of formulas and clarifies that, in general, $\Phi^2 \neq \Upsilon^2$. This fact is analogous to filtering $\Upsilon \circ {\cal U} \circ \Upsilon$ [@gavenda-2008; @de-pasquale-2012; @lami-giovannetti-2015], where the intermediate (unitary) map ${\cal U}$ is used to prevent $\Upsilon^2$ from becoming entanglement breaking. In contrast to the entanglement annihilating property, which states that $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$ is positive entanglement annihilating if both $\Upsilon_1^2$ and $\Upsilon_2^2$ are entanglement breaking, complete positivity of the maps $\Upsilon_1^2$ and $\Upsilon_2^2$ does not imply that $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$ is positive. Counterexample is the case $\Upsilon_1 = {\rm Id}$ and $\Upsilon_2 = \top$. \[section-2-tensor-stable-positive-unital\] 2-tensor-stable positive unital qubit maps ====================================================================================== In this section, we analyze positivity of two-qubit unital maps $\Phi^{\otimes 2}$. By Eq. , $\Phi$ is 2-tensor-stable positive if and only if $\Upsilon$ is 2-tensor-stable positive. Without loss of generality one can impose the trace-preserving condition, $\lambda_0=1$, then the remaining three parameters $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^{3}$ in formula are scaling coefficients of the Bloch ball axes. Thus, the map $\Upsilon$ is given by a point in the Cartesian coordinate system $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ and can be readily visualized. ![\[figure2\] Region of parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$, where the unital qubit map $\Upsilon$ (see Eq. ) is 2-tensor-stable positive. Map $\Theta$ belongs to the gorge of a hyperboloid, line $\Theta\Xi$ is a generatrix of the hyperboloid surface.](figure3){width="8cm"} \[proposition-2-tsp\] $\Upsilon$ is 2-tensor-stable positive if and only if $\Upsilon^2$ is completely positive. *Necessity*. Let us prove that if $\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon$ is positive, then $\Upsilon^2$ is completely positive. Suppose $(\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon)[R] \geqslant 0$ for all $R \geqslant 0$. Let $R$ be equal to ${| \psi_+ \rangle }{\langle \psi_+|}$, where ${| \psi_+ \rangle }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({| 00 \rangle }+{| 11 \rangle })$. It is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned} \label{choi-of-upsilon-squared} && (\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon) [{| \psi_+ \rangle } {\langle \psi_+|}] \nonumber\\ && = \frac{1}{4} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1+\lambda_3^2 & 0 & 0 & \lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2 \\ 0 & 1-\lambda_3^2 & \lambda_1^2-\lambda_2^2 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_1^2-\lambda_2^2 & 1-\lambda_3^2 & 0 \\ \lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2 & 0 & 0 & 1+\lambda_3^2 \\ \end{array} \right) = \Omega_{\Upsilon^2}, \qquad \end{aligned}$$ i.e. $\Omega_{\Upsilon^2} \geqslant 0$ and the map $\Upsilon^2$ is completely positive. Taking into account the explicit form of the Choi matrix , we get $$\label{hyperboloids} \{\Upsilon^{2} \ \text{is CP}\} \Leftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1 + \lambda_1^2 \geqslant \lambda_2^2 + \lambda_3^2, \\ 1 + \lambda_2^2 \geqslant \lambda_1^2 + \lambda_3^2, \\ 1 + \lambda_3^2 \geqslant \lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2, \\ \end{array} \right.$$ or, concisely, $ 1 \pm \lambda_{3}^2 \geqslant |\lambda_{1}^2\pm \lambda_{2}^2|$. Each of inequalities defines an interior of the one-sheet hyperboloid in the space of parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$. Intersection of these three hyperboloids is depicted in Fig. \[figure2\]. Gorges (throats) of those hyperboloids are exactly three mutually perpendicular great circles (orthodromes) of a unit sphere. *Sufficiency*. Suppose $\Upsilon^2$ is completely positive and $\lambda_0 = 1$, then parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ satisfy the inequalities . Let us use the alternative description of the map $\Upsilon$, namely, $\Upsilon [X] = \sum_{i=0}^3 q_i \sigma_i X \sigma_i$. Then $(\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon) [X] = \sum_{i,j=0}^3 q_i q_j \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j X \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j$. To demonstrate positivity of the map $\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon$, it suffices to show that ${\langle \varphi|} (\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon) [{| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}] {| \varphi \rangle } \geqslant 0$ for all ${| \psi \rangle },{| \varphi \rangle } \in {\cal H}_2 \otimes {\cal H}_2$. We have $$\begin{aligned} {\langle \varphi|} (\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon) [{| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}] {| \varphi \rangle } &=& \sum_{i,j=0}^3 q_i q_j \left| {\langle \varphi|} \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j {| \psi \rangle } \right|^2 \nonumber\\ &=& {\bf q}^{\top} A {\bf q} = \frac{1}{4} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\top} H^{\dag} A H \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \end{aligned}$$ where the matrix elements $$A_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}\left( \left| {\langle \varphi|} \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j {| \psi \rangle } \right|^2 + \left| {\langle \varphi|} \sigma_j \otimes \sigma_i {| \psi \rangle } \right|^2 \right) \geqslant 0.$$ Thus, the symmetric matrix $A$ has non-negative entries only and, according to the Perron-Frobenius theorem, the absolute value of its minimal eigenvalue, $|\lambda_{-}|$, cannot exceed its maximal eigenvalue, $\lambda_{+} > 0$ (see, e.g., [@gantmacher-2000]). Since the Hadamard matrix $H$ is unitary, the eigenvalues of matrices $H^{\dag} A H$ and $A$ coincide. It means that the absolute value $|\lambda_{-}|$ of any negative coefficient $\lambda_{-}$ in the diagonal representation of the quadratic form $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\top} H^{\dag} A H \boldsymbol{\lambda}$ is less or equal than the maximal positive coefficient. Consequently, the principal curvatures $k_1$ and $k_2$ of a quadric surface $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\top} H^{\dag} A H \boldsymbol{\lambda} = 0$ satisfy $-1 \leqslant k_1,k_2 \leqslant 1$. On the other hand, each of equalities defines a surface with boundary principal curvatures ($\min k_1 = -1$, $\max k_2 = 1$). Thus, no quadric $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\top} H^{\dag} A H \boldsymbol{\lambda}=0$ can intersect the interior region of all inequalities without intersecting the regions of completely positive maps or completely co-positive maps (two tetrahedrons in Fig. \[figure-geometry-simple\]). Roughly speaking, all quadric surfaces $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\top} H^{\dag} A H \boldsymbol{\lambda}=0$ are more “flat” than those of Eqs. . Therefore, the interior region of all inequalities is the interior set of all figures $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\top} H^{\dag} A H \boldsymbol{\lambda} \geqslant 0$, which implies $\{\Upsilon^2$ is CP$\} \Rightarrow \{ \Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon$ is positive$\}$. Inequalities specify a non-convex geometrical figure in the space of parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$. However, any interior point of that figure corresponds to a convex sum of some boundary map $\Upsilon$ and the completely depolarizing map $\mathcal{D}_0$ and corresponds to a 2-tensor-stable positive map since the boundary map does so. Parameterizing the surface of hyperboloids, one can also find numerical evidence of Proposition \[proposition-2-tsp\]. Any one-sheet hyperboloid is doubly ruled, i.e. it has two distinct generatrices that pass trough every point. Without loss of generality, let us consider a particular hyperboloid fragment with vertices $(1,1,1)$, $(0,0,1)$, $(1,-1,1)$, and $(1,0,0)$ in the space $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$. These vertices correspond to the maps ${\rm Id}$, $\mathcal{Z}$, ${\top}$, and $\mathcal{X}$, respectively. The first family of generatrices is given by straight lines passing through points $\left( x,x,1 \right)$ and $\left( 1,-f(x),f(x) \right)$, where $f(x) = (1-x)/(1+x)$ and $x\in (0,1)$. The second family of generatrices is formed by straight lines passing through points $\left( y,-y,1 \right)$ and $\left( 1,f(y),f(y) \right)$, $y\in (0,1)$. Any point inside the involved hyperboloid fragment is defined by a pair of parameters $(x,y)\in[0,1]^2$ and corresponds to the following map: $$\label{Upsilon-x-y} \Upsilon = \frac{x(1-y){\rm Id} + y(1-x){\top} + 2xy \mathcal{X} + (1-x)(1-y) \mathcal{Z}}{1+xy},$$ whose parameters read $$\label{lambda-x-y} \lambda_{1} = \frac{x+y}{1 + x y}, \quad \lambda_{2} = \frac{x - y}{1 + x y}, \quad \lambda_{3} = \frac{1 - x y}{1 + x y}.$$ Then one can check block-positivity of the Choi matrix of the map $\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon$, i.e. to validate inequality $$\label{choi-block-positive} {\langle \varphi^{AB}|} \otimes {\langle \chi^{A'B'}|} (\Omega_{\Upsilon}^{AA'} \otimes \Omega_{\Upsilon}^{BB'}) {| \varphi^{AB} \rangle } \otimes {| \chi^{A'B'} \rangle } \geqslant 0$$ numerically for all two qubit states ${| \varphi^{AB} \rangle }$ and ${| \chi^{AB} \rangle }$ and all $0 \leqslant x,y \leqslant 1$. Alternatively, positivity of the operator $\varrho = (\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon) [{| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}]$ is guaranteed by the requirement that all coefficients $s_i$, $i=1,\ldots,4$ of the characteristic polynomial $$\label{characteristic-polynomial} {\rm det}(\lambda I-\varrho) = \lambda^N - s_1 \lambda^{N-1} + s_2 \lambda^{N-2} - \ldots + (-1)^N s_N$$ are non-negative, i.e. $\rho\geqslant 0 \Leftrightarrow s_k \geqslant 0$, $k=1,\ldots,4$ [@bengtsson-zyczkowski]. The coefficients $s_1={\rm tr}[\varrho]$, $s_2=\frac{1}{2}(s_1{\rm tr}[\varrho]-{\rm tr}[\varrho^2])$, and in general, iteratively, $s_k=\frac{1}{k}(s_{k-1}{\rm tr}[\rho]-s_{k-2}{\rm tr}[\rho^2]+ \ldots +(-1)^{k-1}{\rm tr}[\rho^{k}])$. Then one can numerically check positivity of matrices $(\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon)[{| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}]$ for all two-qubit states ${| \psi \rangle }$ and parameters $0 \leqslant x,y \leqslant 1$. \[section-decomposable\] Decomposability ======================================== Following the results of Refs. [@stormer-1963; @stormer-1982], we will refer to the map of the form $\Phi_1 + \Phi_2$, where $\Phi_1$ is completely positive and $\Phi_2$ is completely co-positive, as decomposable. All positive qubit maps $\Phi: {\cal B}({\cal H}_2) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_2)$ are known to be decomposable [@stormer-1963]. Decomposability of extremal positive unital maps on $M_2$ is analyzed in Ref. [@majewski-2005]. However, even if $\Phi$ is decomposable, it does not imply that $\Phi^{\otimes 2}$ is decomposable as it contains terms $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$ and $\Phi_2 \otimes \Phi_1$ which are not necessarily positive. Moreover, there exist examples of indecomposable maps ${\cal B}({\cal H}_2) \mapsto {\cal B}({\cal H}_4)$ [@woronowicz-1976]. This means that the decomposability of positive tensor powers $\Phi \otimes \Phi$ (as well as the more general property of $k$-decomposability [@labuschagne-2006]) is still an open problem even for qubit maps $\Phi$. In what follows, we make some steps toward understanding of this problem and consider examples of non-trivial 2-tensor-stable unital maps $\Upsilon$ such that $\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon$ is decomposable. Positive map $\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon$ with parameters $\lambda_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, $\lambda_2=0$, $\lambda_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ is decomposable. In fact, it is not hard to see that $$\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon = \frac{1}{2} F \circ \left( {\rm Id} \otimes {\rm Id} + \top \otimes \top \right),$$ where $F$ is a two-qubit map of the form $F[X] = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{i,j=0}^3 \lambda_{ij} {\rm tr}[\sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j X] \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j$ with $\lambda_{00} = 1$, $\lambda_{01} = \lambda_{03} = \lambda_{10} = \lambda_{30} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, $\lambda_{02} = \lambda_{11} = \lambda_{13} = \lambda_{20} = \lambda_{31} = \lambda_{33} = \frac{1}{2}$, $\lambda_{12} = \lambda_{21} = \lambda_{23} = \lambda_{32} = \frac{1}{4}$, and $\lambda_{22} = 0$. Eigenvalues of the Choi matrix $\Omega_F$ are all non-negative, consequently, $F$ is completely positive, $F \circ (\top \otimes \top)$ is completely co-positive, and $\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon$ is decomposable. Consider the one-parametric family of maps $(\mu \Upsilon_1 + (1-\mu) \Upsilon_2)^{\otimes 2}$, where $\Upsilon_1$ is given by parameters $\lambda_0 = 1$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \lambda_3 = \frac{2}{3}$, $\Upsilon_2$ is given by parameters $\lambda_0 = \lambda_3 = 1$, $\lambda_1 = - \lambda_2 = \frac{1}{20}$. Let us show that $(\mu \Upsilon_1 + (1-\mu) \Upsilon_2)^{\otimes 2}$ is positive and decomposable for all $0 \leqslant \mu \leqslant 1$. Note that $\mu \Upsilon_1 + (1-\mu) \Upsilon_2$ is non-trivial 2-tensor-stable positive for $0<\mu<\frac{3}{13}$. The map $\Upsilon_1^{\otimes 2}$ is completely positive, and the map $\Upsilon_2^{\otimes 2}$ is completely co-positive. Let us note that $$\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2 = F \circ \left( \frac{3}{4} G_1 \otimes {\rm Id} + \frac{1}{4} \top \otimes G_2 \right),$$ where $G_1 = {\cal Z}$ ($\lambda_0 = \lambda_3 = 1$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 0$), $G_2 = {\cal D}_{1/3}$ (depolarizing map with parameter $1/3$), and $F$ is a two-qubit map $F[X] = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{i,j=0}^3 \lambda_{ij} {\rm tr}[\sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j X] \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j$ with $\lambda_{0n}=\lambda_{3n}=(4+\delta_{n0})/5$, $\lambda_{1n}=\lambda_{2n}=(2-\delta_{n0})/5$. Since the eigenvalues of the Choi matrix $\Omega_F$ are all non-negative, $F \circ (G_1 \otimes {\rm Id})$ is completely positive as the concatenation of completely positive maps, and $F \circ (\top \otimes G_2)$ is completely co-positive as the concatenation of completely positive and completely co-positive maps. (Note that $G_2$ is entanglement breaking and $\top \otimes G_2$ is completely co-positive.) Thus, $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$ is decomposable. Analogously, $\Upsilon_2 \otimes \Upsilon_1$ is decomposable. Finally, $(\mu \Upsilon_1 + (1-\mu) \Upsilon_2)^{\otimes 2}$ is decomposable as the convex sum of decomposable maps. The examples above stimulate us to make a conjecture that all positive unital two-qubit maps of the form $\Upsilon \otimes \Upsilon$ are decomposable. ![\[figure-non-unital-positive\] Non-unital map is positive for $t=0.8$ in the shaded region of parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_3$.](figure4){width="8cm"} \[section-2-tensor-stable-positive-non-unital\] Non-unital qubit maps ===================================================================== Similarly to Eq. , an interior map of the cone of positive non-unital qubit maps $\Phi: ({\cal B}({\cal H}_2))^{+} \mapsto ({\cal B}({\cal H}_2))^{+}$ can be represented in the form of the following concatenation [@gurvits-2004; @aubrun-szarek-2015]: $$\label{Phi-through-Upsilon-non-unital} \Phi[X] = B(\Upsilon[A X A^{\dag}])B^{\dag},$$ where $\Upsilon$ is given by Eq.  and $A,B \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_2)$ are positive-definite operators. As $A$ and $B$ are non-degenerate, the condition ${\langle \varphi|} (\Phi_1\otimes\Phi_2)[{| \psi \rangle }{\langle \psi|}] {| \varphi \rangle } \geqslant 0$ holds for all ${| \psi \rangle },{| \varphi \rangle }\in{\cal H}_4$ if and only if ${\langle \widetilde{\varphi}|} (\Upsilon_1\otimes\Upsilon_2)[{| \widetilde{\psi} \rangle }{\langle \widetilde{\psi}|}] {| \widetilde{\varphi} \rangle } \geqslant 0$ holds for all ${| \widetilde{\psi} \rangle },{| \widetilde{\varphi} \rangle }\in{\cal H}_4$, since ${| \widetilde{\psi} \rangle } = A_1 \otimes A_2 {| \psi \rangle }$ and ${| \widetilde{\varphi} \rangle } = B_1^{\dag} \otimes B_2^{\dag} {| \varphi \rangle }$. Thus, the positivity of a tensor product of non-unital maps $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$ is equivalent to the positivity of the tensor product of corresponding unital maps $\Upsilon_1 \otimes \Upsilon_2$. A qubit map $\Phi$ can be expressed in an appropriate basis by its matrix form ${\cal E}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}{\rm tr}\left[ \sigma_i \Phi[\sigma_j] \right]$ as follows [@king-ruskai-2001; @ruskai-2002]: $$\label{matrix-form-non-unital-general} {\cal E} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ t_1 & \lambda_1 & 0 & 0 \\ t_2 & 0 & \lambda_2 & 0 \\ t_3 & 0 & 0 & \lambda_3 \\ \end{array} \right).$$ ![\[figure-non-unital-entangled\] Region of parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_3$, satisfying the condition $(\Phi\otimes\Phi)[{| \psi_+ \rangle }{\langle \psi_+|}] \geqslant 0$ for non-unital maps $\Phi$ defined by Eq.  with $t=0.8$.](figure5){width="8cm"} To demonstrate the idea of reducing the problem to the case of unital maps, let us consider a four-parametric family of maps $\Phi$ whose matrix representation reads $$\label{matrix-form-non-unital} {\cal E} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \lambda_2 & 0 \\ t & 0 & 0 & \lambda_3 \\ \end{array} \right).$$ Such a family comprises the description of extremal completely positive qubit maps [@ruskai-2002]. \[proposition-reduction-to-unitary\] Let $\Phi$ be a map defined by the matrix representation  with $1-|t|-|\lambda_3| > 0$ and $$\begin{aligned} && \!\!\!\!\! A^{-1} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} a_{+} b_{-} & 0 \\ 0 & a_{-} b_{+} \\ \end{array} \right), \quad B^{-1} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{cc} b_{-} & 0 \\ 0 & b_{+} \\ \end{array} \right), \quad \\ && \!\!\!\!\! a_{\pm} = \sqrt{1 \pm t - \lambda_3}, \quad b_{\pm} = \pm \sqrt[4]{(1 \pm t)^2 - \lambda_3^2}, \end{aligned}$$ then the map $\widetilde{\Upsilon}[Y] = B^{-1} \Phi[A^{-1} Y (A^{-1})^{\dag}] (B^{-1})^{\dag}$ is proportional to a unital map and the corresponding coefficients in Eq.  equal $$\begin{aligned} && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \widetilde{\lambda}_0 \!=\! \frac{1}{2} \big( (1 - \lambda_3)^2 - t^2 \big) \nonumber\\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \times \left[ (1 \!+\! \lambda_3)^2 \!-\! t^2 + \sqrt{\big( (1 \!-\! t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big) \big( (1 \!+\!t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big)} \right], \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \widetilde{\lambda}_1 \!=\! \lambda_1 \sqrt{ \big( (1 \! - \! \lambda_3)^2 \!-\! t^2 \big) \big((1 \!-\! t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big) \big( (1 \!+\! t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big)}, \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \widetilde{\lambda}_2 \!=\! \lambda_2 \sqrt{ \big( (1 \! - \! \lambda_3)^2 \!-\! t^2 \big) \big((1 \!-\! t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big) \big( (1 \!+\! t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big)}, \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \widetilde{\lambda}_3 \!=\! \frac{1}{2} \big( (1 - \lambda_3)^2 - t^2 \big) \nonumber\\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \times \left[ (1 \!+\! \lambda_3)^2 \!-\! t^2 - \sqrt{\big( (1 \!-\! t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big) \big( (1 \!+\!t)^2 \!-\! \lambda_3^2 \big)} \right]. \end{aligned}$$ Since the concatenation of maps corresponds to the product of their matrix representations, a straightforward calculation yields the map $\widetilde{\Upsilon}$ which has the form . Thus, the map $\Phi$ given by Eq.  is positive when (i) $1-|t|-|\lambda_3| > 0$ and $|\widetilde{\lambda}_k| \leqslant \widetilde{\lambda}_0$, $k=1,2,3$ or (ii) $1-|t|-|\lambda_3| = 0$ and $\lambda_1^2,\lambda_2^2 \leqslant 1-|t|$. The latter one can readily be obtained by considering Bloch ball transformations. Fixing parameter $t$, one can visualize conditions (i)–(ii) in the reference frame $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ (see Fig. \[figure-non-unital-positive\]). ![\[figure-non-unital-numerical\] Region of parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_3$, where the non-unital map $\Phi$ defined by Eq.  with $t=0.8$ is 2-tensor-stable positive.](figure6){width="8cm"} The result of Ref. [@aubrun-szarek-2015] is that the matrices $A^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}$ can be chosen positive-definite for a map $\Phi$ from the interior of the cone of positive maps. In Proposition \[proposition-reduction-to-unitary\], we have considered non-degenerate matrices $A^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}$. It is not hard to see that in contrast to the case of unital maps, the condition $(\Phi\otimes\Phi)[{| \psi_{+} \rangle }{\langle \psi_{+}|}] \geqslant 0$, where ${| \psi_{+} \rangle }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({| 00 \rangle }+{| 11 \rangle })$, is not a sufficient condition for positivity of a non-unital map $\Phi\otimes\Phi$. In fact, direct calculation of eigenvalues of $(\Phi\otimes\Phi)[{| \psi_{+} \rangle }{\langle \psi_{+}|}]$ results in the following conditions: $$\label{conditions-necessary-non-unital-entangled} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1-t^2+\lambda_1^2 - \lambda_2^2 - 2t\lambda_3 - \lambda_3^2 \geqslant 0, \\ 1-t^2-\lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2 - 2t\lambda_3 - \lambda_3^2 \geqslant 0, \\ 1-t^2-\sqrt{4t^2 + (\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2)^2} + \lambda_3^2 \geqslant 0, \\ 1-t^2+\sqrt{4t^2 + (\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2)^2} + \lambda_3^2 \geqslant 0. \\ \end{array} \right.$$ The area of parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ satisfying inequalities  for a fixed value of parameter $t$ is shown in Fig. \[figure-non-unital-entangled\]. However, from Eq.  and Proposition \[proposition-2-tsp\] it follows that a map $\Phi$ from the interior of cone of positive maps is 2-tensor-stable positive if and only if its action on the pure state $A^{-1} \otimes A^{-1} {| \psi_+ \rangle }$ results in the positive-semidefinite operator. Consequently, such a map $\Phi$ is 2-tensor-stable positive if and only if $$\widetilde{\lambda}_0^2 \pm \widetilde{\lambda}_{3}^2 \geqslant |\widetilde{\lambda}_{1}^2 \pm \widetilde{\lambda}_{2}^2|.$$ The region of parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_3$, where the map $\Phi\otimes\Phi$ is positive for a fixed $t$, is shown in Fig. \[figure-non-unital-numerical\]. Although Fig. \[figure-non-unital-numerical\] looks like an intersection of regions depicted in Figs. \[figure-non-unital-positive\] and \[figure-non-unital-entangled\], it is not. Finally, one can proceed analogously to find necessary and sufficient conditions for 2-tensor-stable positivity of maps defined by the matrix representation . \[section-3-tensor-stable-positive-unital\] 3-tensor-stable positive qubit maps =============================================================================== Let us proceed to higher-order tensor-stable positive maps, namely, a unital subclass of 3-tensor-stable positive qubit maps $\Phi$. Similarly to the results of Sec. \[section-2-tensor-stable-positive-unital\], the map $\Phi^{\otimes 3}$ is positive if and only if $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3}$ is positive, with the diagonal map $\Upsilon$ being parameterized by Eq. . First, we analytically find necessary conditions for positivity of the map $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3}$. \[proposition-3-tsp\] If the unital qubit map $\Upsilon$ is 3-tensor-stable positive, then the following 12 inequalities are satisfied: $$\begin{aligned} && \label{3-tsp-1} 1 - \lambda_i^3 - 3 \lambda_i \lambda_j^2 + 3 \lambda_k^2 \geqslant 0, \\ && \label{3-tsp-2} 1 + \lambda_i^3 + 3 \lambda_i \lambda_j^2 + 3 \lambda_k^2 \geqslant 0, \end{aligned}$$ where $(i,j,k)$ is a permutation of indices $(1,2,3)$, i.e. $i,j,k=1,2,3$ and $i \neq j \neq k \neq i$. Consider the three-qubit Greenberger?-Horne?-Zeilinger state [@greenberger-horne-zeilinger-1989; @greenberger-1990] $${| {\rm GHZ} \rangle } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( {| 000 \rangle } + {| 111 \rangle } )$$ written in the basis, in which the map $\Upsilon$ has the form . Let us define permutations generated by the following matrices: $$\begin{aligned} \label{u-1} && u_1 = \frac{\sigma_2 + \sigma_3}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & -i \\ i & -1 \\ \end{array} \right),\\ \label{u-2} && u_2 = \frac{\sigma_1 + \sigma_3}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \\ \end{array} \right), \nonumber\\ \label{u-3} && u_3 = \frac{\sigma_1 + \sigma_2}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1-i \\ 1+i & 0 \\ \end{array} \right). \end{aligned}$$ The physical meaning of unitary transformation $u_i \cdot u_i^{\dag}$ is the rotation of the Bloch ball such that the $i$-th direction becomes inverted and the other two perpendicular directions ($j$-th and $k$-th) become interchanged. Denote $U_0 = I \otimes I \otimes I$ and $U_i = u_i \otimes u_i \otimes u_i$, $i=1,2,3$. We generate the following transformations of the GHZ state: $$\varrho_{ij} = U_i U_j {| {\rm GHZ} \rangle } {\langle {\rm GHZ}|} (U_i U_j)^{\dag}, \quad i,j=0,1,2,3.$$ If $\Upsilon$ is 3-tensor-stable positive, then $$(\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon\otimes\Upsilon)[\varrho_{ij}] \geqslant 0, \quad i,j=0,1,2,3,$$ which is a number of constraints on parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$. Intersection of these constraints results in 12 inequalities –. ![ \[figure-3-tsp\] (a) Region of parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$, where the unital qubit map $\Upsilon$ (see Eq. ) is 3-tensor-stable positive. (b) The cut $\lambda_2=0$: dashed line is a boundary of region, where $\Upsilon$ is 2-tensor-stable positive; solid line is a boundary of region, where $\Upsilon$ is 3-tensor-stable positive; dotted line is a boundary of region, where $\Upsilon$ is tensor-stable positive.](figure7){width="9cm"} In view of complexity of inequalities –, we have used numerical methods to analyze the block-positivity of the Choi operator $\Omega_{\Upsilon^{\otimes 3}}$ with respect to the cut $123|123$. It turns out that $\Omega_{\Upsilon^{\otimes 3}}$ is block positive whenever parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ satisfy –. Therefore, there is a numerical evidence that Proposition \[proposition-3-tsp\] provides not only a necessary but also a sufficient condition for positivity of the map $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3}$. The region of parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ satisfying – is depicted in Fig. \[figure-3-tsp\]. One can readily see that 3-tensor-stable positive maps occupy a subset of 2-tensor-stable positive maps and contain the set of tensor-stable positive qubit maps, which is known to consist of trivial maps only (completely positive and completely co-positive ones) [@muller-hermes-2016]. Using the relation  and Proposition \[proposition-3-tsp\], the full characterization of non-unital 3-tensor-stable positive qubit maps follows straightforwardly. \[section-n-tsp\] $n$-tensor-stable positive qubit maps ======================================================= A general positive qubit map $\Phi$ is $n$-tensor-stable positive if and only if the corresponding Pauli map $\Upsilon$ is $n$-tensor stable positive (specified by formula for unital maps $\Phi$ and by formula for non-unital maps $\Phi$). Suppose the Pauli qubit map $\Upsilon$ is $n$-tensor-stable positive, then $$\begin{aligned} \label{condition-n-tsp} && | (1 + \lambda_i)^p (1 - \lambda_i)^q + (1 - \lambda_i)^p (1 + \lambda_i)^q | \geqslant \nonumber\\ && \geqslant | (\lambda_j + \lambda_k)^p (\lambda_j - \lambda_k)^q + (\pm 1)^n (\lambda_j - \lambda_k)^p (\lambda_j + \lambda_k)^q |, \nonumber\\ \end{aligned}$$ for all permutations $(i,j,k)$ of indices $(1,2,3)$ and all $p,q \in {\mathbb Z}_+$ such that $p+q=n$. Consider a generalized GHZ state of $n$ qubits, ${| \text{GHZ}_n \rangle } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({| 0 \rangle }^{\otimes n} + {| 1 \rangle }^{\otimes n})$. Note that ${| \text{GHZ}_n \rangle }{\langle \text{GHZ}_n|} = \frac{1}{2} [ (\sigma_+ \sigma_-)^{\otimes n} + \sigma_+^{\otimes n} + \sigma_-^{\otimes n} + (\sigma_- \sigma_+ )^{\otimes n}]$, where $\sigma_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}(\sigma_1 \pm i \sigma_2)$. Since $\Upsilon[\sigma_{\pm} \sigma_{\mp}] = \sigma_0 \pm \lambda_3 \sigma_3$ and $\Upsilon[\sigma_{\pm}] = \lambda_1 \sigma_1 \pm i \lambda_2 \sigma_2$, the operator $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! && \Upsilon^{\otimes n} [{| \text{GHZ}_n \rangle }{\langle \text{GHZ}_n|}] = 2^{-(n+1)} \Big[ (\sigma_0 + \lambda_3 \sigma_3)^{\otimes n} \nonumber\\ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! && + (\lambda_1 \sigma_1 + i \lambda_2 \sigma_2)^{\otimes n} + (\lambda_1 \sigma_1 - i \lambda_2 \sigma_2)^{\otimes n} + (\sigma_0 - \lambda_3 \sigma_3)^{\otimes n} \Big] \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ has so-called $X$-form in the conventional basis. In accordance with Sylvester’s criterion, such an operator is positive semidefinite if and only if $(1 + \lambda_3)^p (1 - \lambda_3)^q + (1 - \lambda_3)^p (1 + \lambda_3)^q | \geqslant | (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)^p (\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)^q + (\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)^p (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)^q | $ for all $p,q \in {\mathbb Z}_+$, $p+q = n$. Continuing the same line of reasoning for states $u_i^{\otimes n}{| \text{GHZ}_n \rangle }$ and $(u_i u_j)^{\otimes n}{| \text{GHZ}_n \rangle }$, where $u_i$ and $u_j$ are either identity operators or have the form –, we get permutations of $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ accompanied with the appropriate sign changes. All the obtained inequalities are summarized in Eq. . \[corollary-n-powers\] The Pauli qubit map $\Upsilon$ satisfies Eq. for $n\geqslant 2$ if $$\label{lambda-degrees} \sum_{i=1}^3 \lambda_i^{\frac{n}{n-1}} \leqslant 1.$$ In the space of parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$, the geometrical figure comprises the figure . The surfaces of two figures touch at points satisfying $\lambda_i = \lambda_j =0$, $|\lambda_k| = 1$, or $|\lambda_i| = |\lambda_j| = 2^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}$, $\lambda_k = 0$. The statement of Corollary \[corollary-n-powers\] is valid for all $n=2,3,\ldots$ and stimulates the discussion of recurrence relation between $n$- and $(n+1)$-tensor-stable positive maps. In fact, suppose the map $\Phi$ is $n$-tensor-stable positive. Is it possible to modify $\Phi$ and construct a map $\tilde{\Phi}$, which is $(n+1)$-tensor-stable positive? The following proposition provides an affirmative answer to this question. \[proposition-n-tsp-sufficient\] Suppose $\Phi$ is $n$-tensor-stable positive and $\Phi_{\rm EB}$ is entanglement breaking, then the map $$\tilde{\Phi} = \mu \Phi + (1-\mu) \Phi_{\rm EB}$$ is $(n+1)$-tensor-stable positive whenever $$\label{mu-condition} \frac{\mu}{1-\mu} \leqslant \sqrt[n+1]{\frac{m_{\Phi_{\rm EB}}}{|m_{\rm \Phi}|}}, \quad m_{\Phi} = \!\!\!\!\! \underset{\varrho\in({\cal B}({\cal H}^{\otimes (n+1)}))^+, \ {\rm tr}[\varrho] = 1}{\rm min.~eigenvalue} \!\!\!\!\! \ \Phi^{\otimes (n+1)} [\varrho].$$ Expanding $\tilde{\Phi}^{\otimes (n+1)}$, we notice that the maps $\Phi_{\rm EB}\otimes\Phi^{\otimes n}$, $\Phi_{\rm EB}^{\otimes 2} \otimes \Phi^{\otimes(n-1)}$, $\ldots$, $\Phi_{\rm EB}^{\otimes n}\otimes \Phi$ are all positive by Proposition \[proposition-eb-otimes-positive\] as $\Phi^{\otimes n}$ is positive by the statement. Hence, if the map $$\label{eb-n-plus-phi-n} \mu^{n+1} \Phi^{\otimes(n+1)} + (1-\mu)^{n+1}\Phi_{\rm EB}^{\otimes (n+1)}$$ is positive, then the map $\tilde{\Phi}^{\otimes (n+1)}$ is positive too. On the other hand, the map is positive whenever the minimal output eigenvalue is non-negative, which results in formula and concludes the proof. Applying Proposition \[proposition-n-tsp-sufficient\] to the Pauli channels $\Upsilon$, we get a recurrent sufficient condition for $(n+1)$-tensor-stable positivity. \[proposition-n-tsp-Pauli\] Let the Pauli map $\Upsilon$ with parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ be $n$-tensor-stable positive and $|\lambda_1| + |\lambda_2| + |\lambda_3| \geqslant 1$, then the map $\tilde{\Upsilon}$ with parameters $$\begin{aligned} \label{lambda-tilde-parameters} & \tilde{\lambda}_i & = \frac{(|\lambda_1| + |\lambda_2| + |\lambda_3|)^{-1} + x}{1+x} \, \lambda_i, \\ 0 \leqslant & x & \leqslant \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \frac{\max\limits_{k=1,2,3} |\lambda_k| }{|\lambda_1| + |\lambda_2| + |\lambda_3|} \right) \sqrt[n+1]{ \frac{2 }{\max\limits_{k=1,2,3} |\lambda_k|} }, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ is $(n+1)$-tensor-stable positive. We use Proposition \[proposition-n-tsp-sufficient\], where the map $\Phi_{\rm EB}$ has parameters $\lambda_i^{\rm EB} = \lambda_i / (|\lambda_1| + |\lambda_2| + |\lambda_3|)$. Then $m_{\Phi_{\rm EB}} \geqslant 2^{-(n+1)} [ 1 - \max_{k} |\lambda_k^{\rm EB}| ]^{n+1}$ and $m_{\Phi} \geqslant - \frac{1}{2} \max_{k} |\lambda_k|$ as $\Phi^{\otimes n}$ is positive and trace-preserving. Substituting the obtained values in Eq.  and using the explicit form of $\Phi_{\rm EB}$, we get parameters . Consider a family of the Pauli maps $\Upsilon$ with $\lambda_1 = \lambda_3 = t$ and $\lambda_2 = 0$ (see Fig. \[figure-3-tsp\]b). $\Upsilon$ is positive ($n=1$) if $|t|\leqslant 1$. By Proposition \[proposition-n-tsp-Pauli\], $\tilde{\Upsilon}$ is 2-tensor-stable positive if $|t| \leqslant 0.63$, which is in agreement with the exact result $|t| \leqslant \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \approx 0.71$ (Proposition \[proposition-2-tsp\]). Let $\Upsilon$ be 2-tensor-stable positive, i.e. $|t| \leqslant \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, then Proposition \[proposition-n-tsp-Pauli\] implies that $\tilde{\Upsilon}$ is 3-tensor-stable positive if $|t| \leqslant 0.55$, which is in agreement with the result of Section \[section-3-tensor-stable-positive-unital\], $|t| \leqslant 2^{-2/3} \approx 0.63$. If $\Upsilon$ is 3-tensor-stable positive, i.e. $|t| \leqslant 2^{-2/3}$, then Proposition \[proposition-n-tsp-Pauli\] implies that $\tilde{\Upsilon}$ is 4-tensor-stable positive if $|t| \leqslant 0.532$. \[section-witness\] Witnessing entanglement =========================================== Positive maps are often used to detect different types of entanglement [@peres-1996; @horodecki-1996; @terhal-2001; @chen-2004; @breuer-2006; @hall-2006; @chruscinski-kossakowski-2007; @ha-2011; @chruscinski-sarbicki-2014; @collins-2016; @huber-2014; @lancien-2015]. In this section, we find particular applications of $n$-tensor-stable positive maps in partial characterization of the entanglement structure. A general density operator $\varrho$ of $N$ qubits adopts the resolution $$\label{rho-resolution} \varrho = \sum_{j} p_{jk} \varrho_j^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes \varrho_j^{(k)}, \quad p_{jk} \geqslant 0,$$ where $N$ qubits are divided into $k$ parts. For each fixed resolution of the state $\varrho$ define the maximal number of qubits in the parts, $\max_{m=1,\ldots,k} \# \varrho_j^{(m)}$. The resource intensiveness [@filippov-melnikov-ziman-2013] (entanglement depth [@sorensen-2001], producibility [@guhne-2005]) of the quantum state $\varrho$ is defined through $$R_{\rm ent} [\varrho] = \min_{\varrho = \sum_{j} p_{jk} \varrho_j^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes \varrho_j^{(k)}} \max_{m=1,\ldots,k} \# \varrho_j^{(m)}$$ and specifies the minimal physical resources needed to create such a state, namely, the minimal number of qubits to be entangled. The state $\varrho$ is called fully separable if $R_{\rm ent} = 1$ and genuinely entangled if $R_{\rm ent} = N$. The following result enables one to detect the entanglement depth via $n$-tensor-stable positive maps. \[proposition-r-entangled\] Let $\varrho$ be an $N$-qubit state. Suppose $\Phi$ is an $n$-tensor-stable positive qubit map and $\Phi^{\otimes N}[\varrho] \ngeqslant 0$ (contains negative eigenvalues), then $R_{\rm ent} [\varrho] \geqslant n+1$. Suppose $R_{\rm ent} [\varrho] \leqslant n$, then there exists a resolution such that each state $\varrho_j^{(m)}$ comprises at most $n$ qubits. Therefore, $\Phi^{\otimes \# \varrho_j^{(m)}} [\varrho_j^{(m)}] \geqslant 0$ in view of the nested structure of $k$-tensor-stable positive maps. Thus, $\Phi^{\otimes N}[\varrho] \geqslant 0$, which leads to a contradiction with the statement of proposition. Hence, $R_{\rm ent} [\varrho] \geqslant n+1$. In what follows, we illustrate the use of Proposition \[proposition-r-entangled\] for detecting particular forms of multipartite entanglement. A depolarized GHZ state of three qubits $$\varrho_q^{\rm GHZ} = q {| {\rm GHZ} \rangle }{\langle {\rm GHZ}|} + (1-q) \frac{1}{8} I, \quad 0 \leqslant q \leqslant 1,$$ is not fully separable if $q \geqslant 0.26$ as there exists a positive Pauli map $\Upsilon$ (with $|\lambda_i| \leqslant 1$) such that $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3} [\varrho_q^{\rm GHZ}] \ngeqslant 0$. Also, $\varrho_q^{\rm GHZ}$ is genuinely entangled if $q \geqslant 0.71$ as there exists a 2-tensor-stable positive Pauli map $\Upsilon$ (with parameters ) such that $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3} [\varrho_q^{\rm GHZ}] \ngeqslant 0$. Consider a depolarized W state of three qubits $$\varrho_q^{\rm W} = q {| {\rm W} \rangle }{\langle {\rm W}|} + (1-q) \frac{1}{8} I, \quad 0 \leqslant q \leqslant 1,$$ where ${| W \rangle } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}({| 100 \rangle } + {| 010 \rangle } + {| 001 \rangle })$. The state $\varrho_q^{\rm W}$ is not fully separable if $q \geqslant 0.31$ as there exists a positive Pauli map $\Upsilon$ (with $|\lambda_i| \leqslant 1$) such that $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3} [\varrho_q^{\rm W}] \ngeqslant 0$. Analogously, $\varrho_q^{\rm W}$ is genuinely entangled if $q \geqslant 0.86$ as there exists a 2-tensor-stable positive Pauli map $\Upsilon$ (with parameters ) such that $\Upsilon^{\otimes 3} [\varrho_q^{\rm W}] \ngeqslant 0$. \[section-conclusions\] Conclusions =================================== We have addressed the problem of positivity of tensor products $\bigotimes_{i=1}^n \Phi_i = \Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2 \otimes \ldots \Phi_n$ of linear maps $\Phi_i$. In addition to the apparent implications $\{$All $\Phi_i$ are completely positive$\} \vee \{$All $\Phi_i$ are completely co-positive$\} \Rightarrow \{ \bigotimes_{i=1}^n \Phi_i$ is positive$\} \Rightarrow \{$All $\Phi_i$ are positive$\}$, we have managed to find non-trivial sufficient conditions for positivity of $\Phi_1 \otimes \Phi_2$, in particular, for unital qubit maps $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$. 2- and 3-tensor-stable positive qubit maps are fully characterized. Namely, the explicit criteria for unital maps are found (Eq.  and Eqs. –, respectively), and the analysis of non-unital maps is reduced to the case of unital ones. Basing on the examples of decomposable positive maps $\Phi^{\otimes 2}$, we have conjectured that all positive two-qubit maps $\Phi^{\otimes 2}$ are decomposable. For $n$-tensor-stable positive qubit maps we have found necessary and (separately) sufficient conditions. The first necessary condition involves algebraic inequalities on parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_3$ of degree $n$. Another condition has a concise form and clearly shows the nested structure of maps. The sufficient conditions have a recurrent form and enable one to find $(n+1)$-tensor-stable positive maps once $n$-tensor-stable positive maps are known. Entanglement breaking channels play a vital role in the derivation of those recurrent formulas. Due to the relation , the results obtained for unital maps can be readily transferred to non-unital maps. Finally, we have discussed the application of positive maps with tensor structure to characterization of multipartite entanglement. A criterion for quantifying the entanglement depth (resource intensiveness, producibility) via $n$-tensor-stable positive maps is found and illustrated by a number of examples, which detect the genuine entanglement and the absence of full separability in depolarized GHZ and W states. We gratefully thank David Reeb for fruitful comments and for bringing Refs. [@gurvits-2004; @aubrun-szarek-2015] to our attention, which enabled us to extend the exact results obtained for unital maps to the case of non-unital maps. The study is supported by Russian Science Foundation under project No. 16-11-00084 and performed in Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. [99]{} R. F. Werner, “Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model,” Phys. Rev. A [**40**]{}, 4277 (1989). R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 865 (2009). O. Gühne and G. Tóth, “Entanglement detection,” Phys. Rep. [**474**]{}, 1 (2009). A. S. Holevo and V. Giovannetti, “Quantum channels and their entropic characteristics,” Rep. Prog. Phys. [**75**]{}, 046001 (2012). T. S. Cubitt, J. Chen and A. W. Harrow, “Superactivation of the asymptotic zero-error classical capacity of a quantum channel,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory [**57**]{}, 8114 (2011). M. E. Shirokov and T. Shulman, “On superactivation of zero-error capacities and reversibility of a quantum channel”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**335**]{}, 1159 (2015). A. Peres, “Separability criterion for density matrices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996). M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions,” Phys. Lett. A [**223**]{}, 1 (1996). B. M. Terhal, “A family of indecomposable positive linear maps based on entangled quantum states,” Linear Algebra Appl. [ **323**]{}, 61 (2001). K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, “Test for entanglement using physically observable witness operators and positive maps,” Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 022312 (2004). H.-P. Breuer, “Optimal entanglement criterion for mixed quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 080501 (2006). W. Hall, “A new criterion for indecomposability of positive maps,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**39**]{}, 14119 (2006) D. Chruściński and A. Kossakowski, “On the structure of entanglement witnesses and new class of positive indecomposable maps,” Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. [**14**]{}, 275 (2007). K.-C. Ha and S.-H. Kye, “Entanglement witnesses arising from exposed positive linear maps,” Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. [**18**]{}, 323 (2011). D. Chruściński and G. Sarbicki, “Entanglement witnesses: construction, analysis and classification,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**47**]{}, 483001 (2014). B. Collins, P. Hayden, and I. Nechita, “Random and free positive maps with applications to entanglement detection,” International Mathematics Research Notices [**2016**]{}, 1 (2016). M. Huber and R. Sengupta, “Witnessing genuine multipartite entanglement with positive maps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 100501 (2014). C. Lancien, O. Gühne, R. Sengupta, and M. Huber, “Relaxations of separability in multipartite systems: Semidefinite programs, witnesses and volumes,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**48**]{}, 505302 (2015). M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, “Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a bound entanglement in nature?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 5239 (1998). M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, “Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols,” Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 4206 (1999). D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and A. V. Thapliyal, “Evidence for bound entangled states with negative partial transpose,” Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 062312 (2000). L. Clarisse, “Characterization of distillability of entanglement in terms of positive maps,” Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 032332 (2005). N. Yu, R. Duan, and M. Ying, “Distinguishability of quantum states by positive operator-valued measures with positive partial transpose,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory [**60**]{}, 2069 (2014). K. Horodecki and G. Murta, “Bounds on quantum nonlocality via partial transposition,” Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{}, 010301(R) (2015). S. Bandyopadhyay, A. Cosentino, N. Johnston, V. Russo, J. Watrous, and N. Yu, “Limitations on Separable Measurements by Convex Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory [**61**]{}, 3593 (2015). A. Shaji and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Who?s afraid of not completely positive maps?,” Phys. Lett. A [**341**]{}, 48 (2005). H. A. Carteret, D. R. Terno, and K. Zyczkowski, “Dynamics beyond completely positive maps: Some properties and applications,” Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 042113 (2008). D. Chruściński and Sabrina Maniscalco, “Degree of non-markovianity of quantum evolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **112**]{}, 120404 (2014). A. Müller-Hermes, D. Reeb, “Monotonicity of the quantum relative entropy under positive maps,” arXiv:1512.06117 \[quant-ph\]. A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, “Evaluating capacities of bosonic gaussian channels,” Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{}, 032312 (2001). A. Müller-Hermes, D. Reeb, and M. M. Wolf, “Positivity of linear maps under tensor powers,” J. Math. Phys. [**57**]{}, 015202 (2016). E. St[ø]{}rmer, “Tensor powers of 2-positive maps,” J. Math. Phys. [**51**]{}, 102203 (2010). H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, [*The Theory of Open Quantum Systems*]{}, Oxford University Press, New York (2002). Ł. Skowronek, E. St[ø]{}rmer, and K. Życzkowski, “Cones of positive maps and their duality relations,” J. Math. Phys. [ **50**]{}, 062106 (2009). M. Hayashi, [*Quantum Information – An Introduction*]{} (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006). A. S. Holevo, “Quantum coding theorems,” Russ. Math. Surveys [**53**]{}, 1295 (1998). C. King, “Maximization of capacity and $l_p$ norms for some product channels,” J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 1247 (2002). P. W. Shor, “Additivity of the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking quantum channels,” J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 4334 (2002). M. B. Ruskai, “Qubit entanglement breaking channels,” Rev. Math. Phys. [**15**]{}, 643 (2003). M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, “Entanglement breaking channels,” Rev. Math. Phys. [**15**]{}, 629 (2003). A. S. Holevo, “Entanglement-breaking channels in infinite dimensions,” Probl. Inf. Transm. [**44**]{}, 171 (2008). L. Moravčíková and M. Ziman, “Entanglement-annihilating and entanglement-breaking channels,” [J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.]{} [**43**]{}, 275306 (2010). S. N. Filippov and M. Ziman, “Bipartite entanglement-annihilating maps: Necessary and sufficient conditions,” Phys. Rev. A [ **88**]{}, 032316 (2013). S. N. Filippov, A. A. Melnikov, and M. Ziman, “Dissociation and annihilation of multipartite entanglement structure in dissipative quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 062328 (2013). S. N. Filippov and M. Ziman, “Entanglement sensitivity to signal attenuation and amplification,” [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**90**]{}, 010301(R) (2014). J. de Pillis, “Linear transformations which preserve Hermitian and positive semidefinite operators,” [Pacific J. of Math.]{} [ **23**]{}, 129 (1967). A. Jamio[ł]{}kowski, “Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators,” [Rep. Math. Phys.]{} [**3**]{}, 275 (1972). M.-D. Choi, “Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices,” [Linear Algebra Appl.]{} [**10**]{}, 285 (1975). M. Jiang, S. Luo, and S. Fu, “Channel-state duality,” Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 022310 (2013). W. A. Majewski and T. I. Tylec, “Comment on “Channel-state duality”,” Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 026301 (2013). W. A. Majewski and M. Marciniak, “On a characterization of positive maps,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**34**]{}, 5863 (2001). S. N. Filippov, T. Rybár, and M. Ziman, “Local two-qubit entanglement-annihilating channels,” Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 012303 (2012). C. King and M. B. Ruskai, “Minimal entropy of states emerging from noisy quantum channels,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory [ **47**]{}, 192 (2001). M. B. Ruskai, S. Szarek, and E. Werner, “An analysis of completely-positive trace-preserving maps on $M_2$,” Linear Algebra Appl. [**347**]{}, 159 (2002). S. N. Filippov, “PPT-Inducing, distillation-prohibiting, and entanglement-binding quantum channels,” J. Russ. Laser Res. [ **35**]{}, 484 (2014). L. Lami and M. Huber, “Bipartite depolarizing channels,” J. Math. Phys. [**57**]{}, 092201 (2016). K. M. R. Audenaert and S. Scheel, “On random unitary channels,” New J. Phys. [**10**]{}, 023011 (2008). A. De Pasquale and V. Giovannetti,“Quantifying the noise of a quantum channel by noise addition,” Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 052302 (2012). L. Lami and V. Giovannetti, “Entanglement?-breaking indices,” J. Math. Phys. [**56**]{}, 092201 (2015). M. Gavenda and R. Filip, “Quantum adaptation of noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 052322 (2008). F. Gantmacher, [*The Theory of Matrices*]{}, Volume 2, AMS Chelsea Publishing (2000). Chapter XIII. I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, [*Geometry of Quantum States. An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement*]{}, Cambridge University Press, New York (2006). Section 8.1. E. St[ø]{}rmer, “Positive linear maps of operator algebras,” Acta Math. [**110**]{}, 233 (1963). E. St[ø]{}rmer, “Decomposable positive maps on $C^{\ast}$-algebras,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**86**]{}, 402 (1982). W. A. Majewski, M. Marciniak, “Decomposability of extremal positive unital maps on $M_2$,” Banach Center Publications [**73**]{} 347 (2006). S. L. Woronowicz, “Positive maps of low dimensional matrix algebras,” Rep. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 165 (1976). L. E. Labuschagne, W. A. Majewski, M. Marciniak, “On $k$-decomposability of positive maps,” Expo. Math. [**24**]{}, 103 (2006). L. Gurvits, “Classical complexity and quantum entanglement,” J. Comput. System Sci. [**69**]{}, 448 (2004). G. Aubrun and S. J. Szarek, “Two proofs of St[ø]{}rmer’s theorem,” arXiv:1512.03293 \[math.FA\]. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, “Going Beyond Bell?s Theorem” in [*Bell?s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe,*]{} edited by M. Kafatos, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1989). D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger, “Bell?s theorem without inequalities,” Am. J. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1131 (1990). A. S. S[ø]{}rensen and K. M[ø]{}lmer, “Entanglement and extreme spin squeezing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4431 (2001). O. Gühne, G. Tóth, and H. J. Briegel, “Multipartite entanglement in spin chains,” New J. Phys. [**7**]{}, 229 (2005).

--- abstract: 'This paper describes a minimax state estimation approach for linear Differential-Algebraic Equations (DAE) with uncertain parameters. The approach addresses continuous-time DAE with non-stationary rectangular matrices and uncertain bounded deterministic input. An observation’s noise is supposed to be random with zero mean and unknown bounded correlation function. Main results are a Generalized Kalman Duality (GKD) principle and sub-optimal minimax state estimation algorithm. GKD is derived by means of Young-Fenhel duality theorem. GKD proves that the minimax estimate coincides with a solution to a Dual Control Problem (DCP) with DAE constraints. The latter is ill-posed and, therefore, the DCP is solved by means of Tikhonov regularization approach resulting a sub-optimal state estimation algorithm in the form of filter. We illustrate the approach by an synthetic example and we discuss connections with impulse-observability.' address: 'Department of System Analysis and Decision Making Theory, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine' author: - 'Sergiy M. Zhuk' bibliography: - 'refs/refs.bib' - 'refs/myrefs.bib' title: 'Minimax state estimation for linear continuous differential-algebraic equations' --- Minimax; Robust estimation; Descriptor systems; Time-varying systems; Optimization under uncertainties; Tikhonov regularization. 34K32 49N30 49N45x 93E11 93E10 60G35 Introduction ============ This paper presents a generalization of the minimax state estimation approach to linear Differential-Algebraic Equations (DAE) in the form $$\label{eq:state} \dfrac {d(Fx)}{dt}=C(t)x(t)+f(t), \quad Fx(t_0)=x_0$$ where $F\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$ is a rectangular $m\times n$-matrix and $t\mapsto C(t)\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$ is a continuous matrix-valued function. The research presented here may be thought of as a continuation of the paper [@Zhuk2009c], where the case of discrete time DAEs with time-depending coefficients was investigated. We stress that the DAE with $F\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$ is non-causal (the matrix pencil $F-\lambda C(t)$ is singular[@Gantmacher1960]) if $m\ne n$. Also the coefficient $C(t)$ depends on time. Therefore the state estimation problem for DAE in the form  can not be directly addressed by parameter estimation methods (see for instance [@Gerdin2007], [@Darouach1997] and citations there), based on the transformation of the regular matrix pencil $F-\lambda C$ ($\mathrm{det}\;(F-\lambda C)\not\equiv0$) to the Weierstrass canonical form [@Gantmacher1960]. As it was mentioned in [@Gerdin2007], the latter transformation allows to convert DAE (with regular pencil) into Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE), provided the unknown input $f$ is smooth enough and $C(t)\equiv\,\mathrm{const}$. On the other hand, in applications $f$ is often modelled as a realization of some random process or as a measurable squared-integrable function with bounded $\mathbb L_2$-norm. One way to go is to take Sobolev-Shvartz derivative of $f$, allowing the state $x(t)$ of DAE to be discontinuous function. If the latter is not acceptable, it is natural to ask if it is possible to derive a state estimation algorithm for DAE (in the form (\[eq:state\])) avoiding the differentiation of the unknown input $f$. More generally, is it possible to derive a state estimation algorithm for DAE in the form (\[eq:state\]) with measurable $f$ without transforming the pencil $F-\lambda C$ into a canonical form? The same question arises if $C(t)$ is not constant as in this case it may be impossible (see [@Campbell1987]) to transform DAE to ODE even if the pencil $F-\lambda C(t)$ is regular for all $t$. In this paper we give a positive answer to this question for the following state estimation problem: given observations $y(t)$, $t\in[t_0,T]$ of $x(t)$, to reconstruct $Fx(T)$, provided $x$ is a weak solution to . We note, that many authors (see [@Gerdin2007], [@Darouach1997] and citations there) assume the state vector $x(t)$ of (\[eq:state\]) to be a differentiable (in the classical sense) function. In contrast, we only assume that $t\mapsto Fx(t)$ is an absolutely continuous function. In this setting $x(T)$ is not necessary well defined. Hence, it makes sense to estimate $Fx(T)$ only. In what follows, we assume that $f$ is an unknown squared-integrable function, which belongs to a given bounded set $\mathscr G$. We will also assume that observations $y(t)$ may be incomplete and noisy, that is $y(t)=H(t)x(t)+\eta(t)$, where $\eta$ is a realization of a random process with zero mean and unknown but bounded correlation function. Following [@Nakonechnii1978] we will be looking for the minimax estimate $\widehat{\ell(x)}$ of a linear function [^1] $\ell(x):=\langle\ell,Fx(T)\rangle$ among all linear functions of observations $u(y)$. Main notions of deterministic minimax state estimation approach [@Tempo1985; @Chernousko1994], [@Kurzhanski1997] are reachability set, minimax estimate and worst-case error. By definition, reachability set contains all states of the model which are consistent with observed data and uncertainty description. Given a point $P$ within the reachability set one defines a worst-case error as the maximal distance between $P$ and other points of the reachability set. Then the minimax estimate of the state is defined as a point minimizing the worst-case error (a Tchebysheff center of the reachability set). In this paper we deal with random noise in observations. This prevents us from describing the reachability set. Instead, we derive a dynamic mean-squared minimax estimate minimizing mean-squared worst-case error. The contributions of this paper are a Generalized Kalman Duality (GKD) and sub-optimal minimax estimation algorithm, both for DAE in the form . As it was previously noted in [@Gerdin2007] the need to differentiate an unknown input posed a problem of mathematical justification of the filtering framework based on DAE with classical derivatives. In [@Gerdin2007] the authors propose a solution, provided $\mathrm{det}(F-\lambda C)\ne 0$ for any $\lambda$ [@Gerdin2007]. Here we apply GKD in order to justify the minimax filtering framework for the case of DAEs (\[eq:state\]) with any rectangular $F$ and time-varying $C(t)$. We do not use the theory of matrix pencils so that the condition of differentiability of the unknown input $f$ in (\[eq:state\]) is not necessary for our derivations. Applying GKD we arrive to the Dual Control Problem (DCP) with DAE constraint, which has a unique absolutely continuous solution, provided $\ell$ belongs to the minimax observable subspace $\mathcal L(T)$. Otherwise, the solution of DCP is represented in terms of the impulsive control. In this sense the minimax observable subspace generalizes impulse observability condition (see [@Gerdin2007]) to the case of DAE with rectangular time-varying coefficients. The cost function of DCP describes the mean-squared worst-case error and its minimizer represents a minimax estimate. However, Pontryagin Maximum Principle (PMP) can not be applied directly to solve DCP: a straightforward application of the PMP to the dual problem could reduce the minimax observable subspace to the trivial case $\mathcal L(T)=\{0\}$ (see example in Subsection \[ss:optcond\]). In order to preserve the structure of $\mathcal L(T)$ we apply Tikhonov regularization approach. As a result (Proposition \[p:3e\]) we represent a sub-optimal minimax state estimation algorithm as a unique solution of a well-posed Euler-Lagrange system with a small parameter. This solution converges to the minimax estimate. We represent the sub-optimal estimate in the classical sequential form: as a solution to a Cauchy problem for a linear stochastic ODE, driven by a realization of observations $y(t)$, $t\in[t_0,T]$. We recall that $y(t)$ is perturbed by a “random noise”, which can be a realization of any random process (not necessary Gaussian as in [@Gerdin2007]) with zero mean and unknown but bounded correlation function.\ This paper is organized as follows. At the beginning of section \[s:obs\] we describe the formal problem statement and introduce definitions of the minimax mean-squared estimates and errors. The rest of this section consists of two subsections. Subsection \[s:gkd\] presents the GKD (Theorem \[t:1\]). In subsection \[ss:optcond\] we discuss optimality conditions and derive regularization scheme (Proposition \[p:3e\]) along with the representation of the sub-optimal minimax estimate in the sequential form (Corollary \[c:eme\]). Also we present an example. Section \[sec:Conclusion\] contains conclusion. Appendix contains proofs of technical statements.\ *Notation*: $E\eta$ denotes the mean of the random element $\eta$; $\mathrm{int}\, G$ denotes the interior of $G$; $\mathbb R^n$ denotes the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space; $\mathbb L_2(t_0,T,\mathbb R^m)$ denotes a space of square-integrable functions with values in $\mathbb R^m$ (in what follows we will often write $\mathbb L_2$ referring $\mathbb L_2(t_0,T,\mathbb R^k)$ where the dimension $k$ will be defined by the context); $\mathbb H_1(t_0,T,\mathbb R^m)$ denotes a space of absolutely continuous functions with $\mathbb L_2$-derivative and values in $\mathbb R^m$; the prime $'$ denotes the operation of taking the adjoint: $L'$ denotes adjoint operator, $F'$ denotes the transposed matrix; $c(G,\cdot)$ denotes the support function of a set $G$; $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner product in a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, $\|x\|^2_{\mathcal H}:=\langle x,x\rangle$, $\|\cdot\|$ denotes norm in $\mathbb R^n$; $S>0$ means $\langle Sx,x\rangle>0$ for all $x$; $F^+$ denotes the pseudoinverse matrix; $Q^\frac 12$ denotes the square-root of the symmetric non-negative matrix $Q$, $I_n$ denotes $n\times n$-identity matrix, $0_{n\times m}$ denotes $n\times m$-zero matrix, $I_0:=0$; $\mathrm{tr}$ denotes the trace of the matrix. Linear minimax estimation for DAE {#s:obs} ================================= Consider a pair of systems$$\begin{aligned} & \dfrac{d(Fx)}{dt}=C(t)x(t)+f(t)\,,\quad Fx(t_0)=x_0\,,\label{eq:dae}\\ & y(t)=H(t)x(t)+\eta(t)\,, \label{eq:dae:obs}\end{aligned}$$ where $x(t)\in\mathbb R^n$, $f(t)\in\mathbb R^m$, $y(t)\in\mathbb R^p$, $\eta(t)\in\mathbb R^p$ represent the state, input, observation and observation’s noise respectively. As above, we assume $F\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$, $f\in\mathbb L_2(t_0,T,\mathbb R^m)$, and $C(t)$ and $H(t)$ are continuous[^2] matrix-valued functions of $t$ on $[t_0,T]$, $t_0,T\in\mathbb R$. Now let us describe our assumptions on uncertain $x_0,f,\eta$. Let $\eta$ be a realization of a random process such that $E\eta(t)=0$ on $[t_0,T]$ and $\mathcal R_\eta(t,s):=E\Psi(t)\Psi'(s)$ is bounded: $$\label{eq:eta_bounds} \mathcal R_\eta\in W=\{\mathcal R_\eta:\int_{t_0}^T\mathrm{tr}\,( R(t)\mathcal R_\eta(t,t))dt\le 1\} %\eta\in W=\{\eta:E\int_{t_0}^T\langle R(t)\eta(t),\eta(t)\rangle\le 1\}$$ We note that the assumption $E\eta(t)=0$ is not restrictive. If $E\eta(t)=\overline\eta(t)\ne 0$ where $\overline\eta (t)$ is a known measurable function then we can consider new measurements $\overline y(t):=y(t)-\overline\eta(t)$ and new noise $\eta(t)-\overline\eta(t)$.\ The initial condition $x_0$ and input $f$ are supposed to belong to the following set $$\label{eq:G} \mathscr G:=\{(x_0,f):\langle Q_0x_0,x_0\rangle+\int_{t_0}^T\langle Q(t)f,f\rangle dt\le 1\},$$ where $Q_0,Q(t)\in\mathbb R^{m\times m}$, $Q_0=Q_0'>0$, $Q=Q'>0$, $R(t)\in\mathbb R^{p\times p}$, $R'=R>0$; $Q(t)$, $R(t)$, $R^{-1}(t)$ and $Q^{-1}(t)$ are continuous functions of $t$ on $[t_0,T]$. \[d:1\] Given $T<+\infty$, $u\in\mathbb L_2(t_0,T,\mathbb R^p)$ and $\ell\in\mathbb R^m$ define a mean-squared worst-case estimation error $$\begin{split} &\sigma(T,\ell,u):=\sup_{x, (x_0,f)\in \mathscr G, \mathcal R_\eta\in W} E[\langle\ell, Fx(T)\rangle-u(y)]^2%:(Fx)_t=Cx+f, Fx(t_0)=0 \} \end{split}$$ A function $\hat u(y)=\int_{t_0}^{T}\langle\hat u(t),y(t)\rangle dt$ is called an a priori minimax mean-squared estimate in the direction $\ell$ ($\ell$-estimate) if $\inf_u\sigma(T,\ell,u)=\sigma(T,\ell,\hat u)$. The number $\hat\sigma(T,\ell)=\sigma(T,\ell,\hat u)$ is called a minimax mean-squared a priori error in the direction $\ell$ at time-instant $T$ ($\ell$-error). The set $\mathcal L(T)=\{\ell\in\mathbb R^m:\hat\sigma(T,\ell)<+\infty\}$ is called a minimax observable subspace. Generalized Kalman Duality Principle {#s:gkd} ------------------------------------ Definition \[d:1\] reflects the procedure of deriving the minimax estimation. The first step is, given $\ell$ and $u$ to calculate the worst-case error $\sigma(T,\ell,u)$ by means of the suitable duality concept. \[t:1\] Take $\ell\in\mathbb R^m$. The $\ell$-error $\hat\sigma(T,\ell)$ is finite iff $$\label{eq:zul} \dfrac{d(F'z)}{dt}=-C'(t)z(t)+H'(t)u(t),\quad F'z(T)=F'\ell$$ for some $z\in\mathbb L_2(0,T,\mathbb R^m)$ and $u\in\mathbb L_2(0,T,\mathbb R^p)$.\ If $\hat\sigma(T,\ell)<+\infty$ then $$\label{eq:umin} \begin{split} % \sigma(T,\ell,u)=& \sigma&(T,\ell,u)= \min_{v,d}\{\| \tilde Q_0^{-\frac12}(z(t_0)-v(t_0))-Q_0^{-\frac12}d\|^2\\ %\min_{v,d}\{\| Q_0^{-\frac12}(({F'}^+F'(z(t_0)-v(t_0))-d)\|^2\\ &+\int_{t_0}^T\|Q^{-\frac 12}(z-v)\|^2 dt\}+ %\int_{t_0}^T \int_{t_0}^T\| R^{-\frac12}u\|^2dt\\ &=\| \tilde Q_0^{-\frac12}(z(t_0)-\tilde v(t_0))-Q_0^{-\frac12}\tilde d\|^2\\ &+\int_{t_0}^T\|Q^{-\frac 12}(z-\tilde v)\|^2 +\| R^{-\frac12}u\|^2dt %\quad F'd=0, v\text{obeys \eqref{eq:zul} with }u=0,\ell=0 \end{split}$$ where $\tilde Q_0^{-\frac12}=Q_0^{-\frac12}{F'}^+F'$, $\min$ in  is taken over all $d$ such that $F'd=0$ and all $v$ verifying with $u=0$ and $\ell=0$, and $\min$ is attained at $\tilde v,\tilde d$. \[r:1\] An obvious corollary of Theorem \[t:1\] is an expression for the minimax observable subspace $$\label{eq:LT} \mathcal L(T)=\{\ell\in\mathbb R^m:\text{ \eqref{eq:zul} holds for some }z,\,u\}$$ In the case of stationary $C(t)$ and $H(t)$ the minimax observable subspace may be calculated explicitly, using the canonical Kronecker form [@Gantmacher1960]. Take $\ell\in\mathbb R^m$ and $u\in\mathbb L_2(t_0,T,\mathbb R^p)$. Using $E\eta(t)=0$ we compute $$\label{eq:error} \begin{split} E[\ell&(x)-u(y)]^2 = E[\int_{t_0}^T\langle u,\eta\rangle dt]^2(:=\gamma^2)\\ &+\bigl(\langle\ell,Fx(T)\rangle-\int_{t_0}^T\langle H'u,x\rangle dt\bigr)^2(:=\mu^2) \end{split}$$ Let us transform $\mu^2$. There exists $w\in\mathbb L_2(t_0,T,\mathbb R^m)$ such that: (W) $F'w\in\mathbb H^1(t_0,T,\mathbb R^n)$ and $F'w(T)=F'\ell$. Noting that [@Albert1972] $F=FF^+F$ we have $$% \label{eq:lFx} \langle\ell,Fx(T)\rangle=\langle F'\ell,F^+Fx(T)\rangle = \langle F'w(T),F^+Fx(T)\rangle\,.$$ The latter equality, an integration-by-parts formula $$\label{eq:ibp} \begin{split} \langle F'w(T)&,F^+Fx(T)\rangle-\langle F'w(t_0),F^+Fx(t_0)\rangle=\\ &= \int_{t_0}^T \langle\dfrac{d(Fx)}{dt},w\rangle+\langle\dfrac{d(F'w)}{dt},x\rangle dt\,. \end{split}$$ (proved in [@Zhuk2007] for $Fx\in\mathbb H^1(t_0,T,\mathbb R^m)$ and $F'w\in\mathbb H^1(t_0,T,\mathbb R^n)$) and gives that $$\label{eq:i1} \begin{split} \mu=&%\langle\ell,Fx(T)\rangle-\int_{t_0}^T\langle H^Tu,x\rangle dt\\ %\langle\ell&,Fx(T)\rangle= %\langle F'\ell,F^+Fx(T)\rangle = \langle F'w(T),F^+Fx(T)\rangle\\ %&=\int_{t_0}^T \langle(Fx)_t,w\rangle+\langle(F'w)_t,x\rangle dt \langle (F^+)'F'w(t_0),Fx_0\rangle+\int_{t_0}^T \langle f,w\rangle dt\\ &+\int_{t_0}^T\langle\dfrac{d(F'w)}{dt}+C'w-H'u,x\rangle dt\,. \end{split}$$ By and : $\sigma(T,\ell,u)=\sup_{\mathcal R_\eta}\gamma^2+\sup_{f,x_0,x}\mu^2$. By Cauchy inequality $\gamma^2\le \int_{t_0}^{T}E\langle R\eta,\eta\rangle dt \int_{t_0}^{T}\langle R^{-1}u,u\rangle dt$. As $E\langle R\eta,\eta\rangle=\mathrm{tr}\,(R\mathcal R_\eta)$, it follows from  $$\label{eq:worstcase_error} \sigma(T,\ell,u)= \int_{t_0}^{T}\langle R^{-1}u,u\rangle dt + \sup_{f,x_0,x}\mu^2%(f,x_0,x)$$ Assume $\hat\sigma(T,\ell)<+\infty$. Then $\sigma(T,\ell,u)<\infty$ for at least one $u$ so that $\sup_{f,x_0,x}\mu^2<\infty$. The term $\int_{t_0}^T \langle f,w\rangle dt$ in the first line of  is bounded due to . Thus $$\label{eq:bound_on_w} \begin{split} \sup_{x} &\{ \langle F'w(t_0),F^+Fx(t_0)\rangle\\ &+\int_{t_0}^T\langle\dfrac{d(F'w)}{dt}+C'w-H'u,x\rangle dt\}<\infty \end{split}$$ where $\sup$ is taken over all $x$ solving  with $(x_0,f)\in\mathscr G$. allows us to prove that there exists $z$ such that  holds for the given $\ell$ and $u$. To do so we apply a general duality result[^3] from [@Zhuk2009d]: $$\label{eq:LfiG} \sup_{x\in\mathscr D(L)}\{\langle\mathcal F, x\rangle, Lx\in G\}= \inf_{b\in\mathscr D(L')}\{c(G,b),L'b=\mathcal F\}$$ provided (A1) $L:\mathscr D(L)\subset\mathcal H_1\to\mathcal H_2$ is a closed dense-defined linear mapping, (A2) $G\subset H_2$ is a closed bounded convex set and $\mathcal H_{1,2}$ are abstract Hilbert spaces. Define $$\label{eq:Lx} \begin{split} &(Lx)(t)=(\dfrac{d(Fx)}{dt}-C(t)x(t),Fx(t_0)),\,x\in\mathscr D(L) \\ &\mathscr D(L):=\{x:Fx\in\mathbb H_1(t_0,T,\mathbb R^n)\} \end{split}$$ Then $L$ is a closed dense defined linear mapping [@Zhuk2007] and $$\label{eq:sLz} \begin{split} (L'&b)(t)=-\dfrac{d(F'z)}{dt}-C'z,b\in\mathscr D(L'),\\ \mathscr D&(L'):=\{b=(z,z_0):F'z\in\mathbb H_1(t_0,T,\mathbb R^m),\\ &F'z(T)=0, z_0={F^+}'F'z(t_0)+d, F'd=0 \} \end{split}$$ Setting $\mathcal F:=((F^+)'F'w(t_0),\dfrac{d(F'w)}{dt}+C'w-H'u)$ we see from  that the right-hand part of  is finite. Hence, there exists at least one $b\in\mathscr D(L')$ such that $L'b=\mathcal F$ or (using ) $-\dfrac{d(F'z)}{dt}-C'z=\dfrac{d(F'w)}{dt}+C'w-H'u$. Setting $\tilde z:=(w+z)$ we obtain $ \dfrac{d(F'\tilde z)}{dt}+C'\tilde z-H'u=0$ and $F'\tilde z=F'\ell$. This proves  has a solution.\ On the contrary, let $z$ verify  for the given $\ell$ and $u$. Then $z$ verifies conditions (W), therefore we can plug $z$ into instead of $w$. Define[^4] $G_1:=\mathscr G\cap \mathcal R(L)$, where $ \mathcal R(L)$ is the range of the linear mapping $L$ defined by  and set $ S:=\sup_{(x_0,f)\in G_1}\langle F'z(t_0),F^+x_0\rangle+ \int_{t_0}^T\langle z,f\rangle dt$. Now, using one derives easily $$\label{eq:gerr} % \begin{split} \sigma(T,\ell,u)=\int_{t_0}^{T}\langle R^{-1}u,u\rangle dt+S^2 %\end{split}$$ Since $G_1$ is bounded, it follows that $\sigma(T,\ell,u)$ is finite. Let us prove . Note that $S$ is a value of the support function of the set $G_1=\mathscr G\cap \mathcal R(L)$ on $({F'}^+F'z(t_0),z)$. To compute $S$ we note that $L$, $\mathscr G$ verify (A1), (A2) and $\mathrm{ int}\,G_1\ne\varnothing$. Thus (see [@Zhuk2009d]): $$\label{eq:supGRL} %\sup\{\langle z,q \rangle,q\in G_1\}=%\cap \mathcal R(L)\}= S=\min_{(z_0,z)\in N(L')}\{c(G,{F'}^+F'z(t_0)-z_0,z-v)\}$$ and the $\min$ in  is attained on some $(\tilde z_0,\tilde z)\in N(L')$. Recalling the definition of $L'$ (formula ) and noting that $ c^2(G,z-b)=\| Q_0^{-\frac12}({F'}^+F'(z(t_0)-v(t_0))-d)\|^2+ \int_{t_0}^T\|Q^{-\frac 12}(z-v)\|^2 dt $ we derive from -. This completes the proof. Optimality conditions {#ss:optcond} --------------------- Assume $\ell\in\mathcal L(T)$. By definition \[d:1\] and due to Generalized Kalman Duality (GKD) principle (see Theorem \[t:1\]) the $\ell$-estimate $\hat u$ is a solution of the Dual Control Problem (DCP), that is the optimal control problem with cost  and DAE constraint  for any constant $F\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$ and continuous $t\mapsto C(t)\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$, $t\in[t_0,T]$. If $F=I_{n\times n}$ then $\hat u=RHp$ where $p$ may be found from the following optimality conditions (Euler-Lagrange System in the Hamilton form [@Ioffe1974]): $$\label{eq:dae_EL} \begin{split} &\dfrac{dFp}{dt}=Cp+Q^{-1}z,\,Fp(t_0)=\tilde Q_0z(t_0),\\ &\dfrac{dF'z}{dt}=-C'z+H'RHp,\,F'z(T)=F'\ell\,. \end{split}$$ with $\tilde Q_0 = Q_0^{-1}{F'}^+F'$. In the general case $F\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$, let us assume that (AS) the system  is solvable. One can prove using direct variational method (see [@Ioffe1974])) that $\hat u=RHp$ solves the DCP with cost  and DAE constraint . Although the assumption (AS) allows one to solve the optimal control problem with DAE constraints, it may be very restrictive for state estimation problems. To illustrate this, let us consider an example. Define $$\label{eq:exmpl_FCH} F'=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 1&&0\\ 0&&1\\ 0&&0\\ 0&&0\\ \end{smallmatrix}\right], C'(t)=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 0&&-1\\ 0&&0\\ 1&&0\\ 0&&-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right], H'(t)=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1&&0&&0\\ 0&&0&&1\\ 0&&0&&0\\ 0&&1&&0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$$ and take $Q_0=Q(t)=I_{2\times 2}$, $R(t)=I_{4\times 4}$. In this case  reads as: $$\label{eq:bvppr} \begin{split} &\dfrac{dz_1}{dt}=z_2+p_1, z_1(T)=\ell_1, -z_1=0, \\ &\dfrac{dz_2}{dt}=p_2,z_2(T)=\ell_2, z_2+p_4=0,\\ &\dfrac{dp_1}{dt}=p_3+z_1, p_1(t_0)=z_1(t_0),\\ &\dfrac{dp_2}{dt}=-p_1-p_4+z_2,p_2(t_0)=z_2(t_0)\,. \end{split}$$ We claim that  has a solution iff $\ell_1=\ell_2=0$. Really, $z_1(t)\equiv0$ implies $z_1(T)=\ell_1=0$, $-z_2=p_1=p_4$ and $\frac d{dt}p_1=p_3$. According to this we rewrite  as follows: $$\label{eq:bvpr2} \begin{split} &\dfrac{dp_1}{dt}=-p_2,p_1(t_0)=0,p_1(T)=\ell_2,\\ &\dfrac {dp_2}{dt}=-3p_1,p_2(t_0)=0\,. \end{split}$$ It is clear that  has a solution iff $\ell_2=0$. Thus, the assumption (AS) leads to the trivial minimax observability subspace: $\mathcal L(T)=\{0\}\times\{0\}$. However, $\mathcal L(T)=\{0\}\times\mathbb R$. To see this, take $u_3\in\mathbb L_2$, $\ell_2\in\mathbb R$ and $\ell_1=0$, and define $z_1=0$, $u_{1,2}=-z_2$, $z_2=\ell_2-\int_t^Tu_3(s)ds$. By direct substitution one checks that $z_{1,2}$ and $u_{1,2,3}$ solve . Therefore $\mathcal L(T)=\{0\}\times\mathbb R$ due to . We see that classical optimality condition (Euler-Lagrange system in the form ) may be inefficient for solving the minimax state estimation problems for DAEs. In the next proposition we prove that optimal control problem with cost  and DAE constraint  has a unique solution $\hat u$, $\hat z$, provided $\ell\in\mathcal L(T)$, and we present one possible approximation of $\hat u$, $\hat z$ based on the Tikhonov regularization method [@Tikhonov1977]. \[p:3e\] Let $\varepsilon>0$. The DAE boundary-value problem $$\label{eq:daebvpe} \begin{split} &\frac{d(F'z)}{dt}=-C'z+H'\hat u+\hat p,\\ &\frac{d(Fp)}{dt}=Cp+\varepsilon Q^{-1}z,\,\varepsilon\hat u = RHp,\\ %Q_0^{-1}({F'}^+F'z(t_0)-d)\\ &F'z(T)+F^+Fp(T)=F'\ell,\,F'd=0\,,\\ &\frac 1\varepsilon Fp(t_0)= Q^{-1}_0({F'}^+F'z(t_0)-d)\,. %&\varepsilon\hat u = Rp, \end{split}$$ has a unique solution $\hat u_\varepsilon$, $\hat p_\varepsilon$, $\hat z_\varepsilon$, $\hat d_\varepsilon$. If $ \ell\in\mathcal L(T)$ then there exists $\hat d,\hat u$ and $\hat z$ such that 1) $\hat d_\varepsilon\to\hat d$ in $\mathbb R^n$ and $\hat u_\varepsilon\to\hat u$, $\hat z_\varepsilon\to\hat z$ in $\mathbb L_2$, 2) $\hat u$ and $\hat z$ verify and 3) $\hat u$ is the $\ell$-estimate and $\ell$-error is given by $$\label{eq:mnmx_err} \begin{split} \hat\sigma(T,&\ell)= \sigma(T,\ell,\hat u) = \Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d):=\|R^{-\frac 12}\hat u\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2\\ &+\| Q_0^{-\frac12}({F'}^+F'\hat z(t_0)-\hat d)\|^2+\|Q^{-\frac 12}\hat z\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2\,. \end{split}$$ Define $r:=\mathrm{rang} F$ and $D=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda_1\dots\lambda_r)$ where $\lambda_i$, $i=\overline{1,r}$ are positive eigen values of $FF'$. If $r=0$ then (\[eq:daebvpe\]) is obviously uniquely solvable. Assume $r>0$. It is easy to see, applying the SVD decomposition [@Albert1972] to $F$, that $ F=U'S V$, where $UU'=I_m$, $V'V=I_{n}$ and $S=\left [\begin{smallmatrix} D^\frac12&&0_{r\times n-r}\\ 0_{m-r\times r}&&0_{m-r\times n-r} \end{smallmatrix}\right]$. Thus multiplying the first equation of  by $U$, the second – by $V$, and changing variables one can reduce the general case to the case of DAE  with $F=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} I_{r}&&0_{r\times n-r}\\0_{m-r\times r}&&0_{m-r\times n-r} \end{smallmatrix} \right]$. In what follows, therefore, we can focus on this case only. Having in mind the above 4-block representation for $F$ we split the coefficients of  as follows: $C(t)=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} C_1&&C_2\\ C_3&&C_4 \end{smallmatrix} \right]$, $ Q=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} Q_1&&Q_2\\ Q'_2&&Q_4 \end{smallmatrix} \right] $, $Q_0=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} Q_1^0&& Q^0_2\\ (Q^0_2)'&& Q^0_4 \end{smallmatrix}\right] $, $ H'RH=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} S_1&&S_2\\ S_2'&&S_4 \end{smallmatrix} \right] $, $\ell=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \ell_1\\ \ell_2 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$, $d=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix}d_1\\d_2\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. If 1) $n-r=0$ and $m-r>0$ we set $ C_2:=0_{r\times 1}$, $C_4:=0_{m-r\times 1}$ and $S_2:=0_{r\times 1}$, $S_4:=0$; if 2) $n-r>0$ and $m-r=0$ we set $C_3:=0_{1\times r}$, $C_4:=0_{1\times n-r}$ and $Q^0_2,Q_2:=0_{m\times 1}$, $Q^0_4,Q_4:=0$; if 3) $n=m=r$ we set $C_4:=0$, $C_2:=0_{r\times 1}$, $C_3:=0_{1\times r}$ and let $S_i$, $Q^0_i,Q_i$ be defined as in 1) and 2) respectively, $i\in\{2,4\}$. According to this splits into $$\begin{split} &\dfrac{dp_1}{dt}=C_1p_1+C_2p_2+\varepsilon (Q_1z_1+Q_2z_2),\\ &\dfrac{dz_1}{dt}=-C_1'z_1-C_3'z_2+p_1+\frac 1\varepsilon (S_1p_1+S_2p_2),\\ &z_1(T)+p_1(T)=\ell_1, p_1(t_0)=\varepsilon(Q^0_1z_1(t_0)-Q^0_2d_2)\\ \end{split}$$ and algebraic part: $Q^0_4d_2=(Q^0_2)'z_1(t_0)$, $$\begin{split} &C_3p_1+C_4p_2+\varepsilon (Q_2'z_1+Q_4z_2)=0,\\% Q^0_4d_2=(Q^0_2)'z_1(t_0),\\ &-C_2'z_1-C'_4z_2+\frac 1\varepsilon S_2'p_1+(I+\frac 1\varepsilon S_4)p_2=0. \end{split}$$ Define $\widetilde Q_4:=Q^0_1-Q^0_2(Q^0_4)^{-1}(Q^0_2)'$ and set $$\begin{split} &W(t,\varepsilon)=\varepsilon I_{n-r}+S_4+C_4'Q_4^{-1}C_4\,, M(t,\varepsilon)=W^{-1}(t,\varepsilon)\,,\\ &A(t)=(C_3'Q_4^{-1}C_4+S_2),\,B(t)=(C'_2-C_4'Q_4^{-1}Q_2')\,, \\ &C_\varepsilon(t)=-C_1'+C_3'Q_4^{-1}Q_2'+A(t)M(t,\varepsilon)B(t)\,,\\ % &W(t,\varepsilon)=(\varepsilon I+S_4+C_4'Q_4^{-1}C_4), M(t,\varepsilon)= % W^{-1}(t,\varepsilon) \\ &Q_\varepsilon(t)=-\frac 1\varepsilon A(t)M(t,\varepsilon)A'(t)+I_{r}+\frac 1\varepsilon[S_1+C_3'Q_4^{-1}C_3]\,,\\ &S_\varepsilon(t)=\varepsilon (Q_1 -Q_2Q_4^{-1}Q_2' + B'(t)M(t,\varepsilon)B(t))\,.\\ %&M(t,\varepsilon)=(\varepsilon I+S_4+C_4'Q_4^{-1}C_4)^{-1}, \end{split}$$ Solving the algebraic equations for $z_2,p_2,d_2$ we find: $$\label{eq:p2z2} \begin{split} &Q_4z_2= (-Q_2'-C_4MB)z_1+\frac 1\varepsilon (C_4MA'-C_3)p_1,\\ &p_2=\varepsilon MBz_1- MA'p_1, d_2=(Q^0_4)^{-1}(Q^0_2)'z_1(t_0). \end{split}$$ Substituting  into differential equations for $p_1,z_1$ we obtain $$\label{eq:ebvp_reduced} \begin{split} &\dfrac{dz_1}{dt}=C_\varepsilon z_1+Q_\varepsilon p_1,z_1(T)+p_1(T)=\ell_1,\\ &\dfrac{dp_1}{dt}=-C'_\varepsilon p_1+S_\varepsilon z_1, p_1(t_0)= \varepsilon\widetilde Q_4z_1(t_0). \end{split}$$ We claim that has a unique solution for any $\ell_1\in\mathbb R^r$ and $\varepsilon>0$. Let us prove uniqueness. Note that $Q_1 -Q_2Q_4^{-1}Q_2'>0$ as $Q(t)>0$ (see [@Albert1972] for details) and thus $S_\varepsilon(t)>0$ for $\varepsilon>0$ (as $B'MB\ge0$). Applying simple matrix manipulations one can prove (see, for instance, [@Kurina1986g]) that $Q_\varepsilon(t)\ge0$ for $\varepsilon>0$. Assume $z_1,p_1$ solve for $\ell_1=0$. Then, integrating by parts and using we obtain $$\begin{split} -\langle z_1(T),z_1(T)\rangle&-\langle z_1(t_0),\varepsilon\widetilde Q_4z_1(t_0)\rangle\\ &=\int_{t_0}^T\langle Q_\varepsilon p_1,p_1\rangle+\langle S_\varepsilon z_1,z_1\rangle dt \end{split}$$ This equality is possible only if $p_1=0$, $z_1=0$ as $S_\varepsilon(t),Q_\varepsilon(t)\ge0$. As is a Noether Boundary-Value Problem (BVP), which has a unique solution for $\ell_1=0$, it follows from the general theory of linear BVP [@Boichuk2004] that has a unique solution for any $\ell_1$. Thus, we proved unique solvability of . Let us introduce the following definitions. Take $u\in\mathbb L_2$ and $z\in\mathbb L_2$ such that $F'z\in\mathbb H_1$, and assign to $u,z$ a number $\delta(u,z)$: $$%%%%%\delta(u,z):=\|F'z(T)-F'\ell\|^2+\int_{t_0}^T\|\dfrac{dF'z}{dt}+C'z-H'u\|^2dt \delta(u,z):=\|F'z(T)-F'\ell\|^2+\|\dfrac{dF'z}{dt}+C'z-H'u\|^2_{\mathbb L_2}$$ It was proved in [@Zhuk2007] that $\delta$ is convex and weakly low semi-continuous[^5] (w.l.s.c). Define a Tikhonov function $\mathcal T_\varepsilon(u,z,d):=\delta(u,z)+\varepsilon\Omega(u,z,d)$ with $\Omega(u,z,d)$ defined by . We claim (see appendix for the details) that $$\label{eq:infTikhonovFunc} \mathcal T_\varepsilon(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon)= \inf_{u,z,d}\mathcal T_\varepsilon(u,z,d):=\mathcal T^*_\varepsilon, \quad \forall\varepsilon>0$$ Take any $\ell\in\mathcal L(T)$. By  there exists $u$ and $z$ such that $\inf\delta=\delta(u,z)=0$. Using we obtain $$\label{eq:TikhonovInequalities} \begin{split} &%0=\inf_{u,z} %\delta(u,z) 0\le %T(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,0)\le \mathcal T^*_\varepsilon\le \mathcal T_\varepsilon(u,z,d) %&\le\inf_{u,z} \delta(u,z)+\varepsilon \Omega(u,z,d)+\varepsilon\\ \le \delta(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon)+\varepsilon \Omega(u,z,d) \end{split}$$ for any $d:F'd=0$. Due to : $\mathcal T^*_\varepsilon= \delta(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon)+ \varepsilon\Omega(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon)\le \delta(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon)+\varepsilon \Omega(u,z,d) $ so that $$\label{eq:uezeMinimizesOmegaOverAdjDAE} \Omega(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon)\le \Omega(u,z,d),\quad \delta (u,z)=0,F'd=0$$ proves that $\{\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon\}$ is a bounded sequence in the Hilbert space $\mathbb L_2\times\mathbb L_2\times\mathbb R^n$. Thus it contains a sub-sequence $\{\hat u_{\varepsilon_k},\hat z_{\varepsilon_k},\hat d_{\varepsilon_k}\}$ which converges weakly to some element $\hat u,\hat z,\hat d$. By  $0=\delta(u,z)\le \delta(\hat u_{\varepsilon_k},\hat z_{\varepsilon_k})\le\mathcal T_\varepsilon^*\le \delta(u,z)+\varepsilon\Omega(u,z,d)$ so that by w.l.s.c. of $\delta$: $$\label{eq:TuepstoTopt} \delta(\hat u,\hat z)\le \lim_{k\to\infty}\delta(\hat u_{\varepsilon_k},\hat z_{\varepsilon_k})=\delta(u,z) =\inf_{u,z} \delta=0$$ We claim that (see appendix for technical details) $$\label{eq:OmegaLowCont} \Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d) \le\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\Omega(\hat u_{\varepsilon},\hat z_{\varepsilon},\hat d_\varepsilon)$$ By and we get: $$\label{eq:Omegainf} \Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)=\Omega^*:=\inf_{\{(u,z):\delta(u,z)=0\},F'd=0}\Omega(u,z,d)$$ Note that $\Omega$ is strictly convex, therefore $\Omega$ has a unique minimizer $w^*$, which coincides with $(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)$ by . This proves that $w^*$ is a unique weak limiting point for the bounded sequence $\{\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon\}$. Thus, $\{\hat d_\varepsilon\}$ converges to $\hat d$ in $\mathbb R^n$ as in $\mathbb R^n$ the weak convergence is equivalent to the strong convergence. Moreover,  and implies $\lim\Omega(\hat u_{\varepsilon},\hat z_{\varepsilon},\hat d_\varepsilon)=\Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)$. The latter proves 1) as $\{\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon\}$ converges to $(\hat u,\hat z)$ in $\mathbb L_2$ if and only if $\{\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon\}$ converges to $(\hat u,\hat z)$ weakly and $\lim\|\hat u_\varepsilon\|^2_{\mathbb L_2}+\|\hat z_\varepsilon\|^2_{\mathbb L_2}= \|\hat u\|^2_{\mathbb L_2}+\|\hat z\|^2_{\mathbb L_2}$ (see [@Ioffe1974] for details). 2) also holds as $\delta(\hat u,\hat z)=0$ by . Let us prove 3). Take any $u,z$ verifying (\[eq:zul\]) and $\tilde v,\tilde d$ defined by . Define $\tilde z:=z-\tilde v$. Using the definition of $\tilde v$ (see and notes after it) we find that $\tilde z$ also solves (\[eq:zul\]). Thus, $\sigma(T,\ell,u)= \Omega(u,\tilde z,\tilde d)\ge\Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)$ by . Hence, $\hat\sigma(T,\ell)\ge\Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)$. On the other hand, we get by 1): $$\begin{split} &\hat\sigma(T,\ell)\le\sigma(T,\ell,\hat u) \le\min_{v}\Omega(\hat u,\hat z-v,\hat d)\\ %{\| \tilde Q_0^{-\frac12}(\hat z(t_0)-v(t_0))-Q_0^{-\frac12}\hat d\|^2\\ %&+\int_{t_0}^T\|Q^{-\frac 12}(\hat z-v)\|^2 dt\}+\int_{t_0}^T\| R^{-\frac12}\hat u\|^2dt\\ &\le%\mu_\varepsilon(\hat u):= \min_{v}\{\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\| Q_0^{-\frac12}({F^+}'F'\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)-{F^+}'F'v(t_0)-\hat d_\varepsilon)\|^2\\ &+\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\|Q^{-\frac 12}(\hat z_\varepsilon-v)\|^2\}+ \| R^{-\frac12}\hat u\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2\\ &=\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\Omega(\hat u,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon)+ \min_{v}\{\|Q_0^{-\frac12}{F^+}'F' v(t_0)\|^2+\|Q^{-\frac 12}v\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2\}\\ &=\Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d) % &=\int_{t_0}^T\| R^{-\frac12}\hat u\|^2dt+\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\| \widetilde Q_0^{-\frac12}\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)-Q_0^{-\frac12}\hat d_\varepsilon\|^2\\ %&+\min_{v}\{\|\widetilde Q_0^{-\frac12} v(t_0)\|^2+\int_{t_0}^T\|Q^{-\frac 12}v\|^2 dt\}\\ %&+\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\| \widetilde Q_0^{-\frac12}\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)-Q_0^{-\frac12}\hat d_\varepsilon\|^2+ %&+\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\int_{t_0}^T\|Q^{-\frac 12}\hat z_\varepsilon\|^2 dt=\Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)%=\min_{u,z,d}\Omega(u,z,d) \end{split}$$ where we obtained the 4th line noting that $\|Q^{-\frac 12}(\hat z_\varepsilon-v)\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2 = \|Q^{-\frac 12}\hat z_\varepsilon\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2 + \|Q^{-\frac 12}v\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2 - 2\int_{t_0}^T\langle Q^{-1}\hat z_\varepsilon,v\rangle dt$ and $$\begin{split} &\int_{t_0}^T\langle Q^{-1}\hat z_\varepsilon,v\rangle dt =\frac 1\varepsilon \int_{t_0}^T\langle\dfrac{dF\hat p_\varepsilon}{dt}-C\hat p_\varepsilon,v\rangle dt\\ &=-\langle Q_0^{-1}({F^+}'F'\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)-\hat d_\varepsilon),{F^+}'F'v(t_0)\rangle \end{split}$$ where the latter equality follows from (\[eq:ibp\]), definition of $v$ (see notes after ) and (\[eq:daebvpe\]). Thus $\hat\sigma(T,\ell)\le\sigma(T,\ell,\hat u)\le\mu_\varepsilon(\hat u)=\Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)$ implying . implies, in turn, $\hat u$ is the $\ell$-estimate by definition. This completes the proof. We will refer $\hat u_\varepsilon$ as a sub-optimal $\ell$-estimate. Let us represent $\hat u_\varepsilon(y)$ in the form of the minimax filter. Recalling definitions of $M,A,B$ introduced at the beginning of the proof of Proposition \[p:3e\], and splittings for $\ell,Q,R,H,C$ we define $\Phi(t,\varepsilon)= \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} K(t,\varepsilon)\\ M(t,\varepsilon)[\varepsilon B(t)-A'(t)K(t,\varepsilon)] \end{smallmatrix}\right]$, where $K(t,\varepsilon)$ solves $$\frac {dK}{dt}=-KC_\varepsilon-C'_\varepsilon K- KQ_\varepsilon K+S_\varepsilon,\,K(0)=\varepsilon \tilde Q_4$$ Define $z_1(T)=(I_r+K(T,\varepsilon))^{-1}\ell_1$ and let $z_1$ solve $$\label{eq:zK} \begin{split} & \frac{dz_1}{dt}=C_\varepsilon z_1+Q_\varepsilon K(t,\varepsilon)z_1,\\ \end{split}$$ Define $\hat x_\varepsilon(t_0)=0$ and let $\hat x_\varepsilon$ solve the following linear stochastic differential equation: $$\label{eq:xKz} \begin{split} &d\hat x_\varepsilon = [-C'_\varepsilon-K(\varepsilon,t)Q_\varepsilon] \hat x_\varepsilon dt + \Phi H'R dy,\\%\hat x_\varepsilon(0)=0\\ % &\frac{dz_1}{dt}=C_\varepsilon z_1+Q_\varepsilon K(t,\varepsilon)z_1,\\%,z_1(T)=(I+K_\varepsilon(T))^{-1}\ell_1\\ % &\frac {dK}{dt}=-KC_\varepsilon-C'_\varepsilon K- % KQ_\varepsilon K+S_\varepsilon\,K(0)=\varepsilon \tilde Q_4 % &\hat x(T):=\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\varepsilon^{-1}(I+K(T,\varepsilon))^{-1}E\hat x^\varepsilon(T) \end{split}$$ \[c:eme\] Assume $F=\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix} I_{r}&&0_{r\times n-r}\\ 0_{m-r,r}&&0_{m-r\times m-r} \end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$. Then $$\hat u_\varepsilon(y)=\int_{t_0}^T\langle\hat u_\varepsilon{},y\rangle{dt}=\langle\varepsilon^{-1}(I_r+K(T,\varepsilon))^{-1}\hat x_\varepsilon(T),\ell_1\rangle$$ The sub-optimal $\ell$-error is given by $$\hat\sigma^\varepsilon(T,\ell):=\frac1\varepsilon\bigr[ \langle z_1(T),z_1(T) %(I+K(T,\varepsilon))^{-1}\ell_1, %K(T,\varepsilon)(I+K(T,\varepsilon))^{-1} %\ell_1 \rangle -\int_{t_0}^T\|\Phi(t,\varepsilon)z_1\|^2dt\bigl]$$ Assume $\hat p_\varepsilon$ solves . We split $p_\varepsilon=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} p_1\\p_2 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ where $p_1$ solves and $p_2$ is defined by . It can be checked by direct calculation that $p_1(t)=K(t,\varepsilon)z_1(t)$ where $z_1$ is defined by . Using this and we deduce $\hat p_\varepsilon = \Phi(t,\varepsilon)z_1$. implies $\hat u_\varepsilon=\frac 1\varepsilon RH\hat p_\varepsilon$. Finally, using the obtained representations for $\hat p_\varepsilon$, $\hat u_\varepsilon$ and  we obtain integrating by parts that $$%\label{eq:xe_approximates_hatu} \begin{split} \hat u_\varepsilon&(y)=\int_{t_0}^T\langle y,\frac 1\varepsilon RH\hat p_\varepsilon\rangle dt = \int_{t_0}^T\langle \frac 1\varepsilon \Phi' H'R y, z_1\rangle dt\\ &=\langle \ell_1,\varepsilon^{-1}(I_r+K(T,\varepsilon))^{-1}\hat x_\varepsilon(T)\rangle\to \int_{t_0}^T\langle \hat u,y\rangle dt=\hat u(y) \end{split}$$ By - $\Omega(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon)\to\hat\sigma(T,\ell)$. It is easy to compute using  that $\Omega(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon)=\varepsilon^{-1}(\langle \ell,F\hat p_\varepsilon\rangle+\|\hat p_\varepsilon\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2)$. To conclude it is sufficient to substitute $\hat p_\varepsilon= \Phi(t,\varepsilon)z_1$ into the latter formula. **Example.** In order to demonstrate main benefits of Proposition \[p:3e\] we will apply it to the example presented above: assume that the bounding set, state equation and observation operator are defined by . Note that ${F'}^+F'=I_4$. Thus $F'd=0$ implies $d=0$. According to Theorem \[t:1\] the exact $\ell$-estimate $\hat u = \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \hat u_1\\ \hat u_2\\ \hat u_3 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ may be obtained minimizing $ \sigma(T,\ell,u)=\sum_{i=1}^2\|z_i(t_0)\|^2+\|z_i\|_{\mathbb L_2}^2+ \sum_{j=1}^3\|u_j\|^2_{\mathbb L_2} $ over solutions of the DAE $$\label{eq:w12} \begin{split} &\dfrac {dz_1}{dt}-z_2-u_1=0, z_1(T)=\ell_1, -z_1=0\\ &\dfrac{dz_2}{dt}-u_3=0,z_2(T)=\ell_2,-z_2-u_2=0 \end{split}$$ Assume $\ell_1=0$ so that $\ell=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \ell_1\\ \ell_2 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)\in\mathcal L(T)$. If $\hat u_{1,2}$ solves  then $\hat u_{1,2}=-z_2$. Hence, $\hat u_3$ may be found minimizing $ \sigma(T,\ell,u)=\|z_2(t_0)\|^2+\int_{t_0}^T 3z_2^2+u_3^2dt $ over $\dfrac{dz_2}{dt}=u_3$, $z_2(T)=\ell_2$. The optimality condition takes the following form: $\hat u_3=p$, $\frac{dz_2}{dt}=p$, $z_2(T)=\ell_2$, $\frac{dp}{dt}=3z_2$, $p(t_0)=z_2(t_0)$. Let us represent the estimate in the form of the minimax filter. Introducing $k$ as a solution of the Riccati equation $\frac{dk}{dt}=k^2-3$, $k(0)=1$ we find that $\hat u_2=kz_2$ where $z_2$ solves the following Cauchy problem: $\frac {dz_2}{dt} = kz_2$, $z_2(T)=\ell_2$. Let $\hat x$ be a solution to $\frac{d\hat x}{dt}=-k\hat x-y_1-y_2+ky_3$, $\hat x(t_0)=0$. Then it is easy to see that $\hat u(y)=\int_{t_0}^T\langle \hat u, y\rangle dt = \ell_2\hat x(T)$, where $y=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} y_1\\y_2\\y_3 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ denotes a realization of the random process representing observed data. Let us compute the sub-optimal $\ell$-estimate. reads as $$\begin{split} \dfrac d{dt}& \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} x_1\\x_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr) =\left[\begin{smallmatrix} -(1+\frac 1\varepsilon )k_1&&-(1+\frac 1\varepsilon )k_2\\ -1-(1+\frac 1\varepsilon )k_2&&-(1+\frac 1\varepsilon )k_4 \end{smallmatrix}\right] \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} x_1\\x_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)\\ &+\left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1&&k_2&&1&&0\\ k_2&&k_4&&0&&\frac{-\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} \end{smallmatrix}\right] \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1&&0&&0\\ 0&&0&&1\\ 0&&0&&0\\ 0&&1&&0 \end{smallmatrix}\right] \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} y_1\\y_2\\y_3 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr),\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} x_1(t_0)\\x_2(t_0) \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0\\0 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr) \\ \dfrac d{dt}&\left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1&&k_2\\ k_2&&k_4 \end{smallmatrix}\right]= \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0&&0\\ -1&&0 \end{smallmatrix}\right] \left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1&&k_2\\ k_2&&k_4 \end{smallmatrix}\right]+ \left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1&&k_2\\ k_2&&k_4 \end{smallmatrix}\right] \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0&&-1\\ 0&&0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]\\ &\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1+\varepsilon&&0\\ 0&&\varepsilon+\frac\varepsilon{1+\varepsilon} \end{smallmatrix}\right]- (1+\frac 1\varepsilon) \left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1&&k_2\\ k_2&&k_4 \end{smallmatrix}\right]^2 ,\left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1(t_0)&&k_2(t_0)\\ k_2(t_0)&&k_4(t_0) \end{smallmatrix}\right]=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1&&0\\ 0&&1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]. \end{split}$$ Define $\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \tilde \ell_1\\\tilde \ell_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1+k_1(T)&&k_2(T)\\ k_2(T)&&1+k_4(T) \end{smallmatrix} \right]^{-1}\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \ell_1\\\ell_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$. Due to Corollary \[c:eme\] the sub-optimal $\ell$-estimate may be represented as $\hat u_\varepsilon(y)=\int_{t_0}^T\langle \hat u_\varepsilon, y\rangle dt = \frac 1\varepsilon \langle \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \tilde \ell_1\\\tilde \ell_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr),\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} x_1(T)\\x_2(T) \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)\rangle$. If $\ell_1=0$ then the sub-optimal $\ell$-error is given by $\hat\sigma^\varepsilon(T,\ell)=\frac 1\varepsilon \langle\left[\begin{smallmatrix} k_1(T)&&k_2(T)\\ k_2(T)&&k_4(T) \end{smallmatrix} \right] \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \tilde \ell_1\\\tilde \ell_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr), \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \tilde \ell_1\\\tilde \ell_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)\rangle$. ![ Optimal $\ell$-estimate $\hat u(y)$ (Dashed), sub-optimal $\ell$-estimate $\hat u_\varepsilon(y)$ (Dotted) and error $\hat\sigma^\varepsilon(t,\ell)$ (DotDashed) and simulated $x_2(t)$ (Solid), $\ell=(0,1)^T$, $t\in[0,1]$, $\varepsilon=\exp(-30)$. []{data-label="fig:2"}](x2plot.pdf){width=".4\textheight"} Take $t_0=0$, $T=1$ and assume that $F$ and $C$ are defined by . In the corresponding DAE $x_{3,4}$ are free components. For simulations we choose $x_3=\cos(t)$ and $x_4=\sin(t)$, $x_1(0)=0.1$, $x_2(0)=-0.1$, $f_1=f_2=0$. In order to generate artificial observations $y$ we take $\eta(t)=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} -0.1\\-0.2\\0.3 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$. In Figure \[fig:2\] the optimal $\ell$-estimate, sub-optimal $\ell$-estimate and sub-optimal $\ell$-error are presented, provided $\ell_1=0$, $\ell_2=1$. As $\mathcal L(t)\equiv\{0\}\times\mathbb R$ we see that $x_1$ is not observable in the minimax sense. This can be explained as follows. The derivative $x_3$ of $x_1$ may be any element of $\mathbb L_2$. As we apply integration by parts formula in order to compute $\sigma(T,\ell,u)$ (see ), the expression for $\sigma(T,\ell,u)$ contains $\int_{t_0}^Tx_3z_1dt$. Thus, $\sigma(T,\ell,u)<+\infty$ implies $z_1(t)\equiv 0$ for any $t\in[t_0,T]$, in particular $z_1(T)=\ell_1=0$. In this case $\hat u\in\mathbb L_2$ and $\hat u_\varepsilon\to\hat u$ in $\mathbb L_2$. If $\ell_1\ne0$ then the only candidate for $\hat u_1$ is the impulse control $\delta(T-t)\ell_1$ switching $z_1$ from $0$ to $\ell_1$ at time-instant $T$. However, in this case the numerical sub-optimal $\ell$-error computed by the algorithm of Corollary \[c:eme\] increases: $\hat\sigma^\varepsilon(1,\ell)\approx 3\times 10^6$, provided $\ell_1=1$, $\ell_2=0$ and $\varepsilon=\exp(-30)$. Let us illustrate this. Assume $ C'(t)=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 0&&-1\\ 0&&0\\ c(t)&&0\\ 0&&-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$, where $c(t)=0$ for $t_1\le t\le T$ and $c(t)>0$ for $t_0\le t<t_1$. Then  is solvable for any $\ell$: the solution is given by $u_1:=\frac {dz_1}{dt}-z_2$, $u_2=-z_2$, $z_1(t)=0$, $t_0\le t\le t_1$ and $z_1(t)=\frac{t-t_1}{T-t_1}\ell$ for $t_1\le t\le T$. As $\hat u_1=\frac {dz_1}{dt}-z_2$, it follows that $\|\hat u_1\|_{\mathbb L_2}$ goes to infinity if $t_1\to T$. We stress that the limiting case $t_1=T$ with $c(t)\equiv 1$ corresponds to $C'(t)$ which is being considered in our example (see ). Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion} ========== The paper presents one way to generalize the minimax state estimation approach for linear time-varying DAE . The only restriction we impose here is that $F$ does not depend on time. But our approach can be generalized to the class of time-varying $F(t)$ with constant (or piece-wise constant) rank by means of Lyapunov-Floke theorem. The main idea behind the generalization is the Generalized Kalman Duality (GKD) principle. GKD allows to formulate a Dual Control Problem (DCP) which gives an expression for the Worst-Case Error (WCE). Due to GKD the WCE is finite if and only if Also GKD gives necessary and sufficient conditions (in the form of the minimax observable subspace) for the WCE finiteness. In order to compute $\ell$-estimate one needs to solve the DCP, that is a linear-quadratic control problem with DAE constraints. Application of the classical optimality conditions (Euler-Lagrange equations) imposes additional constraints onto the minimax observability subspace $\mathcal L(T)$. To avoid this we apply a Tikhonov regularization approach allowing to construct sub-optimal solutions of DCP or, sub-optimal estimates. If $\ell\in\mathcal L(T)$ then the sequence of sub-optimal estimates converges to the $\ell$-estimate which belongs to $\mathbb L_2$. Otherwise sub-optimal estimates weakly converge to the linear combination of delta-functions. The $\mathbb L_2$-norms of the sub-optimal $\ell$-estimates grow infinitely in this case. **Appendix.** Let us prove . Integrating by parts (formulae ) one finds $$\begin{split} \int_{t_0}^T&\langle \dfrac{dF\hat p_\varepsilon}{dt}-C\hat p_\varepsilon,z\rangle dt= -\int_{t_0}^T\langle\hat p_\varepsilon,\dfrac{dF' z}{dt}+C'z\rangle dt\\ &+\langle F\hat p_\varepsilon(T),{F'}^+F'z(T)\rangle- \langle F\hat p_\varepsilon(t_0),{F'}^+F'z(t_0)\rangle \end{split}$$ In particular $$\begin{split} &\int_{t_0}^T\langle \dfrac{dF\hat p_\varepsilon}{dt}-Cp_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon\rangle dt=\langle F'\hat z_\varepsilon(T)-F'\ell,F'\hat z_\varepsilon(T)\rangle\\ &-\int_{t_0}^T\langle\hat p_\varepsilon,\hat p_\varepsilon+H'\hat u_\varepsilon\rangle dt\\ &-\langle Q_0^{-1}({F'}^+F'\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)-d_\varepsilon), {F'}^+F'\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)-\hat d_\varepsilon\rangle \end{split}$$ Having this in mind it is straightforward to check that $$\begin{split} &\frac\varepsilon2\int_{t_0}^T(\|R^{-\frac 12}u\|^2-\|R^{-\frac 12}\hat u_\varepsilon\|^2+\|Q^{-\frac 12}z\|^2-\|Q^{-\frac 12}\hat z_\varepsilon\|^2dt)\\ &\ge\int_{t_0}^T\langle\varepsilon R\hat u_\varepsilon,u-\hat u_\varepsilon\rangle +\langle\varepsilon Q\hat z_\varepsilon, z-\hat z_\varepsilon\rangle dt= \int_{t_0}^T\langle H\hat p_\varepsilon,u-\hat u_\varepsilon\rangle dt\\ &+\int_{t_0}^T\langle \dfrac{dF\hat p_\varepsilon}{dt}-Cp_\varepsilon,z\rangle dt - \int_{t_0}^T\langle \dfrac{dF\hat p_\varepsilon}{dt}-Cp_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon\rangle dt=\\ &\int_{t_0}^T(\|\hat p_\varepsilon\|^2-\langle\hat p_\varepsilon,\dfrac{dF' z}{dt}+C'z-H'u\rangle) dt\\ &+\langle F\hat p_\varepsilon(T),{F'}^+F'z(T)\rangle-\langle F\hat p_\varepsilon(t_0),{F'}^+F'z(t_0)\rangle\\ &-\langle F\hat p_\varepsilon(T),{F'}^+F'\hat z_\varepsilon(T)\rangle+ \langle F\hat p_\varepsilon(t_0),{F'}^+F'\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)\rangle \end{split}$$ where we have applied the sub-gradient inequality [@Rockafellar1970] to pass from the first line to the second line. Using this inequality, the definition of $\mathcal T_\varepsilon$ and  it is straightforward to check that $$\begin{split} &\mathcal T_\varepsilon(u,z,d)-\mathcal T_\varepsilon(\hat u_\varepsilon,\hat z_\varepsilon,\hat d_\varepsilon) \ge\|F'z(T)-F'\ell+F^+F\hat p_\varepsilon(T)\|^2\\ &+\|Q_0^{-\frac12}({F'}^+F'z(t_0)-{F'}^+F'\hat z_\varepsilon(t_0)+\hat d_\varepsilon-d)\|^2\\ &+\int_{t_0}^T\|\dfrac{dF'z}{dt}+C'z-H'u-\hat p_\varepsilon\|^2dt\ge 0 \end{split}$$ Let us prove . We proved that $\hat u_{\varepsilon},\hat z_{\varepsilon}$ converges weakly to $\hat u,\hat z$ and $\{\hat d_\varepsilon\}\to\hat d$ in $\mathbb R^n$. As the norm in $\mathbb L_2$ is weakly low semi-continuous, it follows that $$\begin{split} \Omega(\hat u_{\varepsilon},&\hat z_{\varepsilon}, \hat d_{\varepsilon})-\|Q_0^{-\frac12}({F'}^+F'z_{\varepsilon}(t_0)-d_{\varepsilon})\|^2\\ &\le \Omega(\hat u,\hat z,\hat d)-\|Q_0^{-\frac12}({F'}^+F'\hat z(t_0)-\hat d)\|^2 \end{split}$$ Therefore it is sufficient to show that $F'z_\varepsilon(t_0)\to F'\hat z(t_0)\text{ in }\mathbb R^n$. Noting that $F'q(t_0)=F'q(T)-\int_{t_0}^T \dfrac{dF'q}{dt}(t)dt$ for any $q\in\mathbb H_1$ we write $$\label{eq:Fze(T)toFz(T)} \begin{split} &|\langle F'z_\varepsilon(t_0)-F'\hat z(t_0),v\rangle|\le \|F'z_\varepsilon(T)-F'\hat z(T)\|\times\\ &\times\|v\|+|\int_{t_0}^T\langle\dfrac{dF'\hat z_\varepsilon}{dt}-\dfrac{dF'\hat z}{dt},v\rangle dt| \end{split}$$ (\[eq:TuepstoTopt\]) implies $\|F'z_\varepsilon(T)-F'\hat z(T)\|\to0$ and $$\label{eq:dFzCzHuBounded} \int_{t_0}^T\|\{\dfrac{dF'\hat z_\varepsilon}{dt}+C'\hat z_\varepsilon-H'\hat u_\varepsilon\}\|^2dt<+\infty, \,\forall\varepsilon>0$$ As $\hat z_\varepsilon$ and $\hat u_\varepsilon$ converge weakly, it follows that $\lim\{C'\hat z_\varepsilon-H'\hat u_\varepsilon\}=C'\hat z-H'\hat u$. This and (\[eq:dFzCzHuBounded\]) implies $\{\dfrac{dF'\hat z_\varepsilon}{dt}\}$ is bounded. Therefore, the weak convergence of $\hat z_\varepsilon$ gives: $$\label{eq:dFze2dFz} \lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\int_{t_0}^T\langle\dfrac{dF'\hat z_\varepsilon}{dt},v\rangle dt= \int_{t_0}^T\langle\dfrac{dF'\hat z}{dt},v\rangle dt,\,v\in\mathbb L_2$$ implies $\langle F'z_\varepsilon(t_0)-F'\hat z(t_0),v\rangle$ in  converges to zero for any $v\in\mathbb R^n$ implying $F'z_\varepsilon(t_0)\to F'\hat z(t_0)$. [^1]: Note that in order to reconstruct $Fx(T)$ it is enough to reconstruct a linear function $\ell(x):=\langle\ell,Fx(T)\rangle$ for any $\ell\in\mathbb R^m$. Having the estimate of $\ell(x)$ for any $\ell\in\mathbb R^m$, one can set $\ell:=e_i=(0,\dots,1,\dots0)^T$ in order to reconstruct $i$-th component of $Fx(T)$. [^2]: Slightly modifying the proofs we can allow $C(t)$ and $H(t)$ to be just measurable. [^3]: The proof of for bounded $L$ and Banach spaces $\mathcal H_{1,2}$ can be found in [@Ioffe1974] [^4]: $G_1$ is a set of all $x_0,f$ such that $(x_0,f)\in\mathscr G$ and   has a solution $x$. [^5]: that is $\delta(u,z)\le\lim\delta(u_n,z_n)$, provided $u_n,z_n$ converges weakly to $(u,z)$ or equally $\int_{t_0}^T\langle u_n,p\rangle+\langle z_n,q\rangle dt\to\int_{t_0}^T\langle u,p\rangle+\langle z,q\rangle dt$ for any $(p,q)$ in $\mathbb L_2\times\mathbb L_2$.

--- abstract: 'Lateral spin valves are used to generate and characterize pure spin currents. Non-local voltage measured in such structures provides information about spin polarization and spin decay rates. For wide high-transparency F/N contacts it was shown that the Johnson-Silsbee non-local effect is substantially enriched by closed-loop electric currents driven by local spin injection in the electrically dangling part of the valve. For valves with low-transparency F/I/N tunnel contacts such circular currents are strongly suppressed, yet we show that the voltage modifications persist, may be significant, and must be accounted for in the data analysis.' author: - 'Ya. B. Bazaliy' - 'R. R. Ramazashvili' title: | Closed-loop electric currents and non-local resistance measurements\ with wide F/I/N tunnel contacts --- Introduction {#sec:Introduction} ============ A non-local spin valve (NLSV) consists of a normal metal (N) line with two ferromagnetic (F) contacts (Fig. \[fig:nlsv\]). The left contact F$_1$ injects spin-polarized electrons into N, where they diffuse away from the injection point, producing spin currents $j^s$ both in the left and right directions. At the same time, electric current $j$ cannot enter the electrically dangling part of the circuit on the right—consequently, only spin current is present there.[@johnson-silsbee_prl1985; @johnson-silsbee_prb1987; @johnson-silsbee_prb2007] The non-equilibrium electron state driven by such an injection of spin current results in a non-zero voltage $V$, measured by an ideal voltmeter between the F$_2$ and $N$. The absence of $j$ in the electrically dangling part of the valve dictates a very general relation between $V$ and the spin accumulation beneath the contact F$_2$, known as the Johnson-Silsbee formula.[@johnson-silsbee_prl1985] The voltage $V$ turns out to be independent of the voltmeter probe positions as long as the thickness $t_F$ of the measuring electrode F$_2$ remains much larger than the spin diffusion length in that material \[see Eqs. (\[eq:JS\_ohmic\]) and (\[eq:JS\_tunnel\])\]. However, it was noticed [@bazaliy:apl2017] that the $j = 0$ condition holds only for narrow F$_2$ contacts (Fig. \[fig:nlsv\]A). As the width $l_{F}$ exceeds the scale of appreciable variation of spin accumulation (Fig. \[fig:nlsv\]B), closed-loop electric currents $j \neq 0$ develop, forming a vortex centered at the F$_2$/N interface. No electric current enters or leaves the electrically dangling (right-hand) part of the device, all current loops are fully contained within it. Crucially, these current loops significantly suppress the measured voltage $V$ and, generally, lead to its dependence on the voltmeter probe positions. Conclusions of Ref.  were reached under the assumption of fully transparent interface between N and F$_2$, well satisfied in many realizations of spin valves. At the same time, certain N materials require a tunnel contact for spin injection and detection to overcome the conductivity mismatch problem.[@schmidt_prbrc2000; @rashba_prbrc2000] As a result, tunnel contact measurements more and more become the method of choice.[@joner_naturephys2007; @dash_nature2009; @tran_prl2009; @li_naturecomm2011; @han_naturecomm2013; @vanterve_naturecomm2015; @leutenatsmeyer_prl2018; @drogeler_nanolett2016; @gurram_natcomm2017; @dankert_naturecomm2017; @avsar_naturephys2017; @spiesser_apl2019] Will they be affected by the closed-loop electric currents? As shown in Ref. , each loop of induced current crosses the F$_2$/N interface (Fig. \[fig:nlsv\]B) and, in the presence of a tunnel contact, such a current would have to flow across the highly resistive barrier. Naïvely, one would expect a dramatic suppression of such currents by the tunnel barrier, and hence a recovery of the Johnson-Silsbee result.[@johnson-silsbee_prl1985] Below we show that such a conclusion is, in fact, incorrect: while the current does decrease with increasing tunnel resistance, nevertheless it significantly suppresses the measured non-local voltage, which may become substantially smaller than the Johnson-Silsbee value. Non-local voltage calculation {#sec:main} ============================= Description of electric and spin transport ------------------------------------------ We consider electric and spin currents in the diffusive regime, and assume collinear magnetizations of the injector F$_1$ and detector F$_2$ electrodes, as is the case in many NLSV measurements. Transport is described by the Valet-Fert equations [@campbell:1967; @valet-fert_prb1993; @rashba_epjb2002; @takahashi_prb2003] in the notations of Ref.  (see Supplement). Particle- and spin-current densities $j^{e}$,$j^{s}$ in the bulk are induced by the gradients of electrochemical and spin potentials $\mu$, $\mu^{s}$ and obey material equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:j} j^{e}_i &=& - \frac{\sigma}{e^2} \, (\nabla_i \mu + \frac{p}{2}\nabla_i \mu^s) \\ \label{eq:js} j^s_i &=& -\frac{\sigma}{2 e^2} \, (\nabla_i \mu^s + 2 p \nabla_i \mu)\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma = \sigma_{\uparrow} + \sigma_{\downarrow}$ is the conductivity of the material and $p = (\sigma_{\uparrow}-\sigma_{\downarrow})/\sigma$ is the “current spin polarization”, present in F only. The spin quantization axis is chosen along the magnetization. Potential distributions in N and F domains are determined from the electric current conservation and spin current relaxation equations. In the dc regime they read [@rashba_epjb2002] $$\label{eq:bulk_barmu_mus} \Delta\mu = - \frac{p}{2} \Delta\mu^s \ , \quad \lambda_s^2 \Delta\mu^s = \mu^s \ ,$$ with $\lambda_s$ being the spin diffusion length, denoted as $\lambda_{sN}$ of $\lambda_{sF}$ in the corresponding materials. The tunnel barrier between N and F is necessarily spin-selective, with unequal conductances $\Sigma_{\uparrow} \neq \Sigma_{\downarrow}$.[@rashba_prbrc2000] The current densities through the barrier are $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:jtunnel} j^{e}_{\perp} &=& - \frac{\Sigma}{e^2} \, ([\mu] + \frac{\Pi}{2}[\mu^s]) , \\ \label{eq:jstunnel} j^s_{\perp} &=& -\frac{\Sigma}{2 e^2} \, ([\mu^s] + 2 \Pi [\mu]) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma = \Sigma_{\uparrow} + \Sigma_{\downarrow}$, $\Pi = (\Sigma_{\uparrow}-\Sigma_{\downarrow})/\Sigma$, and $[\mu] = \mu_F - \mu_N$, $[\mu^s] = \mu^s_F - \mu^s_N$ are the potential jumps across the barrier. Eqs. (\[eq:jtunnel\]) and (\[eq:jstunnel\]) provide the boundary conditions at the F/N interface. In terms of spin potential $\mu^{s}$ right beneath the contact F$_2$, and the conductivity polarizations $p$ and $\Pi$, the Johnson-Silsbee formula states $$\label{eq:JS_ohmic} V = p \mu^s/2e \ ,$$ for high-transparency Ohmic contacts, $\Sigma \to \infty$,[@johnson-silsbee_prl1985] and $$\label{eq:JS_tunnel} V = \Pi \mu^s/2e$$ for a low-tranparency tunnel contacts, $\Sigma \to 0$.[@rashba_prbrc2000; @rashba_epjb2002] Non-local voltage in the limit of large tunnel resistance --------------------------------------------------------- We consider now the right hand side of the NLSV (Fig. \[fig:domain\]). Point $O$ is the origin of the $(x,y)$ coordinate system. It is assumed that spin current is uniformly injected along the cross-section $OA$ of the normal line. The tunnel barrier separates N and F along the segment $OB$ of length $l_F$. The normal wire N is considered to be infinitely long. Accordingly, Eqs. (\[eq:bulk\_barmu\_mus\]) have to be solved in the N and F domains with the following boundary conditions. Along the segment $OA$, $\mu^s(0)$ is a given constant, and the electric current component normal to $OA$ is zero. At all other outer boundaries, the normal components of both electric and spin currents vanish. At the segment $OB$ Eqs. (\[eq:jtunnel\]) and (\[eq:jstunnel\]) relate the vertical current components to potential jumps. For an infinitely high tunnel barrier one has $\Sigma_{\uparrow,\downarrow} = 0$, hence there is no penetration of spins into the F layer. The problem reduces to that of spin diffusion along the N line. With uniform spin injection along $OA$, the solution reads $$\label{eq:mus0} \mu^s_0(x,y,N) = \mu^s(0) \exp(-x/\lambda_{sN})$$ in N and $\mu^s_0(x,y,F) = 0$ in F. Furthermore, since the barrier is impenetrable, we essentially deal with two electrically disconnected conductors. Their electrochemical potentials are thus uniform $\mu_0(x,y) = \mu_{0}(N), \mu_{0}(F)$ and may assume arbitrary values. For non-zero but small barrier conductivities given by $\Sigma_{\uparrow,\downarrow} = \varepsilon \tilde\Sigma_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ with $\varepsilon \to 0$ we seek potentials in the form of Taylor expansion in $\varepsilon$ $$\begin{aligned} \mu(x,y,D) &=& \mu_0(D) + \varepsilon\mu_1(x,y,D) + \ldots \ , \\ \mu^s(x,y,D) &=& \delta_{DN} \ \mu^s(0) e^{-x/\lambda_{sN}} + \varepsilon\mu^s_1(x,y,D) + \ldots \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where index $D = F,N$ defines the domain and $\delta_{DN}$ is the Kronecker symbol. Finding the current densities in N and F requires calculating $\mu_1(x,y,D)$ and $\mu^s_1(x,y,D)$. However, to first order in $\varepsilon$ the non-local voltage can be found without the full solution. From Eq. (\[eq:jtunnel\]), the leading term of the particle current across the barrier is first order in $\varepsilon$: $$j^e_{y}(x,0) = -\frac{\epsilon\tilde\Sigma}{e^2} \, \left( (\mu_{0F} - \mu_{0N}) + \frac{\Pi}{2} (-\mu^s_0(x,0,N)) \right) + \ldots$$ Particle current conservation requires that the integral $\int_0^{l_F} j^e_y (x,0) dx$ vanish in the stationary state considered here. To first order in $\varepsilon$ this yields $$\label{eq:averaging} (\mu_{0F} - \mu_{0N}) l_F - \frac{\Pi}{2} \int_0^{l_F} \mu^s_0(x,0,N) dx = 0.$$ Substituting the zeroth-order solution $\mu^s_0(x,0,N)$ from Eq. (\[eq:mus0\]), we find the measured voltage $$V = \frac{\mu_{0F} - \mu_{0N}}{e} = \frac{\Pi \lambda_{sN} (1 - e^{-l_F/\lambda_{sN}})}{2 e l_F} \mu^s(0).$$ In the limit $l_F \ll \lambda_{sN}$, i.e., when spin accumulation under F is nearly constant, the tunnel Johnson-Silsbee result (\[eq:JS\_tunnel\]) is recovered. We can now present the voltage drop across the device of an arbitrary width $l_F$ as $$\label{eq:voltage_wide_contact} V(l_F) = \frac{\lambda_{sN}}{l_F} \left(1 - e^{-l_F/\lambda_{sN}} \right) V_{JS}.$$ Eq. (\[eq:voltage\_wide\_contact\]) is the central result of our paper. In terms of the “local Johnson-Silsbee voltage” defined as $V_{JS}(x) = \Pi \mu_s(x,0,N)/(2 e)$, Eqs. (\[eq:averaging\]) and (\[eq:voltage\_wide\_contact\]) can be viewed as averaging $V_{JS}(x)$ over the contact width. However, as the contact width $l_F$ grows, electrochemical potentials in the F and N contacts become significantly non-uniform, and the simple picture above breaks down, as shown in the next section. Validity conditions for the large tunnel resistance approximation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Equations (\[eq:j\]) and (\[eq:jtunnel\]) can be interpreted by taking the point of view that the particle current is produced not only by the electrochemical potential gradients, but also by an additional “effective” electromotive force (EMF) associated with non-uniformity of spin potential.[@rashba_prbrc2000; @rashba_epjb2002; @fabian_APS2007] Such a view helps one to visualize the emergence of circular currents.[@bazaliy:apl2017] Here we will use it to find the validity range of the approximation of the preceding section, that allowed us to neglect the variations of the electrochemical potentials in the N and F films. For our device, the effective EMF interpretation leads to an electric circuit analogy, shown in Fig. \[fig:circuit\_analogy\]A. Here $\mathcal{E}_i$ represent the effective EMFs, developing across the tunnel barrier due to the jump of $\mu^s$ as per Eq. (\[eq:jtunnel\]). In the $\varepsilon \to 0$ limit this jump produces the leading, zeroth order contribution to effective EMF, while variation of $\mu_s$ in the ferromagnet brings first order corrections in $\varepsilon$. As one moves to the right, away from the spin injection cross-section $OA$, the jump $[ \mu_s ] = \mu_s(x,0,N) + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ decreases as per Eq. (\[eq:mus0\]), and the corresponding EMFs gradually decay to zero. Resistors $R$ represent the tunneling barrier resistance per unit length. Resistors $r$ represent the distributed resistance of the N and F layers. Approximation (\[eq:voltage\_wide\_contact\]) corresponds to neglecting the distributed resistance ($r$), which yields the circuit shown in Fig. \[fig:circuit\_analogy\]B, where the upper and lower horizontal lines are indeed characterized by constant electric potentials $V_F$ and $V_N$. Applying the Kirchhoff rules to Fig. \[fig:circuit\_analogy\]B, one finds the voltage $V$ between F and N: $$V = V_F - V_N = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^n \mathcal{E}_i}{n}$$ where $i = 1, ..., n$ labels the EMFs, and $n$ is the total number of vertical legs. This equation is the analogue of the result (\[eq:voltage\_wide\_contact\]). Under what conditions can one ignore the resistors $r$ and replace Fig. \[fig:circuit\_analogy\]A by Fig. \[fig:circuit\_analogy\]B? Obviously, inequality $r \ll R$ has to be satisfied. This, however, is not enough: at the same time, the voltage drop $\delta V$ along the upper and lower horizontal lines must be much smaller than $V$. Horizontal voltage drop $\delta V$ can be expanded in powers of $r/R \ll 1$, and the leading term, linear in $r/R$, can be explicitly obtained in terms of the distribution of $\mathcal{E}_i$ (see Appendix). In our problem the $\mathcal{E}_i$ decay with increasing $i$, reflecting the decay of $\mu^s_0(x,N)$ along the $x$-axis. The Appendix shows that the ratio $\delta V/ V$ increases as the decay becomes more rapid, and only a few first EMFs remain non-zero—that is, as the contact length $l_F$ becomes large compared with the decay length $\lambda_{sN}$. This limit constrains $r/R$ the most stringently, as expressed by the inequality $$r \ll \frac{R}{n^2} \ .$$ Such a condition shows, in particular, that as the number of vertical legs increases while $r/R$ is kept fixed, the approximation eventually breaks down. For $R$ representing the tunnel barrier resistance per length $\Delta x$, continuous description is recovered by the correspondence $$R \to (\Sigma \Delta x)^{-1} \ , \quad r \to (\sigma t/\Delta x)^{-1} \ , \quad n \to \frac{l_F}{\Delta x} \ .$$ Here $\sigma t$ stands for either $\sigma_F t_F$ of $\sigma_N t_N$ since we assumed that both N and F lines can be described by the same $r$. If electric properties of the lines differ by orders of magnitude, a more involved analysis is required. Together with the inequality $r \ll R/n^2$, this yields the condition $$\label{eq:validity_condition} \Sigma \ll \frac{\sigma t}{l_F^2}.$$ Inequality (\[eq:validity\_condition\]) can be rewritten as $\Sigma l_F \ll \sigma t/l_F$. Here the left hand side is the total vertical conductance of the tunnel barrier, and the right hand side is the total conductance of the F or N layer in the horizontal direction (more precisely, these are the conductances per unit depth of the device in the direction perpendicular to the plane of Fig. \[fig:domain\]). Conclusions =========== Expression (\[eq:voltage\_wide\_contact\]) shows that the non-local voltage measured by a tunneling F/N contact can strongly depend on the contact width. Note that in the limit of low barrier conductance the suppression of voltage is independent of $\Sigma$. The latter can be very small, making the circular electric current behind the effect completely negligible. And yet, this current will significantly suppress the non-local voltage. It is instructive to compare the evolution of non-local voltage in transparent and tunnel barriers contacts. In the former case [@bazaliy:apl2017] there are two regimes: for $l_F \ll \lambda_{sN}$ the voltage is given by $V_{JS} = p \mu_s/2e$ (\[eq:JS\_ohmic\]), and is independent of voltmeter probe positions; for $l_f \geq \lambda_{sN}$ the voltage becomes probe-position dependent, and decreases compared with (\[eq:JS\_ohmic\]). In the tunnel contact case there are three regimes: for $l_F \ll \lambda_{sN}$ the voltage is given by $V_{JS} = \Pi \mu_s/2e$ (\[eq:JS\_tunnel\]), independently of the probe positions; for $\lambda_s \leq l_F \ll \sqrt{\sigma t/\Sigma}$ the voltage is still independent of probe positions but reduces to the value (\[eq:voltage\_wide\_contact\]); finally, for $l_F \geq \sqrt{\sigma t/\Sigma}$ the voltage becomes probe-position dependent, while being further reduced. Acknowledgements ================ Ya. B. is grateful to the Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Toulouse, for the hospitality, and to CNRS for funding the visits. R. R. thanks the Department of Physics & Astronomy for the kind hospitality and support of his visit. Calculation of the longitudinal voltage ======================================= An elementary unit of the original circuit is shown in Fig. \[fig:circuit\_unit\]. Vertical legs are numbered by index $k = 1, 2, \ldots, n$. Current through a vertical leg $k$ is related to voltage $V_k$ between points $P_k$ and $Q_k$ as $I_k = (\mathcal{E}_k - V_k)/R$. Due to the symmetry between upper and lower lines, the voltage drop between points $P_k$ and $P_{k+1}$ is $\Delta V_k = (V_k - V_{k+1})/2$. Current through a horizontal leg connecting points $P_k$ and $P_{k+1}$ is then $i_k = \Delta V_k/r$. Current conservation at point $P_k$ gives $$i_k - i_{k-1} = \frac{\mathcal{E}_k - V_k}{R},$$ or equivalently $$\label{eq:DeltaV_iteration} \Delta V_k = \Delta V_{k-1} + \frac{r}{R} (\mathcal{E}_k - V_k).$$ It’s easy to check that at the left and right ends of the circuit we have to set $\Delta V_0 = 0$ and $\Delta V_n = 0$. This will account for the fact that no current is entering the point $P_1$ from the left or leaving the point $P_n $ to the right. First, we express the condition that the sum of currents entering the upper line has to be zero $$\sum_{k = 1}^{n} I_k = \frac{1}{R}\sum_{k = 1}^{n} (\mathcal{E}_k - V_k) = 0 \ ,$$ or $$\sum_{k = 1}^{n} V_k = \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathcal{E}_k \ .$$ The average vertical voltage between the upper and lower lines, $\bar V = (\sum V_k)/n$ is then $$\label{eq:vertical_average} \bar V = \frac{\sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathcal{E}_k}{n}.$$ Next, we wish to express the horizontal voltage drop $\delta V$ between the points $P_1$ and $P_n$, so that we can later require $\delta V \ll \bar V$ to make the average voltage a meaningful quantity. Using (\[eq:DeltaV\_iteration\]) and $\Delta V_0 = 0$ we can write $$\begin{aligned} \Delta V_1 &=& \frac{r}{R} (\mathcal{E}_1 - V_1) \ , \\ \Delta V_2 &=& \Delta V_1 + \frac{r}{R} (\mathcal{E}_2 - V_2) = \frac{r}{R} \left( (\mathcal{E}_1 - V_1) + (\mathcal{E}_2 - V_2) \right) \ , \\ \ldots && \\ \Delta V_k &=& \frac{r}{R} \left( (\mathcal{E}_1 - V_1) + (\mathcal{E}_2 - V_2) + \ldots + (\mathcal{E}_k - V_k) \right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ The total horizontal voltage drop between $P_1$ and $P_n$ can be then expressed by summing these voltage drops $$\begin{aligned} \delta V &=& \sum_{k = 1}^{n-1} \Delta V_k = \frac{r}{R} \big[ (n-1)(\mathcal{E}_1 - V_1) + (n-2)(\mathcal{E}_2 - V_2) + \ldots \\ && + (n-k)(\mathcal{E}_k - V_k) + \dots + (\mathcal{E}_{n-1} - V_{n-1}) \big].\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, for $r = 0$ one gets $\delta V = 0$ and $V_k = \bar V$ for all $k$’s. For non-zero $r$ we can consider an expansion in powers of $r/R \ll 1$ $$V_k = \bar V + \left( \frac{r}{R} \right) V_{k1} + \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)^2 V_{k2} + \ldots$$ Then in the first order in $r/R$ the total horizontal voltage drop is $$\label{eq:deltaV_first_form} \delta V \approx \frac{r}{R} \sum_{k = 1}^{n-1} (n-k)(\mathcal{E}_k - \bar V).$$ This is an explicit formula for $\delta V$ in terms of the given set of $\mathcal{E}_k$’s. Note that it excludes the leftmost EMF $\mathcal{E}_n$, however, using the identity $\sum_{k=1}^n (\mathcal{E}_k - \bar V) =0$ that follows from (\[eq:vertical\_average\]), and adding it to (\[eq:deltaV\_first\_form\]), one can rewrite it so that all EMF’s are present on equal footing $$\label{eq:deltaV} \delta V \approx \frac{r}{R} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} (n +1 -k)(\mathcal{E}_k - \bar V).$$ Total horizontal voltage drop $\delta V$ depends on the distribution of EMF’s. For example, in the absence of spatial variation, $\mathcal{E}_k = {\rm const}$, Eq. (\[eq:deltaV\]) gives $\delta V = 0$, regardless of the value of $r$. The more spatial variation of EMF’s there is, the larger becomes $\delta V$. This can be illustrated by an example, where the first $p<n$ EMFs are equal and non-zero, $\mathcal{E}_1 = \mathcal{E}_2 = \ldots = \mathcal{E}_{p} = \mathcal{E}$, while all the following EMFs vanish: $\mathcal{E}_{p+1} = \mathcal{E}_{p+2} = \ldots = \mathcal{E}_{n} = 0$. For such an EMF distribution the average voltage is $\bar V = (p/n) \mathcal{E}$, and Eq. (\[eq:deltaV\]) leads—after some algebra—to $$\delta V = \frac{r}{R} \frac{n(n-p)}{2} \bar V \ .$$ Whenever $p$ is small enough compared with $n$, so that $(n-p) \sim n$, this formula yields $ \delta V \sim \bar V n^2 r / R \ , $ and condition $\delta V \ll \bar V$ then leads to a requirement $$\label{eq:appendix:conclusion} r \ll \frac{R}{n^2} \ .$$ [2]{} M. Johnson and R. H. Silsbee, [*Interfacial charge-spin coupling: Injection and detection of spin magnetization in metals*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{} 1790 (1985). M. Johnson and R. H. Silsbee, [*Thermodynamic analysis of interfacial transport and of the thermomagnetoelectric system*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 4959 (1987). M. Johnson and R. H. Silsbee, [*Calculation of nonlocal baseline resistance in a quasi one-dimensional wire*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 153107 (2007). Ya. B. Bazaliy and R. R. Ramazashvili, [*Local injection of pure spin current generates electric current vortices*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**110**]{}, 092405 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4977027 G. Schmidt, D. Ferrand, L. W. Mollenkamp, A. T. Filip, and B. J. van Wees, [*Fundamental obstacle for electrical spin injection from a ferromagnetic metal into a diffusive semiconductor*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, R4790 (2000). E. I. Rashba, [*Theory of electrical spin injection: Tunnel contacts as a solution of the conductivity mismatch problem*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, R16267 (2000). B. T. Jonker, G. Kioseoglou, A. T. Hanbicki, C. H. Li, and P. E. Thompson, [*Electrical spin-injection into silicon from a ferromagnetic metal/tunnel barrier contact*]{}, Nature Phys. [**3**]{}, 542 (2007). S. P. Dash, S. Sharma, R. S. Patel, M. P. de Jong, and R. Jansen, [*Electrical creation of spin polarization in silicon at room temperature*]{}, Nature [**462**]{}, 26 (2009). M. Tran, H. Jaffrés, C. Deranlot, J.-M. George, A. Fert, A. Miard, and A. Lemaître, [*Enhancement of the Spin Accumulation at the Interface between a Spin-Polarized Tunnel Junction and a Semiconductor*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 036601 (2009). C.H. Li, O.M.J. van ‘t Erve, and B.T. Jonker, [*Electrical injection and detection of spin accumulation in silicon at 500 K with magnetic metal/silicon dioxide contacts*]{}, Nature Comm. [**2**]{}, 245 (2011). W. Han, X. Jiang, A. Kajdos, S.-H. Yang, S. Stemmer, and S. S. P. Parkin, [*Spin injection and detection in lanthanum- andniobium-doped SrTiO$_3$ using the Hanle technique*]{}, Nature Comm. [**4**]{}, 2134 (2013). O.M.J. van ’t Erve, A.L. Friedman, C.H. Li, J.T. Robinson, J. Connell, L.J. Lauhon, and B.T. Jonker, [*Spin transport and Hanle effect in silicon nanowires using graphene tunnel barriers*]{}, Nature Comm. [**6**]{}, 7541 (2015). M. Drögeler, C. Franzen, F. Volmer, T. Pohlmann, L. Banszerus, M. Wolter, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Stampfer, and B. Beschoten, [*Spin Lifetimes Exceeding 12 ns in Graphene Nonlocal Spin Valve Devices*]{} Nano Lett. [**16**]{}, 3533 (2016). M. Gurram, S. Omar, and B. J. van Wees, [*Bias induced up to 100% spin-injection and detection polarizations in ferromagnet/bilayerhBN/ graphene/hBN heterostructures*]{}, Nature Comm. [**8**]{}, 248 (2017). A. Dankert and S. P. Dash, [*Electrical gate control of spin current in van der Waals heterostructures at room temperature*]{}, Nature Comm. [**8**]{}, 16093 (2017). A. Avsar, J. Y. Tan, M. Kurpas, M. Gmitra, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Fabian and B. Özyilmaz, [*Gate-tunable black phosphorus spin valve with nanosecond spin lifetimes*]{}, Nature Physics [**13**]{}, 888 (2017). J. C. Leutenantsmeyer, J. Ingla-Aynés, J. Fabian, and B. J. van Wees, [*Observation of Spin-Valley-Coupling-Induced Large Spin-Lifetime Anisotropy in Bilayer Graphene*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, 127702 (2018). A. Spiesser, Y. Fujita, H. Saito, S. Yamada, K. Hamaya, S. Yuasa, and R. Jansen, [*Hanle spin precession in a two-terminal lateral spin valve*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**114**]{}, 242401 (2019). I. A. Campbell, A. Fert, and A. R. Pomeroy, [*Evidence for Two Current Conduction in Iron*]{}, Phil. Magazine [**15**]{}, 977, (1967). T. Valet and A. Fert, [*Theory of the perpendicular magnetoresistance in magnetic multilayers*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 7099 (1993). E. I. Rashba, [*Diffusion theory of spin injection through resistive contacts*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. B [**29**]{} 513 (2002). S. Takahashi and S. Maekawa, [*Spin injection and detection in magnetic nanostructures*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 052409 (2003). J. Fabian, A. Matos-Abiague, C. Ertler, P. Stano, and I. Zutic, [*Semiconductor spintronics*]{}, Sec. II-D, Acta Physica Slovaca [**57**]{}, 565 (2007).

--- author: - Kazuaki - Daisuke - Atsuto - Motoki - Akihide - Masayuki - Kazuki - Ichiro title: | A machine learning-based selective sampling procedure\ for identifying the low energy region in a potential energy surface:\ a case study on proton conduction in oxides --- [^1] [^2] [^3] KT was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI 25106002. AS was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI 15H04116 and 25106005. MS was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI 26106510. AK was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI 25106008. IT was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI 26280083 and 26106513, and by JST CREST 13418089. [^1]: Equally contributed as the second author; Corresponding author [^2]: Equally contributed as the first author [^3]: Corresponding author

--- abstract: '[*In this paper, we establish first the resonance identity for non-contractible homologically visible prime closed geodesics on Finsler $n$-dimensional real projective space $(\mathbb{R}P^n,F)$ when there exist only finitely many distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $(\mathbb{R}P^n,F)$, where the integer $n\geq2$. Then as an application of this resonance identity, we prove the existence of at least two distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $\RP$ with a bumpy and irreversible Finsler metric. Together with two previous results on bumpy and reversible Finsler metrics in [@DLX2015] and [@Tai2016], it yields that every $\RP$ with a bumpy Finsler metric possesses at least two distinct non-contractible closed geodesics.*]{}' author: - | Hui Liu$^{1}$,[^1]Yuming Xiao$^{2}$,[^2]\ \ $^{1}$ School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University,\ Wuhan 430072, Hubei, People’s Republic of China\ $^{2}$ School of Mathematics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, People’s Republic of China\ title: 'Resonance identity and multiplicity of non-contractible closed geodesics on Finsler $\mathbb{R}P^{n}$' --- \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] [**Key words**]{}: Non-contractible closed geodesics; Resonance identity; Non-simply connected manifolds; Morse theory; Index iteration theory; Systems of irrational numbers; Kronecker’s approximation theorem [**AMS Subject Classification**]{}: 53C22, 58E05, 58E10. addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{} Introduction ============ In this paper, we are concerned with the multiplicity of closed geodesics on $n$-dimensional real projective space $\mathbb{R}P^n$ with a Finsler metric $F$, which is the typically non-simply connected manifold with the fundamental group $\Z_{2}$. One of the main ingredients is a new resonance identity of non-contractible homologically visible prime closed geodesics on $(\mathbb{R}P^n,F)$ when there exist only finitely many distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $(\mathbb{R}P^n,F)$. The second one is the precise iteration formulae of Morse indices for non-orientable closed geodesics which can be seen as a complement of the index iteration theory for the orientable case. The third one is the application of Kronecker’s approximation theorem in Number theory to the multiplicity of non-contractible closed geodesics on $(\mathbb{R}P^n,F)$. A closed curve on a Finsler manifold is a closed geodesic if it is locally the shortest path connecting any two nearby points on this curve. As usual, on any Finsler manifold $(M, F)$, a closed geodesic $c:S^1=\R/\Z\to M$ is [*prime*]{} if it is not a multiple covering (i.e., iteration) of any other closed geodesics. Here the $m$-th iteration $c^m$ of $c$ is defined by $c^m(t)=c(mt)$. The inverse curve $c^{-1}$ of $c$ is defined by $c^{-1}(t)=c(1-t)$ for $t\in \R$. Note that unlike Riemannian manifold, the inverse curve $c^{-1}$ of a closed geodesic $c$ on a irreversible Finsler manifold need not be a geodesic. We call two prime closed geodesics $c$ and $d$ [*distinct*]{} if there is no $\th\in (0,1)$ such that $c(t)=d(t+\th)$ for all $t\in\R$. For a closed geodesic $c$ on $(M,\,F)$, denote by $P_c$ the linearized Poincaré map of $c$. Recall that a Finsler metric $F$ is [*bumpy*]{} if all the closed geodesics on $(M, \,F)$ are non-degenerate, i.e., $1\notin \sigma(P_c)$ for any closed geodesic $c$. Let $\Lm M$ be the free loop space on $M$ defined by $$\label{LambdaM} \Lambda M=\left\{\gamma: S^{1}\to M\mid \gamma\ {\rm is\ absolutely\ continuous\ and}\ \int_{0}^{1}F(\gamma,\dot{\gamma})^{2}dt<+\infty\right\},$$ endowed with a natural structure of Riemannian Hilbert manifold on which the group $S^1=\R/\Z$ acts continuously by isometries (cf. Shen [@Shen2001]). It is well known (cf. Chapter 1 of Klingenberg [@Kli1978]) that $c$ is a closed geodesic or a constant curve on $(M,F)$ if and only if $c$ is a critical point of the energy functional $$\label{energy} E(\gamma)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{1}F(\gamma,\dot{\gamma})^{2}dt.$$ Based on it, many important results on this subject have been obtained (cf. [@Ano], [@Ban], [@Fra], [@Hin1984]-[@Hin1993], [@Rad1989]-[@Rad1992]). In particular, in 1969 Gromoll and Meyer [@GM1969JDG] used Morse theory and Bott’s index iteration formulae [@Bott1956] to establish the existence of infinitely many distinct closed geodesics on $M$, when the Betti number sequence $\{{\beta}_k(\Lm M;\mathbb{Q})\}_{k\in\Z}$ is unbounded. Then Vigu$\acute{e}$-Poirrier and Sullivan [@VS1976] further proved in 1976 that for a compact simply connected manifold $M$, the Gromoll-Meyer condition holds if and only if $H^{*}(M;\mathbb{Q})$ is generated by more than one element. Here the Gromoll-Meyer theorem is valid actually for any field $\mathbb{F}$. Note that it can not be applied to the compact rank one symmetric spaces S\^[n]{}, P\^[n]{}, P\^[n]{}, P\^[n]{}  [CaP]{}\^[2]{}, \[mflds\]since $\{{\beta}_k(\Lm M,\mathbb{F})\}_{k\in\Z}$ with $M$ in (\[mflds\]) is bounded with respect to any field $\mathbb{F}$ (cf. Ziller [@Ziller1977]). In fact, each of them endowed with Katok metrics possesses only finitely many distinct prime closed geodesics (cf. Katok [@Katok1973], also Ziller [@Ziller1982]). In 2005, Bangert and Long [@BL2010] (published in 2010) showed the existence of at least two distinct closed geodesics on every Finsler $S^2$. Subsequently, such a multiplicity result for $S^{n}$ with a bumpy Finsler metric, i.e., on which all closed geodesics are non-degenerate, was proved by Duan and Long [@DL2007] and Rademacher [@Rad2010] independently. In recent years, more interesting results on this problem have been obtained, such as [@DL2010]-[@DLW2], [@HiR], [@LD2009], [@Rad2007], [@Wang2008]-[@Wang2012]. We refer the readers to the survey papers of Long [@lo2006], Taimanov [@Tai2010] and Oancea [@Oancea2014] for more studies on this subject. Besides many works on closed geodesics in the literature which study closed geodesics on simply connected manifolds, we are aware of not many papers on the multiplicity of closed geodesics on non-simply connected ones published before 2015, at least when they are endowed with Finsler metrics. For example, Ballman, Thorbergsson and Ziller [@BTZ1981] of 1981 and Bangert and Hingston [@BH1984] of 1984 dealt with the non-simply connected manifolds with a finite/infinite cyclic fundamental group respectively by the min-max principle. In order to apply Morse theory to the multiplicity of closed geodesics on $\RP$, motivated by the studies on the simply connected manifolds, in particular, the resonance identity proved by Rademacher [@Rad1989], Xiao and Long [@XL2015] in 2015 investigated the topological structure of the non-contractible loop space and established the resonance identity for the non-contractible closed geodesics on $\R P^{2n+1}$ by using $\Z_2$ coefficient homology. As an application, Duan, Long and Xiao [@DLX2015] proved the existence of at least two distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $\R P^{3}$ endowed with a bumpy and irreversible Finsler metric. In a very recent paper [@Tai2016], Taimanov studied the rational equivariant cohomology of the spaces of non-contractible loops in compact space forms and proved the existence of at least two distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $\mathbb{R}P^2$ endowed with a bumpy and irreversible Finsler metric. Then Liu [@Liuhui2016] combined Fadell-Rabinowitz index theory with Taimanov’s topological results to get multiplicity results of non-contractible closed geodesics on positively curved Finsler $\RP$. Motivated by [@Tai2016] and [@XL2015], in section 2 of this paper we obtain the resonance identity for the non-contractible closed geodesics on $\R P^{n}$ by using rational coefficient homology for any $n\geq2$ regardless of whether $n$ is odd or not. \[Thm1.1\] Suppose the Finsler manifold $M=(\mathbb{R}P^{n},F)$ possesses only finitely many distinct non-contractible prime closed geodesics, among which we denote the distinct non-contractible homologically visible prime closed geodesics by $c_1, \ldots, c_r$ for some integer $r>0$, where $n\geq2$. Then we have \_[j=1]{}\^[r]{} = |[B]{}(\_gM ;) ={ [ll]{} ,& if n2-1,\ ,& if n2.\ . where $\Lm_{g} M$ is the non-contractible loop space of $M$ and the mean Euler number $\hat{\chi}(c_j)$ of $c_j$ is defined by $$\hat{\chi}(c_j) = \frac{1}{n_j}\sum_{m=1}^{n_j/2}\sum_{l=0}^{2n-2}(-1)^{l+i(c_{j})}k_{l}(c_{j}^{2m-1})\in\Q,$$ and $n_j=n_{c_j}$ is the analytical period of $c_j$, $k_{l}(c_{j}^{2m-1})$ is the local homological type number of $c_{j}^{2m-1}$, $i(c_{j})$ and $\hat{i}(c_j)$ are the Morse index and mean index of $c_j$ respectively. In particular, if the Finsler metric $F$ on $\mathbb{R}P^{n}$ is bumpy, then (\[reident1\]) has the following simple form \_[j=1]{}\^[r]{} ={ [ll]{} ,& if n2-1,\ ,& if n2.\ . Based on Theorem \[Thm1.1\], the precise iteration formulae of Morse indices for closed geodesics and Morse theory, especially the $S^1$-equivariant Poincar$\acute{e}$ series of $\Lm_{g}M$ derived by Taimanov (cf. Lemma \[Lm2.3\]), and using some techniques in Number theory, we can prove the following multiplicity result of non-contractible closed geodesics on $(\mathbb{R}P^{n},F)$. \[mainresult\] Every $\RP$ endowed with a bumpy and irreversible Finsler metric $F$ has at least two distinct non-contractible closed geodesics, where $n\geq2$. For any compact simply-connected bumpy Finsler manifold, Duan, Long and Wang in [@DLW1] proved the same conclusion as Theorem \[mainresult\]. However, their method is not applicable to our problem. Indeed, one of the crucial facts in their proof is that if there is only one prime closed geodesic on such a manifold, its Morse index must be greater than or equal to some positive integer. But there is always a minimal point of the energy functional on $\Lm_{g}(\R P^{n})$ with Morse index 0. If $F$ is a bumpy and reversible Finsler metric, the same conclusion as Theorem \[mainresult\] has been proved in Theorem 1.2 of [@DLX2015] and the remark behind Theorem 5 of [@Tai2016]. As a combined outcome, we immediately get the desired result as follows. Every $\RP$ endowed with a bumpy Finsler metric has at least two distinct non-contractible closed geodesics, where $n\geq2$. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we use Morse theory to establish the resonance identity of Theorem 1.1. Then in section 3, we investigate the precise iteration formulae of Morse indices for closed geodesics on $\R P^{n}$ and build a bridge between their Morse indices and a division of an interval. In section 4, a special system of irrational numbers associated to our problem is carefully studied and a key result on it for our later proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] is obtained. Finally in section 5, we draw support from the well known Kronecker’s approximation theorem in Number theory and give the proof of Theorem \[mainresult\]. We close this introduction with some illustrations of notations in this paper. As usual, let $\N$, $\Z$, $\Q$ and $\Q^{c}$ denote the sets of natural integers, integers, rational numbers and irrational numbers respectively. We also use notations $E(a)=\min\{k\in\Z\,|\,k\ge a\}$, $[a]=\max\{k\in\Z\,|\,k\le a\}$, $\varphi(a)=E(a)-[a]$ and $\{a\}=a-[a]$ for any $a\in\R$. Throughout this paper, we use $\Q$ coefficients for all homological and cohomological modules. Morse theory and resonance identity of non-contractible closed geodesics on $(\mathbb{R}P^n,F)$ =============================================================================================== Let $M=(M,F)$ be a compact Finsler manifold, the space $\Lambda=\Lambda M$ of $H^1$-maps $\gamma:S^1\rightarrow M$ has a natural structure of Riemannian Hilbert manifolds on which the group $S^1=\R/\Z$ acts continuously by isometries. This action is defined by $(s\cdot\gamma)(t)=\gamma(t+s)$ for all $\gamma\in\Lm$ and $s, t\in S^1$. For any $\gamma\in\Lambda$, the energy functional is defined by E()=\_[S\^1]{}F((t),(t))\^2dt. It is $C^{1,1}$ and invariant under the $S^1$-action. The critical points of $E$ of positive energies are precisely the closed geodesics $\gamma:S^1\to M$. The index form of the functional $E$ is well defined along any closed geodesic $c$ on $M$, which we denote by $E''(c)$. As usual, we denote by $i(c)$ and $\nu(c)-1$ the Morse index and nullity of $E$ at $c$. In the following, we denote by \^={d|E(d)},\^[-]{}={d| E(d)&lt;}, 0. For a closed geodesic $c$ we set $ \Lm(c)=\{\ga\in\Lm\mid E(\ga)<E(c)\}$. For $m\in\N$ we denote the $m$-fold iteration map $\phi_m:\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda$ by $\phi_m(\ga)(t)=\ga(mt)$, for all $\,\ga\in\Lm, t\in S^1$, as well as $\ga^m=\phi_m(\gamma)$. If $\gamma\in\Lambda$ is not constant then the multiplicity $m(\gamma)$ of $\gamma$ is the order of the isotropy group $\{s\in S^1\mid s\cdot\gamma=\gamma\}$. For a closed geodesic $c$, the mean index $\hat{i}(c)$ is defined as usual by $\hat{i}(c)=\lim_{m\to\infty}i(c^m)/m$. Using singular homology with rational coefficients we consider the following critical $\Q$-module of a closed geodesic $c\in\Lambda$: \_\*(E,c) = H\_\*(((c)S\^1c)/S\^1,(c)/S\^1; ). In the following we let $M=\mathbb{R}P^{n}$, where $n\geq2$, it is well known that $\pi_1(\mathbb{R}P^{n})=\Z_2=\{e, g\}$ with $e$ being the identity and $g$ being the generator of $\Z_2$ satisfying $g^2=e$. Then the free loop space $\Lambda M$ possesses a natural decompositionM=\_e M\_g M,where $\Lambda_e M$ and $\Lambda_g M$ are the two connected components of $\Lambda M$ whose elements are homotopic to $e$ and $g$ respectively. We set $\Lambda_{g}(c) = \{\gamma\in \Lambda_{g}M\mid E(\gamma)<E(c)\}$. Note that for a non-contractible prime closed geodesic $c$, $c^m\in\Lambda_g M$ if and only if $m$ is odd. We call a non-contractible prime closed geodesic satisfying the isolation condition, if the following holds: [**(Iso) For all $m\in\N$ the orbit $S^1\cdot c^{2m-1}$ is an isolated critical orbit of $E$.** ]{} Note that if the number of non-contractible prime closed geodesics on $M=\mathbb{R}P^{n}$ is finite, then all the non-contractible prime closed geodesics satisfy (Iso). If a non-contractible closed geodesic $c$ has multiplicity $2m-1$, then the subgroup $\Z_{2m-1}=\{\frac{l}{2m-1}\mid 0\leq l<2m-1\}$ of $S^1$ acts on $\overline{C}_*(E,c)$. As studied in p.59 of [@Rad1992], for all $m\in\N$, let $H_{\ast}(X,A)^{\pm\Z_{2m-1}} = \{[\xi]\in H_{\ast}(X,A)\,|\,T_{\ast}[\xi]=\pm [\xi]\}$, where $T$ is a generator of the $\Z_{2m-1}$-action. On $S^1$-critical modules of $c^{2m-1}$, the following lemma holds: \[Rad1992\] [(cf. Satz 6.11 of [@Rad1992] and [@BL2010])]{} Suppose $c$ is a non-contractible prime closed geodesic on a Finsler manifold $M=\mathbb{R}P^{n}$ satisfying (Iso). Then there exist $U_{c^{2m-1}}$ and $N_{c^{2m-1}}$, the so-called local negative disk and the local characteristic manifold at $c^{2m-1}$ respectively, such that $\nu(c^{2m-1})=\dim N_{c^{2m-1}}$ and &&\_q( E,c\^[2m-1]{}) H\_q((\_g(c\^[2m-1]{})S\^1c\^[2m-1]{})/S\^1, \_g(c\^[2m-1]{})/S\^1)\ &=& (H\_[i(c\^[2m-1]{})]{}(U\_[c\^[2m-1]{}]{}\^-{c\^[2m-1]{}},U\_[c\^[2m-1]{}]{}\^-) H\_[q-i(c\^[2m-1]{})]{}(N\_[c\^[2m-1]{}]{}\^-{c\^[2m-1]{}},N\_[c\^[2m-1]{}]{}\^-))\^[+\_[2m-1]{}]{}, where $U_{c^{2m-1}}^-=U_{c^{2m-1}}\cap\Lm_g(c^{2m-1})$ and $N_{c^{2m-1}}^-=N_{c^{2m-1}}\cap\Lm_g(c^{2m-1})$. \(i) When $\nu(c^{2m-1})=0$, there holds \_q( E,c\^[2m-1]{}) = { [ll]{} , & q=i(c\^[2m-1]{}), 0, &,\ . \(ii) When $\nu(c^{2m-1})>0$, there holds $$\overline{C}_q( E,c^{2m-1})=H_{q-i(c^{2m-1})}(N_{c^{2m-1}}^-\cup\{c^{2m-1}\},N_{c^{2m-1}}^-)^{+\Z_{2m-1}},$$ where we have used the fact $i(c^{2m-1})-i(c)\in 2\Z$. As usual, for $m\in\N$ and $l\in\Z$ we define the local homological type numbers of $c^{2m-1}$ by k\_[l]{}(c\^[2m-1]{}) = H\_[l]{}(N\_[c\^[2m-1]{}]{}\^[-]{}{c\^[2m-1]{}},N\_[c\^[2m-1]{}]{}\^[-]{})\^[+\_[2m-1]{}]{}. Based on works of Rademacher in [@Rad1989], Long and Duan in [@LD2009] and [@DL2010], we define the [*analytical period*]{} $n_c$ of the closed geodesic $c$ by n\_c = {j2|(c\^j)=\_[m1]{}(c\^m), m2-1}. Note that here in order to simplify the study for non-contractible closed geodesics in $\mathbb{R}P^{n}$, we have slightly modified the definition in [@LD2009] and [@DL2010] by requiring the analytical period to be even. Then by the same proofs in [@LD2009] and [@DL2010], we have k\_[l]{}(c\^[2m-1+hn\_c]{}) = k\_[l]{}(c\^[2m-1]{}), m,h,l. For more detailed properties of the analytical period $n_c$ of a closed geodesic $c$, we refer readers to the two Section 3s in [@LD2009] and [@DL2010]. As in [@BK1983], we have \[def-hv\] Let $(M,F)$ be a compact Finsler manifold. A closed geodesic $c$ on $M$ is homologically visible, if there exists an integer $k\in\Z$ such that $\bar{C}_k(E,c) \not= 0$. We denote by $\CG_{\hv}(M,F)$ the set of all distinct homologically visible prime closed geodesics on $(M,F)$. \[Lm2.2\] Suppose the Finsler manifold $M=(\mathbb{R}P^{n},F)$ possesses only finitely many distinct non-contractible prime closed geodesics, among which we denote the distinct non-contractible homologically visible prime closed geodesics by $c_1, \ldots, c_r$ for some integer $r>0$. Then we have (c\_i) &gt; 0, 1ir. *Proof:* First, we claim that Theorem 3 in [@BK1983] for $M=\RP$ can be stated as: “ Let $c$ be a closed geodesic in $\Lambda_{g}M$ such that $i(c^{m})=0$ for all $m\in\N$. Suppose $c$ is neither homologically invisible nor an absolute minimum of $E$ in $\Lambda_{g}M$. Then there exist infinitely many closed geodesics in $\Lambda_{g}M$." Indeed, one can focus the proofs of Theorem 3 in [@BK1983] on $\Lambda_{g}M$ with some obvious modifications. Assume by contradiction. Similarly as in [@BK1983], we can choose a different $c\in\Lm_{g}M$, if necessary, and find $p\in\N$ such that $H_{p}(\Lambda_{g}(c)\cup S\cdot c,\Lambda_{g}(c))\neq0$ and $H_{q}(\Lambda_{g}(c)\cup S\cdot c,\Lambda_{g}(c))=0$ for every $q>p$ and every closed geodesic $d\in\Lm_{g}M$ with $i(d^{m})\equiv0.$ Consider the following commutative diagram ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- $H_{p}(\Lambda_{g}(c)\cup S\cdot c,\Lambda_{g}(c))$ $\mapright{{\psi}^{m}_{*}}$ $H_{p}(\Lambda_{g}(c^{m})\cup S\cdot c^{m},\Lambda_{g}(c^{m}))$ $\mapdown{i_*}$ $\mapdown{i_*}$ $H_{p}(\Lambda_{g}M,\Lambda_{g}(c))$ $\mapright{{\psi}^{m}_{*}}$ $H_{p}(\Lambda_{g}M,\Lambda_{g}(c^{m}))$, ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- where $m$ is odd and $\psi^{m}:\Lm_{g} M\to\Lm_{g} M$ is the $m$-fold iteration map. By similar arguments as those in [@BK1983], there is $A>0$ such that the map $i_{*}\circ\psi^{m}_{*}$ is one-to-one, if $E(c^{m})>A$ and none of the $k_{i}\in K_0$ divides $m$ where $$K_{0}=\{k_{0},k_{1},k_{2},\dots,k_{s}\},$$ with $k_{0}=2$ and $k_{1},k_{2},\dots,k_{s}$ therein. Here note that the required $m$ is odd and so $c^{m}\in\Lambda_{g}(M)$ for $c\in\Lambda_{g}M$. On the other hand, we define $$K=\{m\geq2\mid E(c^{m})\leq A\}\cup K_{0}.$$ Then by Corollary 1 of [@BK1983], there exists $\bar{m}\in\N\backslash\{1\}$ such that no $k\in K$ divides $\bar{m}$ and $\psi^{\bar{m}}_{*}\circ i_{*}$ vanishes. In particular, $E(c^{\bar{m}})>A$ and none of the $k_{i}\in K_0$ divides $\bar{m}$. Due to $\psi^{\bar{m}}_{*}\circ i_{*}=i_{*}\circ \psi^{\bar{m}}_{*}$ in (\[926diagram\]), this yields a contradiction. Hence there exist infinitely many closed geodesics in $\Lambda_{g}M$. Accordingly, Corollary 2 in [@BK1983] for $M=\RP$ can be stated as: “ Suppose there exists a closed geodesic $c\in\Lambda_{g}M$ such that $c^{m}$ is a local minimum of $E$ in $\Lambda_{g}M$ for infinitely many odd $m\in\N$. Then there exist infinitely many closed geodesics in $\Lambda_{g}M$." Based on the above two variants of Theorem 3 and Corollary 2 in [@BK1983], we can prove our Lemma \[Lm2.2\] as follows. It is well known that every closed geodesic $c$ on $M$ must have mean index $\hat{i}(c)\ge 0$. Assume by contradiction that there is a non-contractible homologically visible prime closed geodesic $c$ on $M$ satisfying $\hat{i}(c)=0$. Then $i(c^m)=0$ for all $m\in\N$ by Bott iteration formula and $c$ must be an absolute minimum of $E$ in $\Lambda_{g}M$, since otherwise there would exist infinitely many distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $M$ by the above variant of Theorem 3 on p.385 of [@BK1983]. On the other hand, by Lemma 7.1 of [@Rad1992], there exists a $k(c)\in2\N$ such that $\nu(c^{m+k(c)})=\nu(c^m)$ for all $m\in\N$. Specially we obtain $\nu(c^{mk(c)+1}) = \nu(c)$ for all $m\in\N$ and then elements of $\ker(E''(c^{mk(c)+1}))$ are precisely $mk(c)+1$st iterates of elements of $\ker(E''(c))$. Thus by the Gromoll-Meyer theorem in [@GM1969Top], the behavior of the restriction of $E$ to $\ker(E''(c^{mk(c)+1}))$ is the same as that of the restriction of $E$ to $\ker(E''(c))$. Then together with the fact $i(c^m)=0$ for all $m\in\N$, we obtain that $c^{mk(c)+1}$ is a local minimum of $E$ in $\Lambda_{g}M$ for every $m\in\N$. Because $M$ is compact and possessing finite fundamental group, there must exist infinitely many distinct non-contractible closed geodesics on $M$ by the above variant of Corollary 2 on p.386 of [@BK1983]. Then it yields a contradiction and proves (\[fcg.1\]). $\hfill\Box$ In [@Tai2016], Taimanov calculated the rational equivariant cohomology of the spaces of non-contractible loops of $\mathbb{R}P^n$ which is crucial for us to prove Theorem \[Thm1.1\] and can be stated as follows. \[Lm2.3\] [(cf. Theorem 3 of [@Tai2016] or Lemma 2.2 of [@Liuhui2016])]{} For $M=\mathbb{R}P^n$, we have \(i) When $n=2k+1$ is odd, the $S^1$-cohomology ring of $\Lambda_g M$ has the form $$H^{S^1, *}(\Lambda_g M; \Q)=\Q[w, z]/ \{w^{k+1} = 0\}, \quad deg(w)=2, \quad deg(z)=2k$$ Then the $S^1$-equivariant Poincar$\acute{e}$ series of $\Lambda_g M$ is given by P\^[S\^1]{}(\_g M; )(t)&=&\ &=&+\ &=&(1+t\^2+t\^4++t\^[2k]{}+)+(t\^[2k]{}+t\^[4k]{}+t\^[6k]{}+),which yields Betti numbers |\_q=H\_q\^[S\^1]{}(\_g M;)={ [ll]{} 2,& if q{j(n-1)j},\ 1,& if q(2{0})\\{j(n-1)j},\ 0,& otherwise.\ . and the average $S^1$-equivariant Betti number of $\Lambda_g M$ satisfies |[B]{}(\_g M;)\_[q+]{}\_[k=0]{}\^[q]{}(-1)\^k|\_k= . \(ii) When $n=2k$ is even, the $S^1$-cohomology ring of $\Lambda_g M$ has the form $$H^{S^1, *}(\Lambda_g M; \Q)=\Q[w, z]/ \{w^{2k} = 0\}, \quad deg(w)=2, \quad deg(z)=4k-2$$ Then the $S^1$-equivariant Poincar$\acute{e}$ series of $\Lambda_g M$ is given by P\^[S\^1]{}(\_g M; )(t)&=&\ &=&+\ &=&(1+t\^2+t\^4++t\^[2k]{}+)+(t\^[4k-2]{}+t\^[2(4k-2)]{}+t\^[3(4k-2)]{}+),which yields Betti numbers |\_q= H\_q\^[S\^1]{}(\_g M;)={ [ll]{} 2,& if q{2j(n-1)j},\ 1,& if q(2{0})\\{2j(n-1)j},\ 0,& otherwise.\ .and the average $S^1$-equivariant Betti number of $\Lambda_g M$ satisfies |[B]{}(\_g M;)\_[q+]{}\_[k=0]{}\^[q]{}(-1)\^k|\_k= . For the case of $\R P^{2n+1}$, the same conclusions as (\[b.1\]) and (\[aB.1\]) were obtained in [@XL2015] where the coefficient field $\Z_{2}$ was used and they are also effective to our problem since the multiplicity of every curve on $\Lambda_g M$ is odd. Now we give the proof of the resonance identity in Theorem \[Thm1.1\]. [**Proof of Theorem \[Thm1.1\].**]{} Recall that we denote the non-contractible homologically visible prime closed geodesics by $\CG_{\hv}(M)=\{c_1, \ldots, c_r\}$ for some integer $r>0$ when the number of distinct non-contractible prime closed geodesics on $M=\mathbb{R}P^n$ is finite. Note also that by Lemma \[Lm2.2\] we have $\hat{i}(c_j)>0$ for all $1\le j\le r$. Let m\_qM\_q(\_gM) =\_[1jr, m1]{}\_q(E, c\^[2m-1]{}\_j),q.The Morse series of $\Lm_gM$ is defined by M(t) = \_[h=0]{}\^[+]{}m\_ht\^h. \[wh\] [**Claim 1.**]{} [*$\{m_h\}$ is a bounded sequence.*]{} In fact, by (\[CGap2\]), we have m\_h=\_[j=1]{}\^[r]{}\_[m=1]{}\^[n\_j/2]{}\_[l=0]{}\^[2n-2]{}k\_[l]{}(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1]{}) \^[\#]{}{s{0}h-i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})=l}, \[wh2\]and by Theorem 9.2.1, Theorems 10.1.2 of [@lo2000], and Lemmas \[orient\]-\[unorient\] below, we have $|i(c_{j}^{2m-1+sn_j})-(2m-1+sn_j)\hat{i}(c_{j})|\le 2n-2$, then &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}h-i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})=l}\ &&= \^[\#]{}{s{0}l+i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})=h, |i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})-(2m-1+sn\_j)(c\_[j]{})|2n-2}\ &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}2n-2|h-l-(2m-1+sn\_[j]{})(c\_[j]{})| }\ &&= \^[\#]{}{s{0} s }\ && + 1. \[wh3\]Hence Claim 1 follows by (\[wh2\]) and (\[wh3\]). We now use the method in the proof of Theorem 5.4 of [@LW2007] to estimate $$M^{q}(-1) = \sum_{h=0}^{q}m_h(-1)^h.$$ By (\[wh\]) and (\[CGap2\]) we obtain M\^[q]{}(-1) &=& \_[h=0]{}\^[q]{}m\_[h]{}(-1)\^[h]{}\ &=& \_[j=1]{}\^[r]{}\_[m=1]{}\^[n\_j/2]{}\_[l=0]{}\^[2n-2]{}\_[h=0]{}\^[q]{}(-1)\^[h]{}k\_[l]{}(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1]{}) \^[\#]{}{s{0}h-i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})=l}\ &=& \_[j=1]{}\^[r]{}\_[m=1]{}\^[n\_j/2]{}\_[l=0]{}\^[2n-2]{}(-1)\^[l+i(c\_[j]{})]{}k\_[l]{}(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1]{}) \^[\#]{}{s{0}l+i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})q}. On the one hand, we have &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}l+i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})q}\ &&= \^[\#]{}{s{0}l+i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})q, |i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})-(2m-1+sn\_j)(c\_[j]{})|2n-2}\ &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}0(2m-1+sn\_[j]{})(c\_[j]{})q-l+2n-2 }\ &&= \^[\#]{}{s{0}0 s }\ && + 1. On the other hand, we have &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}l+i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})q }\ &&= \^[\#]{}{s{0}l+i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})q, |i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{})-(2m-1+sn\_[j]{})(c\_[j]{})|2n-2}\ &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}i(c\_[j]{}\^[2m-1+sn\_j]{}) (2m-1+sn\_[j]{})(c\_[j]{})+2n-2q-l }\ &&\^[\#]{}{s{0}0 s }\ && - 1. Thus we obtain $$\lim_{q\to+\infty}\frac{1}{q}M^{q}(-1) = \sum_{j=1}^{r}\sum_{m=1}^{n_j/2}\sum_{l=0}^{2n-2}(-1)^{l+i(c_{j})}k_{l}(c_{j}^{2m-1})\frac{1}{n_{j}\hat{i}(c_{j})} = \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{\hat{\chi}(c_j)}{\hat{i}(c_j)}.$$ Since $m_{h}$ is bounded, we then obtain $$\lim_{q\to+\infty}\frac{1}{q}M^{q}(-1) = \lim_{q\to+\infty}\frac{1}{q}P^{S^{1},q}(\Lambda_{g}M;\Q)(-1) = \lim_{q\to+\infty}\frac{1}{q}\sum_{k=0}^{q}(-1)^k\bar{\beta}_k = \bar{B}(\Lm_gM;\Q),$$ where $P^{S^{1},q}(\Lambda_{g}M;\Q)(t)$ is the truncated polynomial of $P^{S^{1}}(\Lambda_{g}M;\Q)(t)$ with terms of degree less than or equal to $q$. Thus by (\[aB.1\]) and (\[aB.2\]) we get $$\sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{\hat{\chi}(c_j)}{\hat{i}(c_j)} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{n+1}{2(n-1)},&\ if\ n\in 2\N-1,\\ \frac{n}{2(n-1)},&\ if\ n\in 2\N.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ which proves (\[reident1\]) of Theorem \[Thm1.1\]. For the special case when each $c_{j}^{2m-1}$ is non-degenerate with $1\leq j\leq r$ and $m\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $n_{j}=2$ and $k_l(c_j)=1$ when $l=0$, and $k_l(c_j)=0$ for all other $l\in\Z$. Then (\[reident1\]) has the following simple form \_[j=1]{}\^[r]{}(-1)\^[i(c\_[j]{})]{}={ [ll]{} ,& if n2-1,\ ,& if n2.\ . which proves (\[breident1\]) of Theorem \[Thm1.1\]. $\hfill\Box$ Index iteration theory for closed geodesics =========================================== Index iteration formulae for closed geodesics --------------------------------------------- In [@lo1999] of 1999, Y. Long established the basic normal form decomposition of symplectic matrices. Based on it, he further established the precise iteration formulae of Maslov $\omega$-indices for symplectic paths in [@lo2000], which can be related to Morse indices of either orientable or non-orientable closed geodesics in a slightly different way (cf. [@Liu2005] and Chap. 12 of [@lo2002]). Roughly speaking, the orientable (resp. non-orientable) case corresponds to $i_{1}$ (resp. $i_{-1}$) index, where $i_1$ and $i_{-1}$ denote the cases of $\omega$-index with $\omega=1$ and $\omega=-1$ respectively (cf. Chap. 5 of [@lo2002]). Although we are concerned with $\R P^{n}$ in this paper, we will state such a relation precisely in a general form due to its independent interest. Throughout this section we denote the Morse index of a closed geodesic $c$ by ind($c$) in stead of $i(c)$ to avoid confusion of notations and write $i_1(\gamma)$ as $i(\gamma)$ for short. For the reader’s convenience, we briefly review some basic materials in Long’s book [@lo2002]. Let $P$ be a symplectic matrix in Sp$(2N-2)$ and $\Omega^{0}(P)$ be the path connected component of its homotopy set $\Omega(P)$ which contains $P$. Then there is a path $f\in C([0,1],\Omega^{0}(P))$ such that $f(0)=P$ and f(1) &=& N\_1(1,1)\^[p\_-]{}I\_[2p\_0]{}N\_1(1,-1)\^[p\_+]{}\ & & N\_1(-1,1)\^[q\_-]{}(-I\_[2q\_0]{})N\_1(-1,-1)\^[q\_+]{}\ &&R(\_1)R(\_[r’]{})R(\_[r’+1]{})R(\_r)\ &&N\_2(e\^[iå\_[1]{}]{},A\_[1]{})N\_2(e\^[iå\_[r\_]{}]{},A\_[r\_]{})\ & & N\_2(e\^[i\_[1]{}]{},B\_[1]{})N\_2(e\^[i\_[r\_[0]{}]{}]{},B\_[r\_[0]{}]{})\ & &H(2)\^[h]{},where $N_{1}(\lambda,\chi)=\left( \begin{array}{ll} \lambda\quad \chi\\ 0\quad \lambda\\ \end{array} \right)$ with $\lambda=\pm 1$ and $\chi=0,\ \pm 1$; $H(b)=\left( \begin{array}{ll} b\quad 0\\ 0\quad b^{-1}\\ \end{array} \right)$ with $b=\pm 2$; $R(\theta)= \left( \begin{array}{ll} \cos\theta\ -\sin\theta\\ \sin\theta\quad\ \cos\theta\\ \end{array} \right)$ with $\theta\in (0,2\pi)\setminus\{\pi\}$ and we suppose that $\pi<\theta_{j}<2\pi$ iff $1\leq j\leq r'$; $$N_{2}(e^{i\aa_{j}},A_{j})=\left( \begin{array}{ll} R(\aa_{j})\ A_{j}\\ \ 0\quad\ R(\aa_{j})\\ \end{array} \right)\ \text{and}\ N_{2}(e^{i\bb_{j}},B_{j})=\left(\begin{array}{ll} R(\bb_{j})\ B_{j}\\ \ 0\quad\ R(\bb_{j})\\ \end{array} \right)$$ with $\alpha_{j},\beta_{j}\in (0,2\pi)\setminus\{\pi\}$ are non-trivial and trivial basic normal forms respectively. Let $\gamma_{0}$ and $\gamma_{1}$ be two symplectic paths in Sp$(2N-2)$ connecting the identity matrix $I$ to $P$ and $f(1)$ satisfying $\gamma_{0}\sim_\omega\gamma_1$. Then it has been shown that $i_{\omega}(\gamma_{0}^{m})=i_{\omega}(\gamma_{1}^{m})$ for any $\omega\in S^{1}=\{z\in\C\mid|z|=1\}.$ Based on this fact, we always assume without loss of generality that each $P_{c}$ appearing in the sequel has the form (\[nmf\]). \[orient\] [(cf. Theorem 8.3.1 and Chap. 12 of [@lo2002])]{} Let $c$ be an orientable closed geodesic on an $N$-dimensional Finsler manifold with its Poincar$\acute{e}$ map $P_c$. Then, there exists a continuous symplecitic path $\ga$ with $\ga(0)=I$ and $\ga(1)=P_c$ such that (c\^[m]{})=i(\^m) &=& m(i()+p\_-+p\_0-r ) -(p\_- + p\_0+r) - [[1+(-1)\^m]{}2]{}(q\_0+q\_+)\ && + 2\_[j=1]{}\^r[E]{}()+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{}() - 2r\_, and (c\^[m]{})=(\^m) &=& () + [[1+(-1)\^m]{}2]{}(q\_-+2q\_0+q\_+) + 2(c,m), where we denote by (c,m) = (r - \_[j=1]{}\^r()) + (r\_ - \_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{}()) + (r\_0 - \_[j=1]{}\^[r\_0]{}()). From now on, we focus on the non-orientable case. \[unorient\] Let $c$ be a non-orientable closed geodesic on a $d$-dimensional Finsler manifold with its linear Poincar$\acute{e}$ map $P_c$. Then, the following two claims hold. $(i)$ If $d$ is even, there is a symplectic path $\gamma$ in Sp$(2d-2)$ with $\gamma(0)=I$ and $\gamma(1)=P_c$ satisfying $$({\rm ind}(c^m),{\rm null}(c^{m}))= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} (i_{-1}(\gamma^m),\nu_{-1}(\gamma^{m})),\; &\ if\ m\ is\ odd,\\ (i(\gamma^m),\nu(\gamma^{m}))\; &\ if \ m \ is \ even.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ $(ii)$ If $d$ is odd, there is a symplectic path $\td\gamma$ in Sp$(2d)$ with $\td\gamma(0)=I$ and $\td\gamma(1)=N_{1}(1,1)\diamond P_c$ satisfying $$({\rm ind}(c^m),{\rm null}(c^{m}))= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} (i_{-1}(\td{\gamma}^m),\nu_{-1}(\td{\gamma}^{m})-1),\; &\ if\ m\ is\ odd,\\ (i(\td{\gamma}^m),\nu(\td{\gamma}^{m})-1)\; &\ if \ m \ is \ even.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ *Proof:* For the case of $m=1$, such a conclusion has been obtained by Theorem 1.1 of [@Liu2005]. Based on it, Lemma \[unorient\] is a direct application of Bott formulae (cf. Theorem 9.2.1 in [@lo2002]). $\hfill\Box$ For any $m\in\N$, we define $$E_{m}(a)=E\left(a-{1-(-1)^{m}\over4}\right),\ \varphi_{m}(a)=\varphi\left(a-{1-(-1)^{m}\over4}\right),\ \forall a\in\R.$$ By Lemmas \[orient\] and \[unorient\], we now derive the precise iteration formulae of Morse indices for a non-orientable closed geodesic on a Finsler manifold . \[indnullity\] Let $c$ be a non-orientable closed geodesic on a $d$-dimensional Finsler Manifold $M$ with its linear Poincar$\acute{e}$ map $P_c$. Then for every $m\in\N$, we have (c\^[m]{})&=&m([ind]{}(c)+q\_[0]{}+q\_[+]{}-2r’)-(q\_[0]{}+q\_[+]{})-[1+(-1)\^[m]{}2]{}(r+p\_[-]{}+p\_[0]{}+[1-(-1)\^[d]{}2]{})\ & &+2\_[j=1]{}\^[r]{} E\_[m]{}([m\_[j]{}2]{})+2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_\*]{} \_[m]{}([m\_[j]{}2]{})-2r\_\*, and (c\^[m]{})&=&[null]{}(c)+[1+(-1)\^[m]{}2]{}(p\_[-]{}+2p\_[0]{}+p\_[+]{}+[1-(-1)\^[d]{}2]{})+2(c,m), where we denote by $$\td{\varsigma}(c,m)=\left(r-\sum_{j=1}^{r}\varphi_{m}\left({m\theta_{j}\over2\pi}\right)\right) +\left(r_{*}-\sum_{j=1}^{r_{*}}\varphi_{m}\left({m\alpha_{j}\over2\pi}\right)\right) +\left(r_{0}-\sum_{j=1}^{r_{0}}\varphi_{m}\left({m\beta_{j}\over2\pi}\right)\right).$$ *Proof:* We only prove the case when $d$ is even and $m$ is odd, since it is just the case we encounter in this paper and the other cases can be proved similarly. By Lemma \[unorient\], there exists a symplectic path $\gamma$ in Sp$(2d-2)$ with $\ga(0)=I$ and $\gamma(1)=P_c$ such that ((c\^[m]{}),(c\^[m]{}))=(i\_[-1]{}(\^[m]{}),\_[-1]{}(\^[m]{})),  m2-1. It together with the Bott-type formulae (cf. Theorem 9.2.1 of [@lo2002]) and Lemma \[orient\] gives i\_[-1]{}(\^[m]{})&=&i(\^[2m]{})-i(\^[m]{})\ &=&m(i()+p\_-+p\_0-r )-(q\_0+q\_+)\ &&+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^r+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{}\ &=&m(i()+p\_-+p\_0-r )-(q\_0+q\_+)\ &&+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^r[E]{}(-[12]{})+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{} (-[12]{})-2r\_[\*]{}\ &=&m(i\_[-1]{}()+q\_0+q\_+-2r’ )-(q\_0+q\_+)\ &&+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^r[E]{}(-[12]{})+ 2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{} (-[12]{})-2r\_[\*]{},where the third identity we have used $E(2a)-E(a)=E\left(a-{1\over2}\right)$ and $\vf(2a)-\vf(a)=\vf\left(a-{1\over2}\right)-1,$ and the last identity is due to $$i(\gamma)=i_{-1}(\gamma)+(q_{0}+q_{+})+(r-2r')-(p_{0}+p_{-}),$$ which is a result of direct computation on splitting numbers based on Theorem 12.2.3 of [@lo2002]. Observing by definition $\nu_{-1}(\gamma)=q_{-}+2q_{0}+q_{+}$, we obtain similarly as above that \_[-1]{}(\^[m]{})&=&(\^[2m]{})-(\^[m]{})\ &=&(q\_[-]{}+2q\_[0]{}+q\_[+]{})-2\_[j=1]{}\^r\ &&-2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{}-2\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_[0]{}]{}\ &=&\_[-1]{}()+2(r-\_[j=1]{}\^r(-[12]{}))\ && +2(r\_[\*]{}-\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_]{}(-[12]{})) +2(r\_0-\_[j=1]{}\^[r\_[0]{}]{}(-[12]{})). Thus (\[ind1\]) and (\[null1\]) immediately follow from (\[201679a\]), (\[201679b\]) and (\[201679c\]). $\Box$ A variant of Precise index iteration formulae --------------------------------------------- In this section, we give a variant of the precise index iteration formulae in section 3.1 which makes them more intuitive and enables us to apply the Kronecker’s approximation theorem to study the multiplicity of non-contractible closed geodesics on $\R P^{n}$. To prove Theorem \[mainresult\], we always assume that there exists only one non-contractible prime closed geodesic $c$ on $M=\RP$ with a bumpy metric $F$, which is then just the well known minimal point of the energy functional $E$ on $\Lambda_{g}M$ satisfying ${\rm ind}(c)=0$. Now the Morse-type number is given by $$m_q \equiv M_q(\Lm_gM)=\sum_{m\ge 1}\dim{\ol{C}}_q(E, c^{2m-1}), \quad \forall q\in \N\cup\{0\}. \nn$$ Then by Lemma \[Rad1992\](i), Lemma \[Lm2.3\] and Morse inequality, we have the following conclusion. \[morsebetti\] [(cf. Lemma 3.1 of [@DLX2015])]{} Assuming the existence of only one non-contractible prime closed geodesic $c$ on $\RP$ with a bumpy metric $F$, there hold $$m_{2q+1}=\bar{\beta}_{2q+1}=0\ {\rm and}\ m_{2q}=\bar{\beta}_{2q}, \qquad \forall\ q\in \N\cup\{0\}.{\label{beqm}}$$ We consider two cases according to the parity of dimension of the real projective space. First we study the case of $\R P^{2n+1}$. Note that the other one behaves similarly. \[lemma3.2\] Suppose $c$ is the only one non-contractible prime closed geodesic $c$ on $(\R P^{2n+1}, F)$ with a bumpy metric $F$. Then there exist $\hat{\theta}_1$, $\hat{\theta}_2$, …, $\hat{\theta}_k$ in $\Q^c$ with $2\leq k\leq2n$ such that \_[j=1]{}\^[k]{}\_[j]{}&=&[12]{}(k+[nn+1]{}), \[mean\]\ [ind]{}(c\^[m]{})&=& m([nn+1]{})+k-2\_[j=1]{}\^[k]{}{[m\_[j]{}]{}}, m1. *Proof:* See (3.6), (3.7) and (3.8) in [@DLX2015]. Also compare the proof of Lemma 3.6.$\Box$ Now we give a variant of the precise index iteration formulae (\[iter1\]) specially for our purpose. Let $m=2(n+1)l+2L+1$ with $l\in\N$ and $L\in\Z$. By (\[mean\]) and (\[iter1\]) we obtain (c\^[m]{}) &=& 2nl+k+(2L+1)[nn+1 ]{}\ & & -2({[k2]{}+[(2L+1)n2(n+1)]{}-\_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m\_[j]{}}} +\_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m})\ &=& 2nl+2+2{[k2]{}+[(2L+1)n2(n+1)]{}}\ & & -2({{[k2]{}+[(2L+1)n2(n+1)]{}}-\_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m\_[j]{}}} +\_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m})\ &=& 2nl+2+2{Q\_[L]{}}-2({{Q\_[L]{}}-\_[j=2]{}\^[k]{} {m\_[j]{}}}+\_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m}), \[evenformulae\]where in the last identity for notational simplicity, we denote by $Q_{L}={k\over2}+{(2L+1)n\over2(n+1)}. $ Since $\sum_{j=2}^{k}\{m\hat{\theta}_{j}\}\in\Q^{c}$, we obtain by (\[evenformulae\]) that for $1\leq i\leq k-2$, (c\^[m]{}) = { [ll]{} 2nl+2,&  \_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m\_[j]{}}(0,{Q\_[L]{}}),\ 2nl+2-2i,&  \_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m\_[j]{}}(i-1+{Q\_[L]{}},i+{Q\_[L]{}}),\ 2nl+2-2(k-1),&  \_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m\_[j]{}}(k-2+{Q\_[L]{}},k-1). . Let $I_{0}(L)=(0,\left\{Q_{L}\right\})$, $I_{k-1}(L)=(k-2+\left\{Q_{L}\right\},k-1),$ and $$I_{i}(L)=(i-1+\left\{Q_{L}\right\},i+\left\{Q_{L}\right\})\quad \text{for}\quad 1\le i\le k-2.$$ Then, (\[evenodddengjia\]) can be stated in short as that for any integers $m=2(n+1)l+2L+1$ and $0\leq i\leq k-1,$ (c\^[m]{}) = 2nl+2-2i \_[j=2]{}\^[k]{}{m\_[j]{}}I\_[i]{}(L). \[transformation\] Let $(\tau(1),\tau(2),\dots,\tau(k))$ be an arbitrary permutation of $(1,2,\dots,k)$. Then, the same conclusion as (\[shortdengjia\]) with $j$ ranging in $\{\tau(1),\tau(2),\dots,\tau(k-1)\}$ instead is still valid. The following lemma will be also needed in the proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] for $\R P^{2n+1}$ in Section 5. \[bound\] Under the assumption of Lemma \[lemma3.2\], for any positive integers $l$ and $m$, we have $$|{\rm ind}(c^{m})-2nl|>2n\quad \text{holds whenever}\quad |m-2(n+1)l|>4(n+1).$$ *Proof:* From (\[iter1\]), we have $${\rm ind}(c^{m}) = 2nl+(m-2(n+1)l)\cdot{n\over n+1}+k-2\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left\{{m\hat{\theta}_{j}}\right\},$$ which yields immediately that |[ind]{}(c\^[m]{})-2nl| && |m-2(n+1)l|-|k-2\_[j=1]{}\^[k]{}{[m\_[j]{}]{}}|\ &&gt;& 4n-k 4n-2n = 2n, where the fact $k\le 2n$ is used. $\Box$ For the case of $\R P^{2n}$, similar to Lemma \[lemma3.2\], we have \[lemma3.4\] Suppose $c$ is the only one non-contractible prime closed geodesic $c$ on $(\R P^{2n}, F)$ with a bumpy metric $F$. Then, there exist $\hat{\theta}_1$, $\hat{\theta}_2$, …, $\hat{\theta}_{2r}$ in $\Q^c$ with $2\leq r\leq2n-1$ such that \_[j=1]{}\^[2r]{}\_[j]{}&=&[12]{}(2r+[2n-12n]{}), \[mean33\]\ [ind]{}(c\^[2m-1]{})&=& (2m-1)([2n-12n]{})+2r-2\_[j=1]{}\^[2r]{}{[(2m-1)\_[j]{}]{}}, m1. *Proof:* Since the Finsler metric F is bumpy, it follows $\text{null}(c^{m})=0$ for every $m\in\N$. In particular, $\text{null}(c)=\nu_{-1}(\gamma)=q_{-}+2q_{0}+q_{+}=0$, which implies $q_-=q_0=q_+=0.$ In addition by (\[null1\]), $\text{null}(c^{2})=0$ then yields $p_-=p_0=p_+=0.$ As a result, we get $$\td{\varsigma}(c,m)=0,\ \forall m\in\N,$$ and so $\frac{\th_{j}}{2\pi}'s$, $\frac{\aa_{j}}{2\pi}'s$ and $\frac{\bb_{j}}{2\pi}'s$ are all in $\Q^c\cap(0,1)$. Due to ${\rm ind}(c)=0$, by (\[ind1\]) in Theorem \[indnullity\] we obtain (c\^[2m-1]{}) &=&-2(2m-1)r’+\_[j=1]{}\^r E([(2m-1)\_[j]{}2]{}-[12]{})\ &=&-2(2m-1)r’+2\_[j=1]{}\^r (([(2m-1)\_[j]{}2]{}-[12]{})-{[(2m-1)\_[j]{}2]{}-[12]{}}+1)\ &=&(2m-1)(-2r’+\_[j=1]{}\^[r]{}[\_[j]{}]{})-2\_[j=1]{}\^r ({[(2m-1)\_[j]{}2]{}-[12]{}}-[12]{})\ &=&(2m-1)(-2r’+\_[j=1]{}\^[r]{}[\_[j]{}]{})+2r-2\_[j=1]{}\^r ({[(2m-1)\_[j]{}]{}}+{[-(2m-1)\_[j]{}2]{}})\ \[iter44\]which implies $ \hat{i}(c)=-2r'+\sum_{j=1}^{r}{\theta_{j}\over\pi}.$ It together with (\[breident1\]) of Theorem \[Thm1.1\] yields \_[j=1]{}\^r =(2r’+).\[mean44\] Let $\hat{\theta}_j=\frac{\th_j}{\pi}-[\frac{\th_j}{\pi}]+1$ for $1\leq j \leq r$ and $\hat{\theta}_j=-\frac{\th_{j-r}}{2\pi}$ for $r+1\leq j \leq 2r$, then (\[mean33\]) follows from (\[mean44\]), and (\[iter33\]) follows from (\[iter44\]) and (\[mean44\]). $\Box$ If we replace $2n-1$ and $2r$ in Lemma \[lemma3.4\] by $n$ and $k$ respectively, (\[mean33\]) and (\[iter33\]) are just the same form as (\[mean\]) and (\[iter1\]) respectively. Hence (\[evenformulae\])-(\[shortdengjia\]) also hold when we replace $n$ and $k$ by $2n-1$ and $2r$ respectively. For the case of $\R P^{2n}$, similar to Lemma \[bound\], we have \[bound2\] Under the assumption of Lemma \[lemma3.4\], for any positive integers $l$ and $m\in2\N-1$, we have $$|{\rm ind}(c^{m})-2(2n-1)l|>2(2n-1)\quad \text{holds whenever}\quad |m-4nl|>8n.$$ The system of irrational numbers ================================ Let $\aa=\{\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \ldots, \alpha_{m}\}$ be a set of $m$ irrational numbers. As usual, we have The set $\aa$ of irrational numbers is linearly independent over $\Q$, if there do not exist $c_1$, $c_2$, $\ldots$, $c_m$ in $\Q$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{m}|c_{j}|> 0$ and \_[j=1]{}\^[m]{}c\_[j]{}\_[j]{}, \[81a\]and is linearly dependent over $\Q$ otherwise. The rank of $\aa$ is defined to be the number of elements in a maximal linearly independent subset of $\aa$, which we denote by $\rank(\aa)$. Let $r=\rank(\aa)$. Then there exist $p_{jl}\in\Z$, $\beta_{l}\in\Q^{c}$ and $\xi_{j}\in \Q$ for $1\leq j\leq r$ and $1\leq l\leq m$ such that $$\label{81b} \alpha_{j}=\sum_{l=1}^{r}p_{jl}\beta_{l}+\xi_{j},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq m.$$ *Proof:* Let $\aa'=\{\aa_{m_1}, \aa_{m_2}, \ldots, \aa_{m_r}\}$ be a maximal linearly independent subset of $\aa$. Then there exist $c_{jl}\in\Q$ and $\xi_{j}\in \Q$ such that $$\label{81c} \alpha_{j}=\sum_{l=1}^{r}c_{jl}\alpha_{ml}+\xi_{j},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq m.$$ For every $1\leq l\leq r$, we define $J_{l}=\{1\leq j\leq m\mid c_{jl}\neq 0\}$ and then for $j\in J_{l}$ let $c_{jl}={r_{jl}\over q_{jl}}$ with $r_{jl}$ prime to $q_{jl}$. Define $q_{l}=\prod_{j\in J_{l}} q_{jl}$ and $$\beta_{l}={\alpha_{ml}\over q_{l}}\in\Q^{c}\ \text{and}\ p_{jl}=q_{l}c_{jl}\in\Z,\ \forall 1\leq j\leq m\ \text{and}\ 1\leq l\leq r.$$ Then, (\[81b\]) follows. $\Box$ In order to study the multiplicity of closed geodesics on $(\R P^{2n+1},F)$ with a bumpy Finsler metric $F$, we are particularly interested in the irrational system $\{\hat{\theta}_{1}$, $\hat{\theta}_{2}$,…,$\hat{\theta}_{k}\}$ with rank $1$ satisfying (\[mean\]). Then by Lemma \[L3.1\], it can be reduced to the following system \_[j]{}=p\_[j]{}+\_[j]{}, 1jk, \[Qdependent\]with $\theta\in\mathbb{Q}^{c}$, $p_{j}\in \Z\backslash\{0\}$, $\xi_{j}\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1)$ satisfying && p\_[1]{}+p\_[2]{}++p\_[k]{}=0,\ && {\_[1]{}+\_[2]{}++\_[k]{}}(0,1)\\{[1/2]{}}, where to get $\xi_j\in [0,1)$, if necessary, we can replace $\hat{\th}_j$ and $\xi_j$ by $\breve{\theta}_{j}=\hat{\theta}_{j}-[\xi_{j}]$ and $\breve{\xi}_{j}=\{\xi_{j}\}.$ Take arbitrarily $\eta\in\Q$ and make the following natural $\eta$-action to the system (\[Qdependent\]): $$\label{eta} {\eta}(\theta)=\theta+\eta,\ {\eta}(\hat{\theta}_{j})=\hat{\theta}_{j}-\left[\xi_{j}-p_{j}\eta\right]\ \text{and}\ {\eta}({\xi}_{j})=\left\{\xi_{j}-p_{j}\eta\right\},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k,$$ which is obviously induced by the transformation ${\eta}(\theta)=\theta+\eta$. Then, we get a new system $$\label{Qdependent1} {\eta}(\hat{\theta}_{j})=p_{j}{\eta}(\theta)+{\eta}(\xi_{j}),\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k,$$ with $$\label{invariant1} \begin{aligned} \{{\eta}({\xi}_{1})+{\eta}({\xi}_{2})+\cdots+{\eta}({\xi}_{k})\}&=\{\{\xi_{1}-p_{1}\eta\}+\{\xi_{2}-p_{2}\eta\}+\cdots+\{\xi_{k}-p_{k}\eta\}\}\\ &=\{\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+\cdots+\xi_{k}-(p_{1}+p_{2}+\dots+p_{k})\eta\}\\ &=\{\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+\cdots+\xi_{k}\}, \end{aligned}$$ where the third equality we have used the condition (\[basic1c\]). For simplicity of writing, we also denote the new system (\[Qdependent1\]) by (\[Qdependent\])$_{\eta}$ meaning that it comes from (\[Qdependent\]) by an $\eta$-action. For the system (\[Qdependent\])$_{\eta}$ with $\eta\in\Q$, we divide the set $\{1\leq j\leq k\}$ into the following three parts: \_[0]{}\^[+]{}()&=&{1jk(\_[j]{})=0, p\_[j]{}&gt;0},\ \_[0]{}\^[-]{}()&=&{1jk(\_[j]{})=0, p\_[j]{}&lt;0},\ \_[1]{}()&=&{1jk(\_[j]{})0 }.Denote by $k_{0}^{+}(\eta)$, $k_{0}^{-}(\eta)$ and $k_{1}(\eta)$ the numbers ${}^{\#}\mathcal{K}_{0}^{+}(\eta)$, ${}^{\#}\mathcal{K}_{0}^{-}(\eta)$ and ${}^{\#}\mathcal{K}_{1}(\eta)$ respectively. For the case of $\eta=0$, we write them for short as $k_{0}^{+}$, $k_{0}^{-}$ and $k_{1}.$ It follows immediately that $$k_{0}^{+}(\eta)+k_{0}^{-}(\eta)+k_{1}(\eta)=k.$$ By (\[basic2c\]) and (\[invariant1\]), it is obvious that $k_{1}(\eta)\geq1$ for every $\eta\in\Q$. \[crucialnumber\] For every $\eta\in\Q$, the [**absolute difference number**]{} of (\[Qdependent\])$_{\eta}$ is defined to be the non-negative number $|k_{0}^{+}(\eta)-k_{0}^{-}(\eta)|.$ The [**effective difference number**]{} of [(\[Qdependent\])]{} is defined by $$\max\{|k_{0}^{+}(\eta)-k_{0}^{-}(\eta)|\mid \eta\in\Q\}.$$ Two systems of irrational numbers with rank $1$ are called to be [**equivalent**]{}, if their effective difference numbers are the same one. By the definition of an $\eta$-action in (\[eta\]), it can be checked directly that $\eta_{1}\circ\eta_{2}=\eta_{1}+\eta_{2}$ for every $\eta_{1}$ and $\eta_{2}$ in $\Q.$ So every system of irrational numbers with rank $1$ is equivalent to the one which comes from itself by an $\eta$-action. We have first the following simple equivalent pairs. \[equivalentsystem\] Assume that $$\label{20150729a} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hat{\theta}_{j}=p_{j}\theta+\xi_{j},& \forall 1\leq j\leq k-1,\\ \hat{\theta}_{k}=p_{k}\theta,\\ \end{array} \right.$$ with $\sum_{j=1}^{k}p_{k}=0$ and $\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\xi_{k}\right\}\in(0,1)\backslash\{1/2\}.$ Then, (\[20150729a\]) is equivalent to $$\label{20150729b} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hat{\theta}_{j}=p_{j}\theta+\xi_{j},& \forall\ 1\leq j\leq k-1,\\ \hat{\theta}_{k,l}=\text{sgn}(p_{k})\theta+{l\over |p_{k}|},& \forall\ 0\leq l\leq |p_{k}|-1,\\ \end{array} \right.$$ where as usual we define $\sgn(a)=\pm 1$ for $a\in\R\bs\{0\}$ when $\pm a>0$. *Proof:* Take $\eta\in\Q$ arbitrarily and recall the definition of $\eta$-action in (\[eta\]). Then the equation $\hat{\theta}_{k}=p_{k}\theta$ contributes $\text{sgn}(p_{k})$ to the absolute difference number of (\[20150729a\])$_{\eta}$ if and only if $$\eta(0)=\{0-p_{k}\eta\}=\{-p_{k}\eta\}=0,$$ that is $\eta\in\Z_{|p_{k}|}$, which is also the sufficient and necessary condition such that the equations $$\hat{\theta}_{k,l}=\text{sgn}(p_{k})\theta+{l\over |p_{k}|},\ \forall\ 0\leq l\leq |p_{k}|-1,$$ contribute $\text{sgn}(p_{k})$ to the absolute difference number of (\[20150729b\])$_{\eta}$. Since the other equations with $1\leq j\leq k-1$ in (\[20150729a\]) and (\[20150729b\]) are the same, so do their contributions to the absolute difference numbers of (\[20150729a\])$_{\eta}$ and (\[20150729b\])$_{\eta}$. As a result, the absolute difference numbers of (\[20150729a\])$_{\eta}$ and (\[20150729b\])$_{\eta}$ are equal for any $\eta\in\Q$ which yields that the effective difference numbers of (\[20150729a\]) and (\[20150729b\]) are the same and so they are equivalent. $\Box$ \[beautifulchange\] For the system (\[20150729b\]), we have $$\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\xi_{j}+\sum_{l=0}^{|p_{k}|-1}{l\over |p_{k}|}\right\} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\xi_{j}\right\},& if\ p_{k}\ is\ odd,\\ \left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\xi_{j}+{1\over2}\right\},& if\ p_{k}\ is\ even. \end{array} \right.$$ By the assumption of $\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\xi_{j}\right\}\in(0,1)\backslash\{1/2\}$, it follows that $$\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\xi_{j}+\sum_{l=0}^{|p_{k}|-1}{l\over |p_{k}|}\right\}\in(0,1)\backslash\{1/2\}.$$ \[cutoff\] If there exist $1\leq j'<j''\leq k$ satisfying that $p_{j'}\cdot p_{j''}=-1$ and $\left\{{\xi_{j'}}+ {\xi_{j''}}\right\}=0$ in $$\label{Qdependent1029} \hat{\theta}_{j}=p_{j}\theta+\xi_{j},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k,$$ then (\[Qdependent1029\]) is equivalent to the system $$\label{cutoffequations} \hat{\theta}_{j}=p_{j}\theta+\xi_{j},\ \forall j\in\{1,2,\dots,k\}\backslash\{j',j''\}.$$ *Proof:* Assume without loss of generality that $p_{j'}=-p_{j''}=1$ and take $\eta\in\Q$ arbitrarily. Then by (\[eta\]) and the given condition, we have $$\left\{{\eta}(\xi_{j'})+{\eta}(\xi_{j''})\right\}=\left\{ \{\xi_{j'}-\eta\} + \{\xi_{j''}+\eta\} \right\}=\{\xi_{j'}+\xi_{j''}\}=0.$$ Thus, ${\eta}({\xi_{j'}})=0$ if and only if ${\eta}({\xi_{j''}})=0,$ that is, $j'\in\mathcal{K}_{0}^{+}({\eta})$ if and only if $j''\in\mathcal{K}_{0}^{-}({\eta}).$ As a result, $p_{j'}$ and $p_{j''}$ together contribute nothing to the absolute difference number of (\[Qdependent1029\])$_\eta$ for any $\eta\in\Q$. It then follows immediately that (\[Qdependent1029\]) is equivalent to (\[cutoffequations\]). $\Box$ The following theorem is our main result of this section which is concerned with the lower estimate on the effective difference number of (\[Qdependent\]) and will play a crucial role in our proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] in Section 5. \[crucialtheorem\] For every system of irrational numbers (\[Qdependent\]) satisfying the conditions (\[basic1c\]) and (\[basic2c\]), it holds that $$\label{crucialestimate} \max\{|k_{0}^{+}(\eta)-k_{0}^{-}(\eta)|\mid \eta\in\Q\}\geq1.$$ The condition (\[basic2c\]) can not be replaced by the weaker condition $$\label{weakcondition} \{\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+\cdots+\xi_{k}\}\in(0,1).$$ For instance, we consider the system $\hat{\theta}_{1}=-\theta+{1\over2},\ \hat{\theta}_{2}=-\theta,\ \hat{\theta}_{3}=2\theta,$ which satisfies the conditions (\[basic1c\]) and (\[weakcondition\]) but (\[basic2c\]). However, one can check directly that $|k_{0}^{+}(\eta)-k_{0}^{-}(\eta)|=0$ for any $\eta\in\Q.$ As we will see, such a phenomenon does not occur if the condition (\[basic2c\]) holds. [**Proof of Theorem \[crucialtheorem\]:**]{} We carry out the proof with two steps. [**Step 1:**]{} First, letting $\eta_{k}={\xi_{k}\over p_{k}}$ and making ${\eta_{k}}$-action to the original system (\[Qdependent\]), we obtain by (\[eta\]) that $$\label{729change1} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\eta_{k}}(\hat{\theta}_{j})=p_{j}{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{\eta_{k}}(\xi_{j}),\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k-1,\\ {\eta_{k}}(\hat{\theta}_{k})=p_{k}{\eta_{k}}(\theta). \end{array} \right.$$ Then by Lemma \[equivalentsystem\], the system (\[729change1\]) is equivalent to $$\label{729change11} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\eta_{k}}(\hat{\theta}_{j})=p_{j}{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{\eta_{k}}(\xi_{j}),& \forall\ 1\leq j\leq k-1,\\ \hat{\theta}_{k,l'}=\text{sgn}(p_{k}){\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{l'\over |p_{k}|},& \forall\ 0\leq l'\leq |p_{k}|-1,\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Secondly, taking $\eta_{k-1}\in\Q$ such that ${\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\xi_{k-1})=0$ and making ${\eta_{k-1}}$-action to the system (\[729change11\]), we get $$\label{729change2} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\hat{\theta}_{j})=p_{j}{\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\xi_{j}),& \forall\ 1\leq j\leq k-2,\\ {\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\hat{\theta}_{k-1})=p_{k-1}{\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\theta),& \\ {\eta_{k-1}}\circ(\hat{\theta}_{k,l'})=\text{sgn}(p_{k}){\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{\eta_{k-1}}({l'\over |p_{k}|}),& \forall\ 0\leq l'\leq |p_{k}|-1.\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Again by Lemma \[equivalentsystem\], the system (\[729change2\]) is equivalent to $$\label{729change22} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\hat{\theta}_{j})=p_{j}{\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+\eta_{k-1}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\xi_{j}),& \forall\ 1\leq j\leq k-2,\\ \hat{\theta}_{k-1,l''}=\text{sgn}(p_{k-1}){\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{l''\over |p_{k-1}|},& \forall\ 0\leq l''\leq |p_{k-1}|-1,\\ {\eta_{k-1}}(\hat{\theta}_{k,l'})=\text{sgn}(p_{k}){\eta_{k-1}}\circ{\eta_{k}}(\theta)+{\eta_{k-1}}({l'\over |p_{k}|}),& \forall\ 0\leq l'\leq |p_{k}|-1,\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Repeating the above procedure for the rest equations with $j={k-2}$, ${k-3}$, $\cdots$, $2$, $1$ one at a time in order, we can finally get a system equivalent to the original system (\[Qdependent\]) which can be written in a simple form such as $$\label{finalsystem} \hat{\alpha}_{jl}=\text{sgn}(p_{j})\alpha+\xi_{jl},\ \forall\ 1\leq j\leq k\ \text{and}\ 0\leq l\leq |p_{j}|-1,$$ with $\alpha\in\Q^{c}$ and $\xi_{jl}\in\Q\cap[0,1)$. Moreover, by (\[invariant1\]) and Remark \[beautifulchange\] we have $$\label{incredible} \left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k}\sum_{l=0}^{|p_{j}|-1}\xi_{jl}\right\}\in(0,1)\backslash\{{1/2}\}.$$ [**Step 2:**]{} We can cut off all the superfluous equations of the system (\[finalsystem\]), if there are such pairs as that in Lemma \[cutoff\]. That is, (\[finalsystem\]) is equivalent to some a system $$\label{finalsystem1} \hat{\theta}_{i}^{\prime}=p_{i}^{\prime}\alpha+\xi_{i}^{\prime},\ \forall\ 1\leq i\leq \bar{k},$$ with $|p_{i}^{\prime}|=1$, $\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{k}}p_{i}^{\prime}=0$ and $$\label{basic2cc} \left\{\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{k}}\xi_{i}^{\prime}\right\}\in(0,1)\backslash\{1/2\}.$$ Here notice that $\bar{k}\geq1$ is ensured by the condition (\[basic2cc\]). Since all the superfluous equations are cut off, it follows that ${\bar{k}}_{0}^{+}\cdot {\bar{k}}_{0}^{-}=0.$ Assume without loss of generality that ${\bar{k}}_{0}^{+}={\bar{k}}_{0}^{-}=0,$ otherwise we have nothing to do. Since $\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{k}}p_{i}^{\prime}=0$, we get $${}^{\#}\{1\leq i\leq \bar{k}\mid p_{i}^{\prime}=1\}={}^{\#}\{1\leq i\leq \bar{k}\mid p_{i}^{\prime}=-1\}.$$ Take arbitrarily out $i_{1}\in \{1\leq i\leq \bar{k}\mid p_{i}^{\prime}=1\}.$ Let $\bar{\eta}=\xi_{i_{1}}'$ and make the $\bar{\eta}$-action to (\[finalsystem1\]). Then it follows immediately that $\bar{k}_{0}^{+}(\bar{\eta})\geq1$. Recalling again that all the superfluous equations have been cut off at the beginning of Step 2, we obtain $\bar{\eta}(\xi_{i}')=\{\xi_{i_{1}}'+\xi_{i}'\}\neq0$ for every $i\in\{1\leq i\leq \bar{k}\mid p_{i}^{\prime}=-1\}$ which yields $\bar{k}_{0}^{-}(\bar{\eta})=0.$ As a result, we get $$\max\{|\bar{k}_{0}^{+}({\eta})-\bar{k}_{0}^{-}({\eta})\mid\eta\in\Q\}\geq|\bar{k}_{0}^{+}(\bar{\eta})-\bar{k}_{0}^{-}(\bar{\eta})|=\bar{k}_{0}^{+}(\bar{\eta})\geq1.$$ Since the original system (\[Qdependent\]) is equivalent to (\[finalsystem1\]), the estimate (\[crucialestimate\]) follows immediately. $\Box$ The proof of Theorem \[crucialtheorem\] can be illuminated by the concrete example below. Consider the irrational system $$\label{simpleexample1} \hat{\theta}_{1}=-\theta+{5\over6},\ \hat{\theta}_{2}=-2\theta+{1\over3},\ \hat{\theta}_{3}=3\theta+{1\over2}.$$ One can check directly that the system (\[simpleexample1\]) is a special case of (\[Qdependent\]) satisfying the conditions (\[basic1c\]) and (\[basic2c\]). We now come to solve its effective difference number. [**Step 1:**]{} First, we make the change of $\alpha=\theta+{1\over6}$ to transform (\[simpleexample1\]) to $$\label{88a} \hat{\alpha}_{1}=-\alpha,\ \hat{\alpha}_{2}=-2\alpha+{2\over3},\ \hat{\alpha}_{3}=3\alpha.$$ By Lemma 4.2, (\[88a\]) is equivalent to $$\label{88b} \hat{\alpha}_{1}=-\alpha,\ \hat{\alpha}_{2}=-2\alpha+{2\over3},\ \hat{\alpha}_{31}=\alpha,\ \hat{\alpha}_{32}=\alpha+{1\over3},\ \hat{\alpha}_{33}=\alpha+{2\over3}.$$ Secondly, we make the change of $\beta=\alpha-{1\over3}$ to transform (\[88b\]) to $$\label{88c} \hat{\beta}_{1}=-\beta+{2\over3},\ \hat{\beta}_{2}=-2\beta,\ \hat{\beta}_{31}=\beta+{1\over3},\ \hat{\beta}_{32}=\beta+{2\over3},\ \hat{\beta}_{33}=\beta.$$ Again by Lemma 4.2, (\[88c\]) is equivalent to $$\label{88d} \hat{\beta}_{1}=-\beta+{2\over3},\ \hat{\beta}_{21}=-\beta,\ \hat{\beta}_{22}=-\beta+{1\over2},\ \hat{\beta}_{31}=\beta+{1\over3},\ \hat{\beta}_{32}=\beta+{2\over3},\ \hat{\beta}_{33}=\beta.$$ [**Step 2:**]{} By Lemma 4.3, we can cut off the following superfluous pairs in (\[88d\]): $$\hat{\beta}_{1}=-\beta+{2\over3}\ \&\ \hat{\beta}_{31}=\beta+{1\over3};\quad \text{and}\quad \hat{\beta}_{21}=-\beta\ \&\ \hat{\beta}_{33}=\beta.$$ That is, (\[88d\]) is equivalent to $$\label{88e} \hat{\beta}_{22}=-\beta+{1\over2},\ \ \hat{\beta}_{32}=\beta+{2\over3}.$$ Finally, we make the change of $\gamma=\beta+{2\over3}$ to transform (\[88e\]) to $$\label{88f} \hat{\gamma}_{22}=-\gamma+{1\over6},\ \ \hat{\gamma}_{32}=\gamma.$$ It is obvious that the effective difference number of (\[88f\]) is $1$ and so the system (\[simpleexample1\]) does. $\Box$ Proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] =============================== In this section, we prove our main Theorem \[mainresult\]. Firstly we give a proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] for $(\R P^{2n+1},F)$ which is involved in the irrational system $\{\hat{\theta}_{1}$, $\hat{\theta}_{2}$, …, $\hat{\theta}_{k}\}$ with $2\leq k\leq 2n$ satisfying (\[mean\]). For sake of readability, we divide it into two cases according to whether $\rank(\hat{\theta}_{1},\hat{\theta}_{2},\dots\hat{\theta}_{k})=1$ or not. We will give in details the proof for the first case. Based on the well known Kronecker’s approximation theorem in Number theory, the second one can be then proved quite similarly and so we only sketch it. While for $(\R P^{2n},F)$, the proof is similar and will be explained at the end of this section. [**Proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] for $(\R P^{2n+1},F)$:**]{} We carry out the proof into two cases. [**Case 1:**]{} $r=\rank(\hat{\theta}_{1},\hat{\theta}_{2},\dots\hat{\theta}_{k})=1.$ As we have mentioned in Section 4, the irrational system (\[mean\]) with $r=1$ can be seen as a special case of (\[Qdependent\]) satisfying (\[basic1c\]) and (\[basic2c\]). Since any $\eta$-action with $\eta\in\Q$ to (\[Qdependent\]), if necessary, does no substantive effect on our following arguments, by Theorem \[crucialtheorem\] and Remark \[transformation\] we can assume without loss of generality that $$|k_{0}^{+}-k_{0}^{-}|\geq1\ \text{and}\ \mathcal{K}_{1}=\{1,2,\dots, k_{1}\},$$ with $k_{1}\geq1$ due to (\[basic2c\]), and denote by $\xi_{j}={r_{j}\over q_{j}}$ for $1\leq j\leq k_{1}.$ Let $\bar{q}=q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{k_1}$ and $m_{l}=2(n+1)\bar{q}l+1$ with $l\in\N$. Then, by (\[Qdependent\]) we have $$\label{sum3} \begin{aligned} \sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{m_{l}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}&=\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\left\{m_{l}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}+\sum_{j=k_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{m_{l}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}\\ &=\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\left\{p_{j}\{m_{l}\theta\}+\xi_{j}\right\}+\sum_{j=k_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{p_{j}\{m_{l}\theta\}\right\}.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Due to $\theta\in\mathbb{Q}^{c}$, the set $\{\{m_{l}\theta\}\mid l\in\N\}$ is dense in $[0,1]$. For every $L\in\Z$, we introduce the auxiliary function $$\label{auxifunction} f_{L}(x)=\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\left\{\left\{p_{j}x+\xi_{j}\right\}+2L\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}+\sum_{j=k_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{\left\{p_{j}x\right\}+2L\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\},\ \forall x\in [0,1],$$ and denote for simplicity by $f=f_{0}$. Let $a$ and $b$ in $(0,1)$ be two real numbers sufficiently close to $0$ and $1$ respectively. Then, $$\label{fa} \begin{aligned} f(a)=\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\left\{p_{j}a+\xi_{j}\right\}+\sum_{j=k_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{p_{j}a\right\}&=\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\left(p_{j}a+\xi_{j}\right)+\sum_{j\in\mathcal{K}_{0}^{+}}p_{j}a+\sum_{j\in\mathcal{K}_{0}^{-}}\left(1+p_{j}a\right)\\ &=k_{0}^{-}+\sum_{j=2}^{k}p_{j}a+\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\xi_{j}, \end{aligned}$$ and by similar computation, $$\label{fb} \begin{aligned} f(b)&=k_{0}^{+}+\sum_{j=2}^{k}p_{j}(b-1)+\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\xi_{j}. \end{aligned}$$ It follows by (\[fa\]) and (\[fb\]) that $$\label{distance} |f(b)-f(a)|=|k_{0}^{+}-k_{0}^{-}+\sum_{j=2}^{k}p_{j}(b-1-a)|=|k_{0}^{+}-k_{0}^{-}+p_{1}(-b+1+a)|,$$ where the second identity we have used $\sum_{j=1}^{k}p_{j}=0.$ \[lemma1616a\] If $a$ and $b$ in $(0,1)$ are sufficiently close to $0$ and $1$ respectively, then [(i)]{} $f(a)$ and $f(b)$ lie in different intervals of (\[shortdengjia\]) with $L=0$, [(ii)]{} $f_{L}(a)$ and $f_{L}(b)$ lie in the same interval of (\[shortdengjia\]) for any $1\leq |L|\leq\bar{N}$ with $\bar{N}\in\N$ prior fixed, including $f_{L}(0).$ *Proof:* \(i) By (\[distance\]) and the assumption, $|f(b)-f(a)|\approx|k_{0}^{+}-k_{0}^{-}|.$ Here and later, we use $X\approx Y$ as usual to mean that $X$ is sufficiently close to $Y$ in the context of writing. Since the length of each interval in (\[shortdengjia\]) with $L=0$ is less than or equal to $1$, so $f(a)$ and $f(b)$ must lie in different ones, provided that $|k_{0}^{+}-k_{0}^{-}|\geq2$. If $|k_{0}^{+}-k_{0}^{-}|=1$, then $|f(b)-f(a)|\approx1$. For the case of $k=2$, since the length of each interval of (\[shortdengjia\]) with $L=0$ is less than $1$, (i) follows immediately. The rest case is $k\geq3$, which still contains three subcases. $1^{\circ}$ If $k_{1}\geq2$, we get by (\[fa\]) that $$\{f(a)\}\approx\left\{k_{0}^{-}+\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\xi_{j}\right\}=\left\{-\xi_{1}+\sum_{j=1}^{k_1}\xi_{j}\right\} =\left\{\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{k_1}\xi_{j}\right\}-\xi_{1}\right\}=\left\{ \{Q_{0}\}-\xi_{1}\right\}.$$ Notice that the dividing points of the intervals in (\[shortdengjia\]) with $L=0$ are $$0,\ \{Q_{0}\},\ 1+\{Q_{0}\},\ 2+\{Q_{0}\},\ \dots,\ k-2+\{Q_{0}\},\ k-1.$$ Therefore, $\{k_{0}^{-}+\sum_{j=2}^{k_1}\xi_{j}\}=\left\{ \{Q_{0}\}-\xi_{1}\right\}$ must be an interior point of these intervals, so does $f(a)$. It then yields that $f(a)$ and $f(b)$ must lie in two different intervals. $2^{\circ}$ If $k_{1}=1$ and $k_{0}^{-}\geq1$, then $f(a)\approx k_{0}^{-}$ is also an interior point and (i) follows. $3^{\circ}$ If $k_{1}=1$ and $k_{0}^{-}=0$, then $f(a)=\sum_{j=2}^{k}p_{j}a$ lies in the first interval whose length is $\{Q_{0}\}<1$ and so $f(b)$ must lie in another one. \(ii) It can be checked directly that $\lim_{a\to0}f_{L}(a)=\lim_{b\to1}f_{L}(1)=f_{L}(0)\in\mathbb{Q}^{c},$ since $\xi_{j}\in\Q$ for $1\leq j\leq k$ and $\sum_{j=2}^{k}2L\hat{\theta}_{j}\in\mathbb{Q}^{c}$. But the dividing points of these intervals in (\[shortdengjia\]) with $1\leq|L|\leq\bar{N}$ are finitely many rational numbers, so $f_{L}(0)$ is an interior point of these intervals and (ii) follows. $\Box$ Notice that $f$ is almost continuous on $(0,1)$. Without loss of generality, we assume $a$ and $b$ to be two points of continuity of $f$ and choose $l_{1}$, $l_{2}\in\N$ with $l_{2}-l_{1}$ sufficiently large such that $\{m_{l_1}\theta\}\approx a$ and $\{m_{l_2}\theta\}\approx b.$ Then by (\[sum3\]), (\[auxifunction\]) and (i) of Lemma \[lemma1616a\], we get $\sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{m_{l_1}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}$ and $\sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{m_{l_2}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}$ lie in different intervals of (\[shortdengjia\]) with $L=0$. Suppose that $$\sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{m_{l_1}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}\in I_{i'}\ \text{and}\ \sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{m_{l_2}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}\in I_{i''},$$ with $\{i',i''\}\subseteq\{0,1,2,\dots,k-1\}$ and $i'\neq i''$. By (\[shortdengjia\]) we have $i(c^{m_{l_{1}}})=2n\bar{q}l_{1}+2[Q_{0}]-2i'$ and $$\label{73a} i(c^{m_{l_2}})=2n\bar{q}l_{2}+2[Q_{0}]-2i''.$$ Since $2n\mid(2n\bar{q}l_{1}+2[Q_{0}]-2i'')$ if and only if $2n\mid(2n\bar{q}l_{2}+2[Q_{0}]-2i'')$, we get by (\[b.1\]) that $$\beta_{2n\bar{q}l_{1}+2[Q_{0}]-2i''}=\beta_{2n\bar{q}l_{2}+2[Q_{0}]-2i''}\equiv\beta.$$ Take $\bar{N}>4(n+1)$ in (ii) of Lemma \[lemma1616a\] and observe $|2[Q_{0}]-2i''|\leq k\leq2n.$ By Lemma \[morsebetti\] and Lemma \[bound\], there exist $L_{i}\in\Z$ with $1\leq |L_{i}|\leq \bar{N}$ and $1\leq i\leq\beta$ such that $$i(c^{m_{l_{1}}+2L_{i}})=2n\bar{q}l_{1}+2[Q_{0}]-2i''.$$ Since $\sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{(m_{l_{2}}+2L_{i})\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}$ and $\sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{(m_{l_{1}}+2L_{i})\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}$ are in the same interval of (\[shortdengjia\]) with $1\leq |L_{i}|\leq\bar{N}$ by (ii) of Lemma \[lemma1616a\], we get again by (\[shortdengjia\]) that $$\label{73b} i(c^{m_{l_{2}}+2L_{i}})=2n\bar{q}l_{2}+2[Q_{0}]-2i'',\ \forall 1\leq i\leq \beta.$$ By (\[73a\]) and (\[73b\]), it yields $\beta\equiv\beta_{2n\bar{q}l_{2}+2[Q_{0}]-2i''}=\beta+1$ which is obviously absurd. [**Case 2:**]{} $r=\rank(\hat{\theta}_{1},\hat{\theta}_{2},\dots\hat{\theta}_{k})\geq2.$ By Lemma \[L3.1\], there are $p_{jl}\in\Z$, $\theta_{k_l}\in\Q^{c}$ and $\xi_{j}\in\Q$ with $1\leq l\leq r$ and $1\leq j\leq k$ such that $$\label{system82a} \hat{\theta}_{j}=\sum_{l=1}^{r}p_{jl}\theta_{k_l}+\xi_{j},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k.$$ Moreover, $\theta_{k_1}$, $\theta_{k_2}$ …, $\theta_{k_r}$ are linearly independent over $\Q$. Due to (\[mean\]), it follows $$\label{20150923a} \sum_{j=1}^{k}p_{jl}=0,\ \forall 1\leq l\leq r.$$. Our basic idea for proving Case 2 is to construct an irrational system with rank $1$ associated to (\[system82a\]), which plays the essential role in our sequel arguments due to the following result.\ [**Kronecker’s approximation theorem**]{} (cf. Theorem 7.10 in [@Apostol]): [*If $\theta_{1}$, $\theta_{2}$, …, $\theta_{r}$ are linearly independent over $\Q$, then the set $\{(m\theta_{1},m\theta_{2},\dots,m\theta_{r})\mid m\in N\}$ is dense in $$[0,1]^{r}=\underbrace{[0,1]\times[0,1]\times\cdots\times[0,1]}_{r}.$$*]{} \[lemma82a\] There are $s_{2},\ s_{3}, \dots,\ s_{r}\in\Z$ such that $$\label{82a} p_{j1}+\sum_{l=2}^{r}s_{l}p_{jl}\in\Z\backslash\{0\},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k,$$ *Proof:* Let $J_{0}=\{1\leq j\leq k\mid p_{j1}=0\}.$ If $J_{0}=\emptyset$, we need only take $s_{2}=s_{3}=\cdots=s_{r}=0.$ If $J_{0}\neq\emptyset$, we claim that $(p_{j2},p_{j3},\dots,p_{jr})\neq(0,0,\dots,0)$ for each $j\in J_{0}$. Otherwise, then (\[system82a\]) yields that $\hat{\theta}_{j}=\xi_{j}\in\Q,$ which contradicts to $\hat{\theta}_{j}\in\Q^{c}$. So the set $$\label{82b} X_{j}\equiv\left\{(x_{2},x_{3},\dots,x_{r})\mid p_{j2}x_{2}+p_{j3}x_{3}+\dots+p_{jr}x_{r}=0\right\},$$ is a subspace of dimension $r-2$ in $\R^{r-1}$ which yields that $X=\cup_{j\in J_{0}}X_{j}$ is a proper subset of $\R^{r-1}$. Take arbitrarily out an integral point $(\bar{s}_{2},\bar{s}_{3},\dots,\bar{s}_{r})\in\R^{r-1}\backslash X$. Then for every $\bar{N}\in\N$ we have $$\label{20150922a} |p_{j1}+\sum_{l=2}^{r}\bar{N}\bar{s}_{l}p_{jl}| =\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \bar{N}|\sum_{l=2}^{r}\bar{s}_{l}p_{jl}|\neq0,& \text{if}\ j\in J_{0},\\ |p_{j1}|\neq0,& \text{if}\ j\notin J_{0}\ \text{and}\ \sum_{l=2}^{r}\bar{s}_{l}p_{jl}=0,\\ |p_{j1}+\bar{N}\sum_{l=2}^{r}\bar{s}_{l}p_{jl}|,& \text{if}\ j\notin J_{0}\ \text{and}\ \sum_{l=2}^{r}\bar{s}_{l}p_{jl}\neq0. \end{array} \right.$$ For the third case in the righthand side of (\[20150922a\]), we can take $\bar{N}\in\N$ sufficiently large so that $|p_{j1}+\bar{N}\sum_{l=2}^{r}\bar{s}_{l}p_{jl}|\neq0$ for all these $j$’s therein. Finally let $s_{l}=\bar{N}\bar{s}_{l}$ and (\[82a\]) follows. $\Box$ By Lemma \[lemma82a\], we can make the change of variables $\td{\theta}_{k_1}=\theta_{k_1}\ \text{and}\ \td{\theta}_{k_l}=\theta_{k_l}-s_{l}\theta_{k_1}\ \text{for}\ 2\leq l\leq r.$ Then the system (\[system82a\]) is transformed to $$\label{system82b} \hat{\theta}_{j}=\sum_{l=1}^{r}\td{p}_{jl}\td{\theta}_{k_l}+\xi_{j},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k,$$ with $\td{p}_{j1}=p_{j1}+\sum_{l=2}^{r}s_{l}p_{jl}\in\Z\backslash\{0\},$ and by (\[20150923a\]) we have $$\label{basic2ccc} \sum_{j=1}^{k}\td{p}_{j1}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}p_{j1}+\sum_{j=1}^{k}\sum_{l=2}^{r}s_{l}p_{jl}=0+\sum_{l=2}^{r}s_{l}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}p_{jl}\right)=0.$$ Since $\theta_{k_1}$, $\theta_{k_2}$, …, $\theta_{k_r}$ are linearly independent over $\Q$, so do $\td{\theta}_{k_1}$, $\td{\theta}_{k_2}$, …, $\td{\theta}_{k_r}.$ Consider the following irrational system with rank $1$ associated to (\[system82b\]) $$\label{system82c} \hat{\alpha}_{j}=\td{p}_{j1}\td{\theta}_{k_1}+\xi_{j},\ \forall 1\leq j\leq k.$$ By Theorem \[crucialtheorem\], without loss of generality we can assume for (\[system82c\]) that $|\td{k}_{0}^{+}-\td{k}_{0}^{-}|\geq1$ and $\td{\mathcal{K}}_{1}=\{1,2,\dots, \td{k}_{1}\}$, and denote by $\xi_{j}={r_{j}\over q_{j}}$ for $1\leq j\leq \td{k}_{1}.$ Let $\td{q}=q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{\td{k}_{1}}$ and $\td{m}_{l}=2(n+1)\td{q}l+1$ for $l\in\N$. Then, we get by (\[system82b\]) that $$\label{sum33} \begin{aligned} \sum_{j=2}^{k}\left\{\td{m}_{l}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\} &=\sum_{j=2}^{\td{k}_1}\left\{\td{m}_{l}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}+\sum_{j=\td{k}_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{\td{m}_{l}\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\}\\ &=\sum_{j=2}^{\td{k}_1}\left\{\sum_{l=1}^{r}\td{p}_{jl}\{\td{m}_{l}\td{\theta}_{k_l}\}+\xi_{j}\right\}+\sum_{j=\td{k}_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{\sum_{l=1}^{r}\td{p}_{jl}\{\td{m}_{l}\td{\theta}_{k_l}\}\right\}\\ \end{aligned}$$ By Kronecker’s approximation theorem, the set $\{(\{\td{m}_{l}\td{\theta}_{k_1}\},\{\td{m}_{l}\td{\theta}_{k_2}\},\dots,\{\td{m}_{l}\td{\theta}_{k_r}\})\mid l\in\N\}$ is dense in $[0,1]^{r}$. For every $L\in\Z$, we can introduce the auxiliary multi-variable function on $[0,1]^{r}$, $$g_{L}(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{r})=\sum_{j=2}^{\td{k}_1}\left\{\sum_{l=1}^{r}\td{p}_{jl}x_{l}+\xi_{j}+2L\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\} +\sum_{j=\td{k}_{1}+1}^{k}\left\{\sum_{l=1}^{r}\td{p}_{jl}x_{l}+2L\hat{\theta}_{j}\right\},$$ and denote for simplicity by $g=g_{0}.$ Similarly as before, we have \[lemma1616b\] If $(a_{1},a_{2},\dots, a_{r})$ and $(b_{1},b_{2},\dots, b_{r})$ in $(0,1)^{r}$ are sufficiently close to $(0,0,0,\dots,0)$ and $(1,0,0,\dots,0)$ respectively by a suitable means, then [(i)]{} $g(a_{1},a_{2},\dots, a_{r})$ and $g(b_{1},b_{2},\dots, b_{r})$ lie in different intervals of (\[shortdengjia\]) with $L=0$. [(ii)]{} $g_{L}(a_{1},a_{2},\dots, a_{r})$ and $g_{L}(b_{1},b_{2},\dots, b_{r})$ lie in the same interval of (\[shortdengjia\]) for any $1\leq |L|\leq\bar{N}$ with $\bar{N}\in\N$ prior fixed, including $g_{L}(0,0,\dots, 0).$ *Proof:* \(i) Since $a_1$, $a_2$, …, $a_r$ (resp. $b_1$, $b_2$, …, $b_r$) are independent, we can select them by such a way that the decimal functions in $g(a_{1},a_{2},\dots, a_{r})$ and $g(b_{1},b_{2},\dots, b_{r})$ are mainly determined by $a_1$ and $b_1$ respectively. For instance, this can be realized by requiring $a_l$ (resp. $b_l$) with $2\leq l\leq r$ to be much smaller than $a_1$ (resp. $1-b_1$). The rest proof is then similar as that in Lemma \[lemma1616a\]-(i), with $g$ in stead of $f$ therein. \(ii) follows the same line as Lemma \[lemma1616a\]-(ii) and do not need such a choice as above. Due to Lemma \[lemma1616b\], the rest proof is then almost word by word as that in Case 1 and so we omit the tedious details. $\Box$ As for $\R P^{3}$, we can give a more direct and easier proof. Indeed, we can make a reduction by (\[mean\]) (with $n=1$ and $k=2$) so that only one irrational number is rest. The uniformly distribution mod one in Number theory then enables the authors in [@DLX2015] to find some $l\in\N$ such that the Betti number $\bar{\beta}_{2l}=1$ which contradicts to the topological structure of the non-contractible loop space on $\R P^{3}$ obtained in [@XL2015]. However when one tries to use such a means to deal with higher dimensional $\R P^{2n+1}$, more irrational numbers are rest to be controlled simultaneously for larger $k.$ What is even worse, those irrational numbers may be linearly dependent over $\Q$. These facts make the arguments in section 3.3 of [@DLX2015] difficult to continue, even for $\R P^5$. To overcome these difficulties, we discover a general character of the irrational systems (\[Qdependent\]) satisfying the conditions (\[basic1c\]) and (\[basic2c\]), which are closely associated to our problem. That is, the effective difference number of each of such irrational systems is larger than or equal to $1$ (cf. Theorem \[crucialtheorem\]). Based on it and the Kronecker’s approximation theorem, we can get the desired contradiction dynamically (quite different from the static way in \[14\]), provided that there is only one non-contractible closed geodesics. [**Proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] for $(\R P^{2n},F)$:**]{} For the case of even $n$, it shares the same essential properties with the odd case except for some quantitative differences, such as the resonance identity, the precise index iteration formulae and the irrational systems. Hence we only sketch its proof to avoid this paper being too long and tedious. We now give some explanations to the proof of Theorem 1.2 for the case of $\R P^{2n}$. Note that in the proof of Theorem 1.2 for the case of $\R P^{2n+1}$, only (\[b.1\]), (\[beqm\])-(\[shortdengjia\]), Lemmas \[morsebetti\]-\[bound\] and Theorem \[crucialtheorem\] are used. As for the case of $\R P^{2n}$, Lemma \[morsebetti\] and Theorem \[crucialtheorem\] still hold, thus by using (\[b.2\]) instead of (\[b.1\]), Lemma \[lemma3.4\] instead of Lemma \[lemma3.2\], Lemma \[bound2\] instead of Lemma \[bound\], and noticing Remark 3.2, we can go through the proof of Theorem 1.2 for the case of $\R P^{2n}$ word by word as that of the case of $\R P^{2n+1}$. We complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.$\Box$ We would like to thank sincerely the referee for his/her careful reading, valuable comments on this paper, and for his/her deep insight on the main ideas of this paper. And also we would like to sincerely thank our advisor, Professor Yiming Long, for introducing us to the theory of closed geodesics and for his valuable advices and comments on this paper. [99]{} D. V. Anosov, Geodesics in Finsler geometry. [*Proc. I.C.M.*]{} (Vancouver, B.C. 1974), Vol. 2. 293-297 Montreal (1975) (Russian), [*Amer. Math. Soc. Transl.*]{} 109 (1977) 81-85. Tom M. Apostol, Modular functions and Dirichlet series in Number theory, GTM 41, 1990. W. Ballmann, G. Thorbergsson and W. Ziller, Closed geodesics and the fundamental group, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} 48 (1981), 585-588. V. Bangert, On the existence of closed geodesics on two-spheres. [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} 4 (1993), no. 1, 1–10. V. Bangert and N. Hingston, Closed geodesics on manifolds with infinite abelian fundamental group, [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} 19 (1984), 277-282. V. Bangert and W. Klingenberg, Homology generated by iterated closed geodesics. [*Topology.*]{} 22 (1983), 379-388. V. Bangert and Y. Long, The existence of two closed geodesics on every Finsler 2-sphere, [*Math. Ann.*]{} 346 (2010), 335-366. R. Bott, On the iteration of closed geodesics and the Sturm intersection theory. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} 9 (1956) 171-206. K. C. Chang, Infinite Dimensional Morse Theory and Multiple Solution Problems, Birkhäuser. Boston. 1993. H. Duan and Y. Long, Multiple closed geodesics on bumpy Finsler $n$-spheres, [*J. Diff. Equa.*]{} 233 (2007), no. 1, 221-240. H. Duan and Y. Long, The index growth and mutiplicity of closed geodesics. [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} 259 (2010) 1850-1913. H. Duan, Y. Long and W. Wang, Two closed geodesics on compact simply-connected bumpy Finsler manifolds. [*J. Differ. Geom.*]{} 104 (2016), no. 2, 275-289. H. Duan, Y. Long and W. Wang, The enhanced common index jump theorem for symplectic paths and non-hyperbolic closed geodesics on Finsler manifolds. [*Calc. Var. and PDEs.*]{} (2016), no. 6, 55: 145. H. Duan, Y. Long and Y. Xiao, Two closed geodesics on $\RP$ with a bumpy Finsler metric, [*Calc. Var. and PDEs*]{}, (2015), vol 54, 2883-2894. J. Franks, Geodesics on $S\sp 2$ and periodic points of annulus homeomorphisms. [*Invent. Math.*]{} 108 (1992), no. 2, 403-418. D. Gromoll and W. Meyer, On differentiable functions with isolated critical points. [*Topology*]{} 8 (1969), 361-369. D. Gromoll and W. Meyer, Periodic geodesics on compact Riemannian manifolds, [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} 3 (1969), 493-510. N. Hingston, Equivariant Morse theory and closed geodesics, [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} 19 (1984), 85-116. N. Hingston, On the growth of the number of closed geodesics on the two-sphere. [*Inter. Math. Research Notices.*]{} 9(1993) 253-262. N. Hingston and H.-B. Rademacher, Resonance for loop homology of spheres. [*J. Differ. Geom.*]{} 93 (2013), 133-174. A. B. Katok, Ergodic properties of degenerate integrable Hamiltonian systems. [*Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR*]{} 37 (1973), \[Russian\]; [*Math. USSR-Izv.*]{} 7 (1973), 535-571. W. Klingenberg, Lectures on closed geodesics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, heidelberg, New York, 1978. C. Liu, The Relation of the Morse Index of Closed Geodesics with the Maslov-type Index of Symplectic Paths, Acta Math. Sinica 21(2005), 237-248. C. Liu and Y. Long, Iterated index formulae for closed geodesics with applications. [*Science in China.*]{} 45 (2002) 9-28. H. Liu, The Fadell-Rabinowitz index and multiplicity of non-contractible closed geodesics on Finsler $\mathbb{R}P^{n}$. [*J. Diff. Equa.*]{} 262 (2017), 2540-2553. Y. Long, Bott formula of the Maslov-type index theory. [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} 187 (1999), 113-149. Y. Long, Precise iteration formulae of the Maslov-type index theory and ellipticity of closed characteristics. [*Advances in Math.*]{} 154 (2000), 76-131. Y. Long, Index Theory for Symplectic Paths with Applications. Progress in Math. 207, Birkhäuser. 2002. Y. Long, Multiplicity and stability of closed geodesics on Finsler 2-spheres, [*J. Eur. Math. Soc.*]{} 8 (2006), 341-353. Y. Long and H. Duan, Multiple closed geodesics on 3-spheres. [*Advances in Math.*]{} 221 (2009) 1757-1803. Y. Long and W. Wang, Multiple closed geodesics on Riemannian 3-spheres, [*Calc. Var. and PDEs*]{}, 30 (2007), 183-214. A. Oancea, Morse theory, closed geodesics, and the homology of free loop spaces, With an appendix by Umberto Hryniewicz. [*IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys.*]{}, 24, Free loop spaces in geometry and topology, 67-109, Eur. Math. Soc., Z$\ddot{u}$rich, 2015. H.-B. Rademacher, On the average indices of closed geodesics, [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} 29 (1989), 65-83. H.-B. Rademacher, Morse Theorie und geschlossene Geodatische. [*Bonner Math. Schr.*]{} 229 (1992). H.-B. Rademacher, Existence of closed geodesics on positively curved Finsler manifolds. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems.*]{} 27 (2007), no. 3, 957–969. H.-B. Rademacher, The second closed geodesic on Finsler spheres of dimension $n>2$. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* ]{} 362 (2010), no. 3, 1413-1421. Z. Shen, Lectures on Finsler Geometry. World Scientific. Singapore. 2001. I.A. Taimanov, The type numbers of closed geodesics. [*Regul. Chaotic Dyn.*]{} 15 (2010), no. 1, 84-100. I.A. Taimanov, The spaces of non-contractible closed curves in compact space forms. [*Mat. Sb.*]{} 207(10) (2016), 105-118. W. Wang, Closed geodesics on positively curved Finsler spheres. [*Advances in Math.*]{} 218 (2008), 1566-1603. W. Wang, On a conjecture of Anosov, [*Advances in Math.*]{} 230 (2012), 1597-1617. Y. Xiao and Y. Long, Topological structure of non-contractible loop space and closed geodesics on real projective spaces with odd dimensions. [*Advances in Math.*]{} 279 (2015), 159-200. M. Vigué-Poirrier and D. Sullivan, The homology theory of the closed geodesic problem, [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} 11 (1976), 663-644. W. Ziller, The free loop space of globally symmetric spaces, [*Invent. Math.*]{} 41 (1977), 1-22. W. Ziller, Geometry of the Katok examples, [*Ergod. Th. Dyn. Sys.*]{} 3 (1982), 135-157. [^1]: Partially supported by NSFC (No.11401555), Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (No. 1608085QA01). E-mail: huiliu@ustc.edu.cn. [^2]: Supported by the Scientific Research Funds for Young Teachers of Sichuan University, Grant 2012SCU11083. e-mail: yumingxiao@scu.edu.cn.

--- abstract: 'Multipartite entanglement and nonclassicality of four-mode Gaussian states generated in two simultaneous nonlinear processes involving parametric down-conversion and frequency up-conversion are analyzed assuming the vacuum as the initial state. Suitable conditions for the generation of highly entangled states are found. Transfer of the entanglement from the down-converted modes into the up-converted ones is also suggested. The analysis of the whole set of states reveals that sub-shot-noise intensity correlations between the equally-populated down-converted modes, as well as the equally-populated up-converted modes, uniquely identify entangled states. They represent a powerful entanglement identifier also in other cases with arbitrarily populated modes.' address: - 'RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physics of CAS, Palacký University, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic' - 'RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physics of CAS, Palacký University, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic' - 'Institute of Physics of CAS, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physic, 17. listopadu 50a, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic' - 'Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy' - 'CNISM UdR Como, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy' - 'Istituto di Fotonica e Nanotecnologie, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy' - 'CNISM UdR Como, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy' author: - 'Ievgen I. Arkhipov' - 'Jan Peřina Jr.' - Ondřej Haderka - Alessia Allevi - Maria Bondani title: 'Entanglement and nonclassicality in four-mode Gaussian states generated via parametric down-conversion and frequency up-conversion' --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Since the discovery of quantum mechanics, entanglement has been considered a very peculiar and purely quantum feature of the physical systems. Its fundamental importance emerged when the experiments showing the violation of the Bell inequalities [@Aspect82; @Weihs1998; @Brunner14], implementing quantum teleportation [@Bouwmeester1997; @Genovese2005] or demonstrating dense coding were performed. Nowadays, entanglement is undoubtedly considered as the key resource of modern and emerging quantum technology, including quantum metrology, quantum computation [@NielsenBook] and quantum communications [@aoki03; @loock01; @yonezawa04]. For this reason, a great deal of attention has been devoted to the construction of practical sources of entangled light, both in the domains of discrete and continuous variables. While individual entangled photon pairs arising in spontaneous parametric down-conversion are commonly used in the discrete domain [@Bouwmeester2000], single-mode as well as two-mode squeezed states originating in parametric down-conversion and containing many photon pairs represent the sources in the domain of continuous variables [@Dodonov2002]. Even more complex nonlinear optical processes, including those combining simultaneous parametric down-conversion and frequency up-conversion, have been analyzed as sources of more complex entangled states. This approach has been experimentally implemented in Refs. [@alessia04; @coelho] considering three-mode entanglement and in Ref. [@pysher] where the four-mode entanglement has been analyzed. Here, we consider a four-mode system composed of two down-converted modes and two up-converted modes. In the system, parametric down-conversion and frequency up-conversion involving both down-converted modes simultaneously occur in the same nonlinear medium [@Boyd2003]. While parametric down-conversion serves as the primary source of entanglement [@Mandel1995], frequency up-conversion is responsible for the transfer of the entanglement to the up-converted modes. This transfer operation is interesting from the fundamental point of view, as it generalizes the well-known property of ‘one-mode’ frequency up-conversion pumped by a strong coherent field, in which the statistical properties of the incident field are transferred to the frequency up-converted counterpart, also including the nonclassical ones (e.g., squeezing, [@Perina1991]). We note that such properties are important for the applications of the up-conversion process: For instance, it has been used many times for ‘shifting’ an optical ‘one-mode’ field to an appropriate frequency where its detection could be easily achieved [@Langrock2005; @Zeilinger12]. In the general analysis of the four-mode system, we quantify its global nonclassicality via the Lee nonclassicality depth [@Lee91]. Since the four-mode system under consideration cannot exhibit nonclassicality of individual single modes, the global nonclassicality automatically implies the presence of entanglement among the modes (for a two-mode Gaussian system involving parametric down-conversion, see [@Arkhipov2016]). The analysis of ‘the structure of entanglement’ further simplifies by applying the Van Loock and Furusawa inseparability criterion [@vanLoock03] that excludes the presence of genuine three- and four-partite entangled states. This means that in the system discussed here there are only bipartite entangled states. It is thus sufficient to divide the analyzed four-mode state into different bipartitions to monitor the structure of entanglement. Then, the well-known entanglement criterion based on the positive partial transposition of the statistical operator [@Peres96; @Horodecki97], which gives the logarithmic negativity as an entanglement quantifier, is straightforwardly applied [@Hill1997; @Vidal02]. The experimental detection of two-mode (-partite) entanglement is in general quite challenging, as it requires measurements in complementary bases. Here, we theoretically show that, for the considered system with the assumed initial vacuum state, any two-mode partition exhibiting sub-shot-noise intensity correlations is also entangled. As a consequence, the measurement of intensity auto- and cross-correlations in this system is sufficient to give the evidence of the presence of two-mode entangled states through the commonly used noise reduction factor. Finally, we note that the Hamiltonian of the analyzed four-mode system formally resembles that describing a twin beam with signal and idler fields divided at two beam splitters. This analogy results in similar properties of the four-mode states obtained in the two cases, though the processes of down-conversion and up-conversion occur simultaneously in our system, at variance with the system with two beam splitters, which modify the already emitted twin beam. We note that the system with two beam splitters has been frequently addressed in the literature as a prototype of more complex devices based on two multiports that are used to have access to intensity correlation functions for the detailed characterization of the measured fields [@Vogel2008], also including their photon-number statistics [@Waks2004; @Haderka2005a; @Avenhaus2008; @PerinaJr2012; @Sperling2012; @Allevi2012]. The paper is organized as follows. In Section [*Four-mode nonlinear interaction*]{} the model of four-mode nonlinear interaction including parametric down-conversion and frequency up-conversion is analyzed. Nonclassicality of the overall system is addressed in Section [*Nonclassicality*]{}. In Section [*Four-mode entanglement*]{}, the entanglement of the overall system is investigated considering the partitioning of the state into different bipartitions. Two-mode entangled states obtained after state reduction are analyzed in Section [*Two-mode entanglement and noise reduction factor*]{}, together with two-mode sub-shot-noise intensity correlations. Suitable parameters of the corresponding experimental setup can be found in Section [*Experimental implementation*]{}. Section [*Conclusions*]{} summarizes the obtained results. Four-mode nonlinear interaction {#four-mode-nonlinear-interaction .unnumbered} =============================== We consider a system of four nonlinearly interacting optical modes (for the scheme, see Fig. 1). Photons in modes 1 and 2 are generated by parametric down-conversion with strong pumping (coupling constant $ g_1 $). Photons in mode 1 (2) can then be annihilated with the simultaneous creation of photons in mode 3 (4). The two up-conversion processes are possible thanks to the presence of two additional strong pump fields with coupling constants $ g_2 $ and $ g_3 $. The overall interaction Hamiltonian for the considered four-mode system is written as [@Boyd2003]: $$\label{hamil} {\hat H}_{\mathrm{int}}=\hbar g_{1}{\hat a_{1}}^{\dagger}{\hat a_{2}}^{\dagger}+ \hbar g_{2}\hat a_{1}{\hat a_{3}}^{\dagger}+\hbar g_{3}\hat a_{2}{\hat a_{4}}^{\dagger}+\mathrm{H.c.},$$ where the operators $\hat a_{1}^\dagger$ and $\hat a_{2}^\dagger $ create an entangled photon pair in modes 1 and 2 and the creation operators $\hat a_{3}\dagger$ and $\hat a_{4}^\dagger $ put the up-converted photons into modes 3 and 4, respectively. Symbol $ {\rm H.c.} $ replaces the Hermitian conjugated terms. {width="27.00000%"} The Heisenberg-Langevin equations corresponding to the Hamiltonian $ \hat H_{\mathrm{int}} $ in Eq. (\[hamil\]) are written in their matrix form as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{hle} \frac{d \hat {\bf a}}{dt} &=& {\bf U} \hat {\bf a} + \hat { \bf L},\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat {\bf a} = (\hat a_1^{\dagger},\hat a_2,\hat a_3^{\dagger},\hat a_4 )^T$ and $\hat {\bf L} = (\hat L_1^{\dagger},\hat L_2,\hat L_3^{\dagger},\hat L_2 )^T$. The matrix $ {\bf U} $ introduced in Eq. (\[hle\]) is expressed as $$ {\bf U} = \begin{pmatrix} -\gamma_1/2 & -ig_1 & -ig_2 & 0 \\ ig_1 & -\gamma_2/2 & 0 & ig_3 \\ -ig_2 & 0 & -\gamma_3/2& 0 \\ 0 & ig_3 & 0 & -\gamma_4/2, \end{pmatrix}$$ in which $\gamma_j$ stands for the damping coefficient of mode $ j $, $ j=1,\ldots,4 $. The Langevin operators $\hat L_j $, $ j=1,\ldots,4 $, obey the following relations: $$\begin{aligned} \langle\hat L_{j}(t)\rangle = \langle\hat L^{\dagger}_{j}(t)\rangle= 0, \quad \langle\hat L^{\dagger}_{j}(t)\hat L_{k}(t')\rangle = \delta_{jk}\gamma_j \langle n_{dj}\rangle\delta(t-t'), \quad \langle\hat L_{j}(t)\hat L^{\dagger}_{k}(t')\rangle =\delta_{jk}\gamma_j ( \langle n_{dj}\rangle +1)\delta(t-t'). \label{4}\end{aligned}$$ The Kronecker symbol is denoted as $\delta_{ij}$ and the symbol $\delta(t)$ means the Dirac function. The mean numbers $ n_{dj} $ corresponding to noise reservoir photons have been used in Eqs. (\[4\]). We note that for the noiseless system the following quantity $ \langle \hat{a}_1^\dagger \hat{a}_1 \rangle + \langle \hat{a}_4^\dagger \hat{a}_4 \rangle - \langle \hat{a}_2^\dagger \hat{a}_2 \rangle - \langle \hat{a}_3^\dagger \hat{a}_3 \rangle $ is conserved in the interaction. Introducing frequencies $ \omega_j $ and wave vectors $\vec{k}_j $ of the mutually interacting modes, we formulate the assumed ideal frequency and phase-matching conditions of the considered nonlinear interactions in the form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{5} && \omega_{p12}=\omega_1+\omega_2, \quad \omega_{p13}=\omega_1+\omega_3, \quad \omega_{p24}=\omega_2+\omega_4, \nonumber \\ && \vec{k}_{p12}=\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2, \quad \vec{k}_{p13}=\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_3, \quad \vec{k}_{p24}=\vec{k}_2+\vec{k}_4.\end{aligned}$$ In Eqs. (\[5\]), $ \omega_{p12}$ ($\vec{k}_{p12}$) stands for the pump-field frequency (wave vector) of parametric down-conversion, whereas $ \omega_{p13}$ \[$ \omega_{p24}$\] ($\vec{k}_{p13}$ \[$\vec{k}_{p24}$\]) means the frequency (wave vector) of the field pumping the up-conversion process between modes 1 \[2\] and 3 \[4\]. The solution of the system of first-order linear operator stochastic equations (\[hle\]) can be conveniently expressed in the following matrix form: $$\label{A} \hat {\bf a}(t) = {\bf M} \hat {\bf a}(0) + \hat {\bf F}(t),$$ where the evolution matrix $ \bf M $ is written in Eq. (\[M\]) of Appendix for the noiseless case and vector $\hat F$ arises from the presence of the stochastic Langevin forces. More details can be found in Ref. [@PerinaJr2000]. When applying the solution (\[A\]), we consider the appropriate phases of the three pump fields such that the coupling constants $ g_j $, $ j=1,2,3 $, are real. The statistical properties of the optical fields generated both by parametric down-conversion and up-conversion are described by the normal characteristic function $ C_{\mathcal N} $ defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{ncf} C_{\mathcal N}(\mbox{\boldmath$ \beta $}) = \mathrm{Tr}\left[\hat\rho(0)\exp \left(\sum_{i=1}^{4}\beta_{i}\hat a^{\dagger}_{i}\right)\exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^4\beta^{\ast}_{i}\hat a_{i}\right)\right], \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm Tr}$ denotes the trace and $ \mbox{\boldmath$ \beta $} \equiv (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3,\beta_4)^T $. Using the solution given in Eq. (\[A\]), the normal characteristic function $ C_{\mathcal N} $ attains the Gaussian form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{acf} C_{\mathcal N}(\mbox{\boldmath$ \beta $})&=&\exp\Big\{ -\sum_{i=1}^{4}B_{i}\vert\beta_{i}\vert^{2} + \Bigl[ D^{\ast}_{12}\beta_{1}\beta_{2}+\bar D^{\ast}_{13}\beta_{1}\beta_{3}^{\ast}+ \nonumber \\ && D^{\ast}_{14}\beta_{1}\beta_{4} +D^{\ast}_{23}\beta_{2}\beta_{3}+\bar D^{\ast}_{24}\beta_{2}\beta_{4}^{\ast}+\mathrm{c.c.} \Bigr] \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ and $ {\rm c.c.} $ replaces the complex conjugated terms. The coefficients occurring in Eq. (\[acf\]) are derived in the form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{param} B_{1}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_1^{\dagger}\Delta\hat a_1\rangle=\vert M_{12}\vert^2+\vert M_{14}\vert^2+\langle\hat F_1^{\dagger}\hat F_1\rangle, \nonumber \\ B_{2}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_2^{\dagger}\Delta\hat a_2\rangle=\vert M_{21}\vert^2+\vert M_{23}\vert^2+\langle\hat F_2^{\dagger}\hat F_2\rangle, \nonumber \\ B_{3}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_3^{\dagger}\Delta\hat a_3\rangle=\vert M_{32}\vert^2+\vert M_{34}\vert^2+\langle\hat F_3^{\dagger}\hat F_3\rangle, \nonumber \\ B_{4}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_4^{\dagger}\Delta\hat a_4\rangle=\vert M_{41}\vert^2+\vert M_{43}\vert^2+\langle\hat F_4^{\dagger}\hat F_4\rangle, \nonumber \\ D_{12}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_1\Delta\hat a_2\rangle=M_{11}^{\ast}M_{21}+M_{13}^{\ast}M_{23}+\langle\hat F_1\hat F_2\rangle, \nonumber \\ \bar D_{13}&=&-\langle\Delta\hat a_1^{\dagger}\Delta\hat a_3\rangle=-M_{11}^{\ast}M_{31}-M_{13}^{\ast}M_{33}-\langle\hat F_1^{\dagger}\hat F_3\rangle, \nonumber \\ D_{14}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_1\Delta\hat a_4\rangle=M_{11}^{\ast}M_{41}+M_{13}^{\ast}M_{43}+\langle\hat F_1\hat F_4\rangle, \nonumber \\ D_{23}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_2\Delta\hat a_3\rangle=M_{32}^{\ast}M_{22}+M_{34}^{\ast}M_{24}+\langle\hat F_2\hat F_3\rangle, \nonumber \\ \bar D_{24}&=&-\langle\Delta\hat a_2^{\dagger}\Delta\hat a_4\rangle=-M_{42}^{\ast}M_{22}-M_{44}^{\ast}M_{24}-\langle\hat F_2^{\dagger}\hat F_4\rangle, \nonumber \\ D_{34}&=&\langle\Delta\hat a_3\Delta\hat a_4\rangle=M_{31}^{\ast}M_{41}+M_{33}^{\ast}M_{43}+\langle\hat F_1\hat F_4\rangle. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ We note that the two-mode interactions characterized by the coefficients $ D_{ij} $ and $ \bar D_{ij} $ in Eq. (\[acf\]) attain specific forms. While the coefficients $ D_{ij} $ reflect the presence of photon pairs in modes $ i $ and $ j $, coefficients $ \bar D_{ij} $ describe mutual transfer of individual photons between modes $ i $ and $ j $. The normal characteristic function $C_{\mathcal N}$ can be rewritten in the matrix form $ \exp(\mbox{\boldmath$\beta$}^\dagger {\bf A} \mbox{\boldmath$\beta$} /2)$ by introducing the normally-ordered covariance matrix $ {\bf A} $: $$\label{CM} {\bf A} = \begin{pmatrix} {\bf A}_{1} & {\bf D}_{12} & {\bf D}_{13} & {\bf D}_{14} \\ {\bf D}_{12}^\dagger & {\bf A}_{2} & {\bf D}_{23} & {\bf D}_{24} \\ {\bf D}_{13}^\dagger & {\bf D}_{23}^\dagger & {\bf A}_{3} & {\bf D}_{34} \\ {\bf D}_{14}^\dagger & {\bf D}_{24}^\dagger & {\bf D}_{34}^\dagger & {\bf A}_{4} \end{pmatrix},$$ where the $2\times2$ matrices are defined as: $$\begin{aligned} {\bf A}_i &=& \begin{pmatrix} -B_i & 0 \\ 0 & -B_i \end{pmatrix}, \quad i=1,\ldots,4, \nonumber \\ {\bf D}_{jk} &=& \begin{pmatrix} \bar D_{jk}^{*} & D_{jk} \\ D_{jk}^{*} & \bar D_{jk} \end{pmatrix}, \quad j,k=1,\ldots,4.\end{aligned}$$ The covariance matrix $ \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} $ related to the symmetric ordering and corresponding to the phase space $(\hat x, \hat p)$ is needed to perform easily partial transposition. It has the same structure as the covariance matrix $ {\bf A} $ written in Eq. (\[CM\]) with the blocks $ {\bf A}_i $ ($ {\bf D}_{jk} $) replaced by the blocks $ \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_i$} $ ($ \mbox{\boldmath$\varepsilon_{jk}$} $) defined as: $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_i$}&=&\begin{pmatrix} B_i+\frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & B_i+\frac{1}{2} \end{pmatrix}, \nonumber \\ \mbox{\boldmath$\varepsilon_{jk}$} &=&\begin{pmatrix} {\mathrm {Re}}(D_{jk}-\bar D_{jk}) & {\mathrm {Im}}(D_{jk}-\bar D_{jk}) \cr {\mathrm {Im}}(D_{jk}+\bar D_{jk}) & - {\mathrm{Re}}(D_{jk}+\bar D_{jk}) \end{pmatrix}, \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{3cm} i,j,k=1,\ldots,4.\end{aligned}$$ Symbol $ {\rm Re} $ ($ {\rm Im} $) denotes the real (imaginary) part of the argument. In what follows, we consider the situation in which all four modes begin their interaction in the vacuum state. Moreover, we focus on the specific symmetric case in which $ g_2 = g_3 \equiv g_{23} $. A note concerning the general case $ g_2 \neq g_3 $ is found at the end. Nonclassicality {#nonclassicality .unnumbered} =============== We first analyze the global nonclassicality of the whole four-mode system as it is relatively easy and, for the considered initial vacuum state, it implies entanglement (see below). Nonclassicality of the whole four-mode state described by the statistical operator $\hat\rho$ is conveniently quantified by the Lee nonclassicality depth $\tau$ [@Lee91]. This quantity gives the amount of noise, expressed in photon numbers, needed to conceal nonclassical properties exhibited by the Glauber-Sudarshan $P$ function, which attains negative values in certain regions or even does not exist as an ordinary function. The Glauber-Sudarshan $P$ function is determined by the Fourier transform of the normally-ordered characteristic function $ C_{\cal N} $ given in Eq. (\[acf\]). Technically, the Lee nonclassicality depth is given by the largest positive eigenvalue of the covariance matrix $ {\bf A} $ defined in Eq. (\[CM\]). So, it can be easily determined. The Lee nonclassicality depth $ \tau $ as a function of the coupling parameters $g_1t$ and $g_{23}t$ is shown in Fig. 2. ![ Nonclassicality depth $\tau$ as [ a function of the]{} parameters $g_1t$ and $g_{23}t$.](arkhipov2){width="40.00000%"} The increasing values of $g_1t$ result in larger values of the nonclassicality depth $\tau$, as the number of photons simultaneously generated in modes 1 and 2 increases. We note that this pairing of photons in the process of parametric down-conversion is the only source of nonclassicality in the analyzed four-mode system. On the contrary, nonzero values of parameter $g_{23}t$ only lead to the oscillations of the nonclassicality depth $ \tau $. This behavior occurs as the frequency up-conversion moves photons, and so also photon pairs, from modes 1 and 2 to modes 3 and 4 and vice versa (see the scheme in Fig. 1). This results in the nonclassical properties of modes 3 and 4, at the expenses of the nonclassical properties of modes 1 and 2. The maximum value of the Lee nonclassicality depth $ \tau = 0.5 $ is reached for $ g_{23}t = 0 $ and ideally in the limit $ g_1 t \rightarrow \infty $, i.e. when only the strong parametric down-conversion occurs. This is in agreement with the analysis of nonclassical properties of twin beams reported in Ref. [@arkhipov15]. The value $ \tau=0.5 $ can also be asymptotically reached in the limit $ g_{23}t \rightarrow \infty $, in which we have $$\label{tau_c} \tau_{g_{23}t\to\infty} = \frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{(B_{1}-B_{2})^2+4\vert D_{12}\vert^2} - (B_{1}+B_{2})\right]$$ with $ B_3 \rightarrow B_1 $, $ B_4 \rightarrow B_2 $ and $ D_{34} \rightarrow D_{12} $. It is worth noting that formula (\[tau\_c\]) applies also for $ g_{23}t = 0 $. Nonclassicality is also strongly resistant against damping in the system. This means that even a low number of photon pairs is sufficient to have a nonclassical state. We demonstrate this resistance by considering the damping constants $ \gamma $ proportional to the nonlinear coupling constant $ g_1 $, which quantifies the speed of photon-pair generation. The graphs in Fig. 3 show that the generated states remain strongly nonclassical even though a considerable fraction of photon pairs is broken under these conditions. The comparison of graphs in Figs. 3(a) and (b) reveals that the damping is more detrimental in the down-converted modes 1 and 2 than in the up-converted modes 3 and 4. At variance with nonclassicality, the determination and quantification of entanglement is more complex and it is technically accomplished by considering all possible bipartitions of the four-mode system (see the next Section). On the one side all bipartitions considered below are in principle sufficient to indicate entanglement, on the other side the application of the Van Loock and Furusawa inseparability criterion [@vanLoock03] to our system excludes the presence of genuine three- and four-mode entanglement. The analyzed Hamiltonian written in Eq. (\[hamil\]) together with the incident vacuum state also excludes the presence of nonclassical states in individual modes. In what follows, the bipartite entanglement is thus the only source of the global nonclassicality in the analyzed system. This situation considerably simplifies the possible experimental investigations as positive values of the Lee nonclassicality depth directly imply the presence of entanglement somewhere in the system. ![Nonclassicality depth $\tau$ as it depends on parameters $g_1t$ and $g_{23}t$ for (a) $\gamma_1t=\gamma_2t= g_1 t $, $\gamma_3t=\gamma_4t=0$; (b) $\gamma_1t=\gamma_2t=0$, $\gamma_3t=\gamma_4t=g_1t$, assuming $n_{dj}=0$ for $ j=1,\ldots,4 $.[]{data-label="damp"}](arkhipov3){width="50.00000%"} Four-mode entanglement {#four-mode-entanglement .unnumbered} ====================== In quantifying the entanglement in our four-mode Gaussian system, we rely on the following facts applicable to an arbitrary $(m+n)$-mode Gaussian state. It has been proven that positivity of the partially transposed (PPT) statistical operator describing any $ 2 \times 2 $ or $ 2 \times 3 $ bipartition of the state is a necessary condition for the separability of the state [@Peres96; @Horodecki97]. Moreover, it has been shown that the violation of PPT condition occurring in any $1\times(m+n-1)$ bipartitions or $m\times n$ bisymmetric bipartitions for $ m >2 $ and $ n > 3 $ is a sufficient condition for the entanglement in the analyzed $(m+n)$-mode state [@Simon00; @Serafini05]. For continuous variables systems, the PPT is simply accomplished when the symmetrically-ordered field operators are considered allowing to perform the PPT only by changing the signs of the momenta $\hat p$ [@Simon00]. Moreover, symplectic eiganvalues $\tilde n_i$ of the symmetrically-ordered covariance matrix $ \mbox{\boldmath$ \sigma $} $ can be conveniently used to quantify entanglement in bipartite systems via the logarithmic negativity $ E $ [@Vidal02], defined in terms of eigenvalues $\tilde n_i<1/2$: $$\label{LN} E = \max\left\{0,-\sum\limits_{i} {\mathrm {log}}(2\tilde n_i)\right\},$$ where $ {\rm max} $ gives the maximal value. {width="50.00000%"} In the four-mode Gaussian state sketched in Fig. 1, we have two kinds of bipartitions. Either a single mode forms one subsystem and the remaining three modes belong to the other subsystem, or two modes are in one subsystem and the remaining two modes lie in the other subsystem. Due to the symmetry, only two members of each group are of interest for us. Namely, these are bipartitions $ 1\times 234 $ and $ 3\times 124 $ from the first group and bipartitions $ 12\times 34 $ and $ 13\times 24 $ from the second one. We note that, while the bipartition $ 12\times 34 $ is bisymmetric in our interaction configuration (provided that $ g_2 t=g_3 t $), the bipartition $ 13\times 24 $ is not bisymmetric. Nevertheless, positive values of both the logarithmic negativities $ E_{12\times34} $ and $ E_{13\times24} $ reflect entanglement as both bipartitions involve two modes on both sides. Similarly, positive values of the logarithmic negativities $ E_{1\times234} $ and $ E_{3\times124} $ guarantee the presence of entanglement. {width="45.00000%"} We first pay attention to the entanglement expressed in the logarithmic negativities $ E_{1\times234} $ and $ E_{3\times124} $. As suggested by the graphs in Figs. 4(a) and (b), the oscillating behavior of negativity $E_{1\times234} $ is complementary to that of negativity $ E_{3\times124} $. This means that the larger values of negativity $E_{1\times234}$ are accompanied by the lower values of negativity $ E_{3\times124}$ and vice versa. Such a result is a consequence of the fact that the entanglement is due to the presence of photon pairs and a photon created in mode 1 can move to mode 3 and later return back to mode 1. This movement leads to the oscillations with frequency $ g_{23} $, which are clearly visible in Figs. 4(a) and (b). This explanation also suggests that no entanglement is possible between modes 1 and 3. Indeed, if we also determine the negativity $ E_{1\times24} $ (or $ E_{3\times24} $), we will get the same values already obtained for the negativity $ E_{1\times234} $ ($ E_{3\times124} $). The negativity $ E_{12\times34} $, characterizing the entanglement between the twin beam in modes 1 and 2 and the up-converted beams in modes 3 and 4, is plotted in Fig. 4(c). It reflects the gradual movement of photon pairs from modes 1 and 2, where they are created, to modes 3 and 4. Note that the maxima of negativity $ E_{12\times34} $ along the $ g_{23}t $-axis occur inbetween the maxima of negativities $ E_{1\times234} $ and $ E_{3\times124} $. The origin of entanglement in photon pairing is confirmed in the graph of Fig. 4(d), showing that the negativity $ E_{13\times24} $ is independent of parameter $ g_{23}t $ and that the negativity $ E_{13\times24} $ increases with the increasing parameter $ g_1 t $. In certain sense, the independence of negativity $E_{13\times24} $ from parameter $ g_{23}t $ represents the conservation law for nonclassical resources, as the negativities of the different two-mode reductions derived from this bipartition ($ E_{1\times2} $, $ E_{1\times4} $, $ E_{3\times2} $, and $ E_{3\times4} $) do depend on parameter $ g_{23}t $. The developed model also allows us to study the role of damping in the entanglement creation. The investigations based on equal damping constants $\gamma$ and noiseless reservoirs ($n_{d}=0$) just reveal the deterioration of entanglement in all the considered bipartitions with the increase of damping constants (see Fig. 5). Two-mode entanglement and noise reduction factor {#two-mode-entanglement-and-noise-reduction-factor .unnumbered} ================================================ The results of the theoretical analysis suggest that, from the experimental point of view, the observation of entanglement between pairs of modes is substantial for the characterization of the emitted entangled states. Formally, the theory describes such observations through the reduced two-mode statistical operators. The analysis shows that the behavior of two-mode negativities $ E_{1\times2} $, $ E_{3\times4} $, and $ E_{1\times4} $ with respect to parameters $ g_1 t $ and $ g_{23}t $ is qualitatively similar to that of four-mode negativities $ E_{1\times234} $, $ E_{3\times124} $, and $ E_{12\times34} $ plotted in Figs. 4(a), (b) and (c). This similarity originates in possible ‘trajectories’ of photon pairs born in modes 1 and 2 and responsible for the entanglement. Additional insight into the generation of entanglement in the analyzed system is provided when the entanglement is related to the intensities of the interacting fields. As quantified in the graphs of Fig. 6, both mean photon numbers $ B_1 \equiv B_2 $ and $ B_3 \equiv B_4 $ are increasing functions of parameter $ g_1 t $ and oscillating functions of parameter $ g_{23}t $. This oscillating behavior is particularly interesting, as it reflects the flow of photons from modes 1 and 2 to modes 3 and 4, respectively, and vice versa. As we will see below, this is in agreement with the ‘flow of the entanglement’ among the modes. {width="50.00000%"} The graph in Fig. 7(a) shows that the negativity $ E_{1\times2} $ is on the one side an increasing function of the mean photon number $ B_1 $, on the other side it only weakly depends on the mean photon number $ B_3 $. This confirms that pairing of photons in parametric down-conversion is the only resource for entanglement creation. On the contrary, as shown in Fig. 7(b), the negativity $ E_{3\times4} $ is an increasing function of the mean photon number $ B_3 $, whereas it weakly depends on the mean photon number $ B_1 $. This indicates that the entanglement in modes 34 comes from modes 12 through the transfer of photon pairs: The stronger the transfer is, the larger the value of negativity $ E_{3\times4} $ is. Moreover, optimal conditions for the observation of entanglement in modes 1 and 4 occur provided that there is the largest available number of photon pairs with one photon in mode 1 and its twin in mode 4. According to the graph in Fig. 7(c) this occurs when the mean photon numbers $ B_4 $ ($ B_4\equiv B_3 $) and $ B_1 $ are balanced, independently of their values. In general, the experimental identification of two-mode entanglement is not easy, as it requires the simultaneous measurement of the entangled state in two complementary bases. Alternatively, entanglement can be inferred from the reconstructed two-mode phase-space quasi-distribution, which needs two simultaneous homodyne detectors [@Lvovsky2009], each one endowed with a local oscillator. However, the detection of entanglement, at least in some cases, can be experimentally accomplished by the observation of sub-shot-noise intensity correlations. This is a consequence of the detailed numerical analysis, {width="\textwidth"} {width="\textwidth"} which reveals that the majority of the reduced two-mode entangled states also exhibits sub-shot-noise intensity correlations. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized here that, in the analyzed system, there are also two-mode entangled states not exhibiting sub-shot-noise intensity correlations. On the contrary, we note that the reduced two-mode separable states do not naturally exhibit sub-shot-noise intensity correlations. Sub-shot-noise intensity correlations are quantified by the noise reduction factor $R$ [@Degiovanni07; @Degiovanni09], that is routinely measured to recognize nonclassical intensity correlations of two optical fields. The noise reduction factor $ R $ expressed in the moments of photon numbers $ n_j $ and $ n_k $ of modes $ j $ and $ k $, respectively, is defined by the formula: $$R_{jk} = \frac{\langle\triangle(n_j-n_k)^2\rangle}{\langle n_j\rangle+\langle n_k\rangle}. \label{NRF}$$ Sub-shot-noise intensity correlations are described by the condition $R<1$. We note that there exists the whole hierarchy of inequalities involving higher-order moments of photon numbers (or intensities) [@Vogel2008; @Miranowicz02; @Miranowicz10; @Allevi2012] that indicate nonclassicality and, in our system, also entanglement. We mention here the inequality derived by Lee [@Lee1990a] as a practical example that is sometimes used in the experimental identification of nonclassicality. We note that this criterion is stronger than the noise reduction factor $ R $ in revealing the nonclassicality [@Degiovanni07]. The noise reduction factors $R_{1\times2} $, $ R_{3\times4} $ and $R_{1\times4} $ describing the reduced two-mode fields with their negativities plotted in Fig. 7 are drawn in Fig. 8 for comparison. We can see complementary behavior of the negativities $ E $ and noise reduction factors $ R $ in the graphs in Figs. 7 and 8. An increase of the negativity $ E $ is accompanied by a decrease in the noise reduction factor $ R $. A closer inspection of the curves in these graphs shows that the condition $ R<1 $ identifies very well entangled states when the noise reduction factor is measured in modes $ 1\times2 $ and $ 3\times 4 $. Nevertheless, there are entangled states with $ R_{1\times4} >1$, as shown in the graph of Fig. 9, in which the values of parameters $ g_1t$ and $ g_{23}t $ appropriate for this situation occur in the areas I and III. On the other hand, the entangled states found in the area II in the graph of Fig. 9 have $ R<1 $. It is worth noting that the relative amount of entangled states not detected via $ R < 1 $ increases with the increasing coupling constant $ g_1 t $ and so with the increasing overall number of photons in the system. The observed relation between the entangled states and those exhibiting sub-shot-noise intensity correlations can even be explained theoretically, due to the specific form of the reduced two-mode Gaussian states analyzed in Ref. [@arkhipov15]. According to Ref. [@arkhipov15] entangled states in modes $ i $ and $ j $ are identified through the inequality $ B_i B_j < |D_{ij}|^2 $. On the other hand, the noise reduction factor $ R_{ij} $ defined in Eq. (\[NRF\]) attains for our modes the form: $$R_{ij} = 1 + \frac{ B_i^2 + B_j^2 - 2 |D_{ij}|^2 }{ B_i + B_j }$$ that assigns the sub-shot-noise intensity correlations to the states obeying the inequality $ B_i^2 + B_j^2 < 2|D_{ij}|^2 $. Thus, the inequality $ B_i^2 + B_j^2 \geq 2 B_i B_j $ implies that the states with sub-shot-noise intensity correlations form a subset in the set of all entangled states. Moreover, if $ B_i = B_j $, both sets coincide as we have $ B_i^2 + B_j^2 = 2 B_i B_j $. Thus, the noise reduction factors $ R_{12} $ and $ R_{34} $ are reliable in identifying entangled states in the symmetric case, in which $ B_1 = B_2 $ and $ B_3 = B_4 $. We note that, according to the theory developed for the modes without an additional internal structure [@arkhipov15], the logarithmic negativity $ E_{ij} $ can be determined along the formula [@arkhipov15] $$\begin{aligned} \label{tmE} E_{ij}={\rm max} \Big\{0, &&-\log\Big(1+B_i+B_j- \nonumber \\ &&\sqrt{(B_i-B_j)^2+4|D_{ij}|^2}\Big) \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $ |D_{ij}|^2 = \langle \Delta n_i\Delta n_j\rangle $. According to Eq. \[tmE\] the logarithmic negativity $ E_{ij} $ can, in principle, be inferred from the measured mean intensities in modes $ i $ and $ j $ and the cross-correlation function of intensity fluctuations in this idealized case. ![Solutions of the equations for logarithmic negativity $E_{1\times4}=0$ (blue dashed line) and noise reduction factor $R_{1\times4}=1$ (red solid line) in the plane spanned by parameters $g_1t$ and $g_{23}t$. The two-mode field is entangled \[sub-shot-noise\] ($E_{1\times4}>0$ \[$R_{1\times4}<1$\]) inbetween the blue dashed \[red solid\] lines, i.e. in the areas I, II, and III \[II\].](arkhipov9){width="45.00000%"} At the end, we make a note about the entanglement in the general four-mode system with different up-conversion coupling constants ($g_2 \neq g_3 $). This is relevant when non-ideal phase-matching conditions of the three nonlinear interactions are met in the experiment (see below). According to our investigations, the largest values of negativities $E_{1\times2}$ and $E_{3\times4}$ are found in the symmetric four-mode system ($ g_2=g_3 $) considered above. On the contrary, the largest values of negativities $E_{1\times4}$ and $E_{2\times3}$ are obtained for unbalanced $ g_2 $ and $ g_3 $ interactions. Similarly to the symmetric case, separable states, entangled states without sub-shot-noise intensity correlations and entangled states exhibiting sub-shot-noise intensity correlations are found in the whole three-dimensional parametric space spanned by variables $ g_jt $ for $ j=1,2,3 $. As an example, the distribution of different kinds of reduced two-mode states found in the up-converted modes 3 and 4 in this space is plotted in Fig. 10. The graphs in Fig. 10 indicate that, in accord with the symmetric case, the larger the value of constant $ g_1 t $, the larger the relative amount of entangled states that cannot be identified through sub-shot-noise intensity correlations. {width="\textwidth"} Experimental implementation {#s:exp .unnumbered} =========================== A possible experimental implementation of the four mode interaction described above can be achieved by using a BaB$ {}_2 $O$ {}_4 $ crystal as the nonlinear medium, a ps-pulsed laser (a mode-locked Nd:YLF laser regeneratively amplified at 500 Hz, High-Q Laser Production) to get the pump fields and hybrid photodetectors (mod. R10467U-40, Hamamatsu Photonics) as the photon-number-resolving detectors. A typical experimental setup can be built in analogy with other previous experiments [@Allevi2012]. The phase-matching conditions can be chosen so as to have $\omega_1=\omega_2$ and a common pump field for both up-conversion processes so that $\omega_3=\omega_4$. In this specific symmetric case we have $ g_2 = g_3 \equiv g_{23} $. We can estimate the range of coupling constants achievable in this setup based on the above-mentioned laser source. Let us consider the following parameters: wavelength of the pump for down-conversion $\lambda_{p1}=349$ nm, $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=698$ nm, wavelength of the pump for up-conversion $\lambda_{p2}=1047$ nm, $\lambda_3=\lambda_4=418.8$ nm, length of the BaB$ {}_2 $O$ {}_4 $ crystal $L=4$ mm, diameters of the pumps 0.5 mm, pulse duration 4.5 ps. The coupling constants $ g_1 $ and $ g_{23} $ are linearly proportional to the corresponding pump field amplitudes so that $ g_1 t = \kappa_1 A_{p1}L $ and $ g_{23} t = \kappa_{23} A_{p2}L$, where $\kappa_j$ ($j=1,23$) are the nonlinear coupling coefficients and $A_j$ ($j=p1,p2$) are the pump amplitudes. For the considered parameters we can estimate $\kappa_j\approx 10^{-13} s^{1/2}$. The useful range of energies per pulse is up to 66 $\mu$J in the UV and up to 240 $\mu$J in the IR, corresponding to maximum values $ g_1 t\approx 5.9$ and $ g_2 t\approx 7$. The theoretical results discussed above predict an interesting behavior for this range of parameters, including the transfer of entanglement into the up-converted modes. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered} =========== Four-mode Gaussian states generated via parametric down-conversion and frequency up-conversion have been analyzed in terms of nonclassicality, entanglement and entanglement transfer among the modes. While nonclassicality of the state has been described by the easily-computable Lee nonclassicality depth, logarithmic negativity for different bipartitions has been applied to monitor the occurrence of entanglement among different modes. It has been shown that whenever the analyzed system is nonclassical, it is also entangled. Moreover, the entanglement is present only in the form of bipartite entanglement. The analysis of the noise reduction factor identifying sub-shot-noise intensity correlations, in parallel with the logarithmic negativity quantifying two-mode entanglement, has shown that the noise reduction factor is a powerful indicator of the entanglement in the analyzed system. This is substantial for the experimental demonstration of the transfer of entanglement from the down-converted modes to the up-converted ones. [**Acknowledgments**]{} This work was supported by the projects No. 15-08971S of the GA ČR and No. LO1305 of the MŠMT ČR. I.A. thanks project IGA\_2016\_002 UP Olomouc. The authors also acknowledge support from the bilateral Czech-Italian project CNR-16-05 between CAS and CNR. [**Author contributions statement**]{} I.A., J.P., O.H., A.A. and M.B. developed the theory. I.A. prepared the figures. I.A., J.P., O.H., A.A. and M.B. wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. [10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , & . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). *et al.* . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). & ** (, , ). *et al.* . ** ****, (). & . ** ****, (). , & . ** ****, (). , & ** (, ). . ** ****, (). , , & . ** ****, (). *et al.* . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). ** (, ). & ** (, ). ** (, ). *et al.* . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). , , & . ** ****, (). & . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). & . ** ****, (). & . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). , , & . ** ****, (). *et al.* . ** ****, (). , , & . ** ****, (). , & . ** ****, (). , & . ** ****, (). & . In (ed.) **, (, ). , , & . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). , & . ** ****, (). . . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). *et al.* . ** ****, (). & . ** ****, (). , , , & . ** ****, (). . ** ****, (). The evolution matrix ===================== The evolution matrix $ {\bf M} $ describing the operator solution of the Heisenberg equations written in Eq. (\[hle\]) is derived in the form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{M} {\bf M} = \Large \left( \begin {array}{cccc} {\frac {x{ c_1}-y{c_2}}{x-y} }&{\frac {ixy \left( \sqrt {{ y_1}}{s_2}-\sqrt {{x_1}}{ s_1} \right) }{ \left( x{ y_1}-{ x_1}\,y \right) { g_1}}} &{\frac {i \left( y\sqrt {{y_1}}{ x_1}\,{ s_2}-x\sqrt {{ x_1}}{y_1}\,{s_1} \right) }{{ g_2}\, \left( x{y_1}-{ x_1}\,y \right) }}&{\frac {xy \left( {c_2}-{c_1} \right) }{{g_1}\,{g_3}\, \left( x-y \right) }} \\ \noalign{\medskip}{\frac {i{g_1}\, \left( \sqrt {{y_1} }{s_2}-\sqrt {{ x_1}}{s_1} \right) }{x-y}}&{\frac {x{ y_1}\,{ c_2}-{x_1}\,y{c_1}}{x{y_1}-{x_1}\,y}} &{\frac {{g_1}\,{y_1}\,{x_1}\, \left( {c_2}-{ c_1} \right) }{{g_2}\, \left( x{y_1}-{x_1}\,y \right) }}&{ \frac { i \left( \sqrt {{y_1}}x{ s_2}-\sqrt {{x_1}}y{ s_1} \right) }{ \left( x-y \right) {g_3}}} \\ \noalign{\medskip}{\frac {i{ g_2}\, \left( \sqrt {{ x_1}}y{ s_2}-\sqrt {{y_1}}x{s_1} \right) }{\sqrt {{x_1}} \left( x-y \right) \sqrt {{y_1}}}}&-{\frac {{g_2}\,xy \left( { \it c_2}-{c_1} \right) }{ \left( x{y_1}-{x_1}\,y \right) {g_1}}}&{\frac {x{y_1}\,{c_1}-{x_1}\,y{ c_2}}{x{ y_1}-{x_1}\,y}}&{\frac {-i{ g_2}\,xy \left( \sqrt { {x_1}}{s_2}-\sqrt {{y_1}}{s_1} \right) }{{ g_1} \,{g_3}\, \left( x-y \right) \sqrt {{ x_1}}\sqrt {{y_1}}}} \\ \noalign{\medskip}{\frac {{g_1}\,{g_3}\, \left( -{c_2} +{c_1} \right) }{x-y}}&{\frac {i{ g_3}\, \left( \sqrt {{ y_1}}x{ s_2}-\sqrt {{ x_1}}y{ s_1} \right) }{x{y_1}-{ x_1}\,y}}&{\frac {i{ g_1}\,{g_3}\, \left( { x_1}\,\sqrt {{ y_1}}{s_2}-{ y_1}\,\sqrt {{ x_1}}{ s_1} \right) }{ {g_2}\, \left( x{ y_1}-{x_1}\,y \right) }}&{\frac {x{ c_2}-y{ c_1}}{x-y}}\end {array} \right) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $x=(a+b)/2$, $x_1=(a_1+b)/2$, $y=(a-b)/2$, $y_1=(a_1-b)/2$, $a=-g_1^2+g_2^2-g_3^2$, $a_1=-g_1^2+g_2^2+g_3^2$, $b=\sqrt{{{ g_1}}^{4}-2\,{{ g_1}}^{2}{{ g_2}}^{2}-2\,{{g_1}}^{2}{{g_3}}^{2}+{{g_2}}^{4}-2\,{{ g_2}}^{2}{{g_3}}^{2}+{{g_3}}^{4}}$, $c_1 = \cos(\sqrt{x_1}t) $, $c_2 = \cos(\sqrt{y_1}t) $, $s_1 = \sin(\sqrt{x_1}t) $, and $ s_2 = \sin(\sqrt{y_1}t) $.

--- abstract: 'Dicke states represent a class of multipartite entangled states that can be generated experimentally with many applications in quantum information. We propose a method to experimentally detect genuine multipartite entanglement in the vicinity of arbitrary Dicke states. The detection scheme can be used to experimentally quantity the entanglement depth of many-body systems and is easy to implement as it requires to measure only three collective spin operators. The detection criterion is strong as it heralds multipartite entanglement even in cases where the state fidelity goes down exponentially with the number of qubits.' address: - '$^{1}$Department of Physics and MCTP, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA' - '$^{2}$Center for Quantum Information, IIIS, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China' author: - 'L.-M. Duan$^{1,2}$' title: Entanglement detection in the vicinity of arbitrary Dicke states --- Quantum entanglement provides the most useful resource for implementation of many quantum information protocols. To test fundamentals of quantum mechanics and to realize quantum information processing, a big experimental drive is to get more and more particles prepared into massively entangled states [@1; @2; @3; @4]. There are different types of entangled states for many qubits [@5; @6; @7]. Experiments so far typically center around two kinds of entangled states [@1; @2; @3; @4]. The first kind is the graph states, including the GHZ states as a special case [@1]; the second kind is the Dicke states, including the W states as a special case [2,3,4]{}. Both types of entangled states have interesting properties and important applications in quantum information [@5; @6; @7], and they have been generated from a number of experimental systems [@1; @2; @3; @4]. One can never get a perfect entangled state in any experiments. A critical question is thus to experimentally prove that the prepared state still contains genuine multipartite entanglement similar to the target state. For graph states, some powerful witness operators have been known which significantly simplifies the experimental entanglement detection [@1; @8; @9]. For Dicke type of states, however, the entanglement detection is more challenging. The experiments so far use either quantum states tomography [@2], which requires measurements in an exponentially large number of experimental settings and thus is limited to only small systems, or some clever tricks that apply to only particular Dicke states [@3; @4; @10; @11], and are hard to be generalized to arbitrary Dicke states of many qubits. In this paper, we propose a general method to detect genuine multipartite entanglement in the vicinity of arbitrary Dicke states and to characterize the entanglement depth of the system. The proposed scheme has the following favorable features: first, it only requires to measure the collective spin operators and thus is straightforward for experimental implementation. Independent of the number of qubits, we only need to measure three operators with no requirement of separate addressing of individual qubits. This is particularly convenient for entanglement detection in many-particle systems (such as a spinor condensate) where individual addressing is almost impossible. Second, the proposed detection criterion is strong and universally applicable to arbitrary Dicke states. It not only detects entanglement, but also quantifies the entanglement depth of the system [note,13]{}. The detection scheme is pretty robust to experimental noise, and can show significant entanglement depth of the system even in cases where the state fidelity has been exponentially small with the number of qubits. The Dicke states are co-eigenstates of the collective spin operators. Each qubit is described by a Paul matrix $\mathbf{\sigma }$. For $N$ qubits, we define the collective spin operator $\mathbf{J}$ as $\mathbf{J=}% \sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathbf{\sigma /}2$. The Dicke state $\left\vert N/2,n/2\right\rangle $ is defined as a coeigenstate of the operators $% \mathbf{J}^{2}\equiv J_{x}^{2}+J_{y}^{2}+J_{z}^{2}$ and $J_{z}$, with the eigenvalues $N(N+2)/4$ and $n/2$ ($n=-N/2,-N/2+1,\cdots ,N/2$), respectively. The Dicke states can be conveniently generated in experiments without the need of separate addressing [@5; @6; @7; @14]. Except for the trivial case of $n=\pm N$, the Dicke states is a multipartite entangled state with interesting applications in both precision measurements and quantum information [@2; @3; @4; @5; @14; @15]. To construct an entanglement detection criterion in the vicinity of Dicke states, we note that the variances of the collective spin operators $% J_{x},J_{y},J_{z}$ have very special properties for these states. The variance of $J_{z}$ is minimized (ideally it should be zero) while the variances of $J_{x},J_{y}$ are maximized under the constraint of $% \left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle $. So, to detect entanglement, we should construct an inequality to bound the variances of $J_{x},J_{y}$ with the variance of $J_{z}$ for any separable states or insufficiently entangled states, and at the same time this inequality should be violated by the states sufficiently close to a Dicke state. For a composite system of $N$ qubits, we note that its density operator $% \rho $ can always be written into the following form if $\rho $ does not contain genuine $N$-qubit entanglement [@16]: $$\rho =\sum_{\mu }p_{\mu }\rho _{\mu }, \label{1}$$with $p_{\mu }\geq 0$, $\sum_{\mu }p_{\mu }=1$, and $$\rho _{\mu }=\rho _{1\mu }\otimes \rho _{2\mu }\otimes \cdots \otimes \rho _{k\mu }, \label{2}$$where $\rho _{i\mu }$ ($i=1,2,\cdots ,k$) represents a component state of $% m_{i\mu }$ ($m_{i\mu }\geq 1$) qubits with $\sum_{i=1}^{k}m_{i\mu }=N$. In other words, for each component $\mu $, the $N$ qubits are divided into $k$ groups with $m_{i\mu }$ qubits for the $i$th group, and the component state $% \rho _{\mu }$ is a tensor product of the states for each group. For a fixed component $\mu $, each qubit uniquely belongs to one group, however, for different $\mu $, the group division of the qubits can be different. If all $% m_{i\mu }=1$ (and corresponding $k=N$), $\rho $ reduces to a separable state. If the maximum of $m_{i\mu }$ is $m_{0}$, we conclude that the state $% \rho $ has no genuine ($m_{0}+1$)-qubit entanglement [@16]. With a smaller $m_{0}$, the state $\rho $ gets less entangled. We now show that for any states in the form Eqs. (1-2), the variance of the collective spin operators are severely bounded, while this bound is violated by the Dicke states. For each group division $\mu $ of the $N$ qubits, the total collective spin operators $\mathbf{J}$ can be written as $\mathbf{J}% =\sum_{i=1}^{k}\mathbf{J}_{i}$, where $\mathbf{J}_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{m_{i\mu }}% \mathbf{\sigma }_{j}/2$ is the collective spin operator for $m_{i\mu }$ qubits in the $i$th group. Through addition of the angular momenta, we know the maximum spin of $\mathbf{J}_{i}$ is $m_{i\mu }/2$, so the moments of $% J_{\alpha i}$ $\left( \alpha =x,y,z\right) $ are bounded by $$\left\langle J_{\alpha i}^{2}\right\rangle \leq m_{i\mu }^{2}/4,\text{and }% \left\langle \mathbf{J}_{i}^{2}\right\rangle \leq m_{i\mu }(m_{i\mu }+2)/4. \label{3}$$Under state $\rho $, we have $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle =\sum_{\mu }p_{\mu }\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$ and$$\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }=\sum_{i_{1},i_{2}}\left\langle J_{xi_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{xi_{2}}\right\rangle _{\mu }+\sum_{i}\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{xi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }. \label{4'}$$Using the uncertainty relation $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{zi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\geq \left\langle J_{xi}\right\rangle _{\mu }^{2}/4, $we can bound the term $\sum_{i_{1},i_{2}}\left\langle J_{xi_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{xi_{2}}\right\rangle _{\mu }$ as $$\begin{aligned} &&\sum_{i_{1},i_{2}}\left\langle J_{xi_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{xi_{2}}\right\rangle _{\mu } \leq \sum_{i_{1},i_{2}}4\sqrt{\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{zi_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi_{2}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{zi_{2}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }} \notag \\ &\leq &\sum_{i_{1},i_{2}}2\left[ \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{zi_{2}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }+\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi_{2}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{zi_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right] =4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\sum_{i}\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu },\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }=\sum_{i}\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{zi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$ for the state in the form of Eqs. (1-2). Combining Eqs. (4) and (5), we get $$\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle \leq \sum_{\mu ,i}p_{\mu }\left[ \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{xi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }+4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right] . \label{6'}$$Using the relation $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{\alpha i}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\leq \left\langle J_{\alpha i}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\leq m_{i\mu }^{2}/4$ (see Eq. (3)) and $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \geq \sum_{\mu }p_{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$, we can bound $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle $ by $$\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle \leq \left[ 1+4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \right] \max_{\left\{ m_{i\mu }\right\} }\left( \sum_{i=1}^{k_{u}}m_{i\mu }^{2}/4\right) , \label{7'}$$where the maximum is taken over all the group division $\left\{ m_{i\mu }\right\} $ ($m_{i\mu }$ are positive integers) of the $N$ qubits with the constraint of $\sum_{i=1}^{k}m_{i\mu }=N$ and $m_{i\mu }\leq m_{0}$. The maximum value is obtained by choosing $k=\left\lceil N/m_{0}\right\rceil $ ($% \left\lceil N/m_{0}\right\rceil $ denotes the smallest integer no less than $% N/m_{0}$), $m_{1\mu }=N-m_{0}(k-1)$, and all the other $m_{i\mu }=m_{0}$ ($% i=2,\cdots ,k$). Correspondingly, Eq. (10) reduces to$$\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle \leq \left[ 1+4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \right] m_{0}N/4, \label{8'}$$where we have used the relation $m_{1\mu }^{2}+m_{0}^{2}\left( k-1\right) \leq m_{0}\left[ m_{1\mu }+m_{0}\left( k-1\right) \right] =m_{0}N$. So, for any states without genuine ($m_{0}+1$)-qubit entanglement, the moment $% \left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle $ (and similarly also $\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $) will be bounded by the inequality (8). When $% m_{0}\geq 2$, we can derive a stronger bound. Note that $\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $ satisfies an inequality similar to Eq. (6), but with the indices $x$ and $y$ exchanged. If we add up the inequalities for $% \left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $, and use the relation $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{xi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }+\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\leq \left\langle \mathbf{J}% _{i}^{2}\right\rangle \leq m_{i\mu }(m_{i\mu }+2)/4$ (see Eq. (3)), we obtain $$\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle \leq \left[ 1+4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle % \right] N\left( m_{0}+2\right) /4. \label{9'}$$ We can use violation of the inequality (8) with $m_{0}=1$ to experimentally prove entanglement of the system and then use the following criterion to quantity its entanglement depth: *Criterion 1: We can experimentally measure the following quantity* $% \xi $* through detection of the collective spin operator* $\mathbf{J} $*:*$$\xi =\frac{\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle }{N\left( 1/4+\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \right) }-1. \label{10'}$$*If* $\xi >m$*, it is confirmed that the system has genuine* $% m $*-qubit entanglement.* For the Dicke state $\left\vert N/2,0\right\rangle $, we have $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle =\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle =N\left( N+2\right) /8$ and $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle =0$, so in the ideal case, $\xi =N+1>N$, and from measurement of $\xi $, we can confirm that all the qubits are in a genuine $N $-qubit entangled state. The noise in experiments will degrade the entanglement depth of the system. First, we consider dephasing noise which is a major source of noise in many experiments. The detection criterion in Eq. (10) is very robust to dephasing noise. To see this, we note the state $% \left\vert N/2,0\right\rangle $ is a big superposition state with $\binom{N}{% N/2}=\frac{N!}{\left[ \left( N/2\right) !\right] ^{2}}$ terms in the computational basis. All the superpositions terms have $J_{z}=0$, so the dephasing error only degrades the moments $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $, but does not increase $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle $. For each superposition term of the state $\left\vert N/2,0\right\rangle $, we know $\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle =\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle =\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle \left( \sigma _{ix}/2\right) ^{2}\right\rangle =N/4$. So, if coherence is completely gone, $\xi $ reduces to $1$, and the state has no entanglement as expected. However, under incomplete dephasing, we can experimentally prove a significant entanglement depth of the system by measuring $\xi $ even if the state fidelity becomes exponentially small. For instance, with a dephasing error rate $p$ for each qubit, the state fidelity goes down exponentially roughly by $p^{N}$ for $N$ qubits with $N\gg 1$. To estimate the value of $% \xi $, we note that with a probability $\binom{N}{i}p^{i}\left( 1-p\right) ^{N-i}$ (according to the binormal distribution), $i$ qubits are decohered among the $N$ qubits, which contribute a value of $i/2$ to $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $. The remaining $N-i$ qubits still have coherence, which contribute a value of $\left( N-i\right) \left( N-i+2\right) /4-\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{N-i}$ to $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $. Since initially the $N$ qubits are in the $J_{z}=0$ eigenstate, the mean value of $\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{N-i}$ for the $N-i$ qubits is equal to $\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{i}$ for the decohered $i$ qubits. For the decohered $i$ qubits, $\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{i}=\sum_{k=1}^{i}\left\langle \left( \sigma _{kz}/2\right) ^{2}\right\rangle =i/4$. So the value of $\xi $ is estimated by $\xi \sim 4/N\sum_{i=0}^{N}\binom{N}{i}p^{i}\left( 1-p\right) ^{N-i}\{i/2+[\left( N-i\right) \left( N-i+2\right) /4-i/4]\}-1=\left( 1-p\right) N+1-p^{2}$, we can thus experimentally prove a significant entanglement depth of $\left( 1-p\right) N$ qubits by measuring $\xi $. The detection criterion in Eq. (10) is more sensitive to the bit-flip error as this type of error significantly increases $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle $. With a bit flip error rate $p_{b}$ for each qubit, the variance of $J_{z}$ is estimated by $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \sim Np(1-p)$. We need $Np(1-p)<1/4$ to minimize change to $\xi $. For tens of qubits, we can tolerate bit-flip error rate at a percent level to keep the qubits in a genuine multipartite entangled state. Alternatively, in the limit of large $N$ with $Np(1-p)\gg 1/4$, the value of $\xi $ is estimated by $\xi \approx 1/\left[ 4p(1-p)% \right] -1$. With a percent of bit flip error rate for each qubit, we can experimentally prove an entanglement depth of more than $20$ qubits by measuring $\xi $. The criterion 1 is most appropriate for detection of the entanglement depth in the vicinity of the Dicke state $\left\vert N/2,0\right\rangle $. It becomes weaker for other Dicke states $\left\vert N/2,n\right\rangle $ with increasing $\left\vert n\right\vert $. For the state $\left\vert N/2,n/2\right\rangle $, the moments of $J_{x}$ and $J_{y}$ are bounded by $% \left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf{J}^{2}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle =N\left( N+2\right) /4-n^{2}/4$. The criterion 1 does not take into account this bound due to a finite $\left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle $. To derive a stronger detection criterion for the Dicke states $\left\vert N/2,n/2\right\rangle $, we start from Eq. (6) and a similar bound for $\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $. When we add up the inequalities for $\left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle $ both in the form of Eq. (6), we want to find a better bound for $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{xi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }+\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$ under a finite $\left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle $. Using the relation $% \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{xi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }+\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{yi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\leq \left\langle \mathbf{J}_{i}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }-\left\langle J_{zi}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$ and $\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }=\left\langle \left( \sum_{i=1}^{k}J_{zi}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\leq k\sum_{i}\left\langle J_{zi}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$, we obtain$$\begin{aligned} \left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle &\leq &\sum_{\mu }p_{\mu }\left[ 1+4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right] \notag \\ &\times &\left[ \sum_{i}m_{i\mu }(m_{i\mu }+2)/4-\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }/k\right] . \label{11}\end{aligned}$$To bound the right side of Eq. (11), we consider the two-fold average $% \sum_{\mu }p_{\mu }\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }=\left\langle \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right\rangle $, where $\left\langle \cdots \right\rangle $ denotes the average over $\mu $ with the weight function $% p_{\mu }$. For any two variables $A$ and $B$, we know their average satisfies the following property:$$\begin{aligned} \left\langle AB\right\rangle \left\langle AB\right\rangle &=&\left\langle A\right\rangle \left\langle B\right\rangle +\left\langle \Delta A\Delta B\right\rangle \notag \\ &\geq &\left\langle A\right\rangle \left\langle B\right\rangle -\sqrt{% \left\langle \left( \Delta A\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \left\langle \left( \Delta B\right) ^{2}\right\rangle }. \label{12'}\end{aligned}$$Taking $A$ and $B$ as $\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$ and $% \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }$, respectively, we have$$\begin{aligned} -\left\langle \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right\rangle &\leq &-\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle \left\langle \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right\rangle \notag \\ &+&\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \left( 1+2\alpha \right) , \label{13'}\end{aligned}$$where $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \equiv \left\langle J_{z}^{4}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle ^{2} $ and $$\alpha \equiv \sqrt{\left( \left\langle J_{z}^{4}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle ^{4}\right) /\left( \left\langle J_{z}^{4}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle ^{2}\right) }, \label{14'}$$which is typically close to $1$. In deriving Eq. (13), we have used $% \left\langle \left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }^{2}\right\rangle \leq \left\langle \left\langle J_{z}^{4}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right\rangle =\left\langle J_{z}^{4}\right\rangle $ and $$\begin{aligned} &&\left\langle \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }^{2}\right\rangle -\left\langle \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\right\rangle ^{2} \notag \\ &=&\left\langle \left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }^{2}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle ^{2}-2\left[ \left\langle \left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle _{\mu }\left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle _{\mu }^{2}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle \left\langle \left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle _{\mu }^{2}\right\rangle \right] \notag \\ &\leq &\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle +2\sqrt{% \left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \left[ \left\langle J_{z}^{4}\right\rangle -\left\langle J_{z}\right\rangle ^{4}% \right] }. \label{15'}\end{aligned}$$ In the second line of Eq. (15), we use again the property in Eq. (12). Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (11), we finally obtain the following bound for any state in the form of Eqs. (1-2)$$\begin{aligned} \left\langle J_{x}^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle J_{y}^{2}\right\rangle &\leq &\left[ 1+4\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle % \right] \notag \\ &\times& \max_{\left\{ m_{i\mu }\right\} }\left[ \sum_{i}m_{i\mu }(m_{i\mu }+2)/4-\chi /k\right] , \label{16}\end{aligned}$$where $\chi $ is defined by $$\chi =\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle -\left[ 1/4+\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \right] ^{-1}\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle \left( 1+2\alpha \right) . \label{17}$$The parameter $\chi $ is determined experimentally by measuring the operator $J_{z}$, and its value is basically given by the first term $\left\langle J_{z}^{2}\right\rangle $, with small correction from the fluctuation of $% J_{z}^{2}$ when the real state deviates from the Dicke state (the latter has $\left\langle \left( \Delta J_{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle =0$). Summarizing the result, we arrive at the following criterion *Criterion 2. We can experimentally measure the values of* $\xi $* and* $\chi $* (defined by Eqs. (10,17)) through detection of the collective spin operator* $\mathbf{J}$*. The system has genuine* $m$*-qubit entanglement if* $$\xi >f\left( m,\chi \right) \equiv \frac{4}{N}\max_{\left\{ m_{i\mu }\right\} }\left( \sum_{i=1}^{k}m_{i\mu }(m_{i\mu }+2)/4-\chi /k\right) -1, \label{18}$$ *where the maximum is taken under the constraint of* $m_{i\mu }\leq m-1$* and* $\sum_{i}m_{i\mu }=N$*.* With a known $\chi $, it is typically easy to calculate the function of $% f\left( m,\chi \right) $. For instance, for the state $\left\vert N/2,n/2\right\rangle $, $\chi \approx n^{2}/4$, and $f\left( m,\chi \right) \approx m-\left( m-1\right) n^{2}/N^{2}$ for the simple case when $m-1$ divides $N$ and $\left( m-1\right) n^{2}<2N^2$. Similar to the discussion made for the state $% \left\vert N/2,0\right\rangle $, the entanglement detection criterion 2 is pretty robust to noise, in particular the dephasing noise, and appropriate for entanglement detection in the vicinity of the Dicke states $\left\vert N/2,n/2\right\rangle $ with nonzero $n$. In summary, we have proposed powerful detection criteria to experimentally prove entanglement and quantify the entanglement depth for many-body systems in the vicinity of arbitrary Dicke states. The criteria are based on simple measurements of the collective spin operators and ready to be implemented in future experiments. This work was supported by the NBRPC (973 Program) 2011CBA00300 (2011CBA00302), the IARPA MUSIQC program, the ARO and the AFOSR MURI program. [99]{} C. A. Sackett et al., Nature 404,256 (2000); D. Leibfried *et al*., Nature **438**, 639 (2005); T. Monz etal., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011); X.-C. Yao et al., arXiv:1105.6318. H. Häffner * et al*., Nature **438**, 643 (2005). K. S. Choi et al., Nature 468, 412 (2010). W. Wieczorek et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 020504 (2009). W. Duer, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000). R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003); M. Hein *et al*, quant-ph/0602096. J. K. Stockton, JM Geremia, A. C. Doherty, H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022112 (2003). M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 052310 (2000); B. Terhal, Phys. Lett. A 271, 319 (2000). G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 060501 (2005). G. Toth, C. Knapp, O. Guhne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250405 (2007). G. Toth, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24, 275 (2007). For a many-body (mixed) state with $N$ qubits, it has entanglement depth $m$ $\left( m\leq N\right) $ if we can experimentally prove that it contains genuine $m$-qubit entanglement, see Ref. [@13]. A. Sorensen, K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4431 (2001). L.-M. Duan and J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 253601 (2003); L.-M. Duan, M. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, Nature 414, 413-418 (2001). M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993). A. Acin, D. Bruss, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 040401 (2001).

--- abstract: 'We calculate the atomic (spin) Wigner function for the single mode Dicke model in the regime of large number of two-level atoms. The dynamics of this quasi-probability function on the Bloch sphere allows us to visualize the consequences of the entanglement process between the boson and the spin subsystems. Such investigation shows a distinct localization behavior of the spin state with respect to the polar and azimuthal Bloch sphere angles. A complete [*breakdown of reflection symmetry*]{} in the azimuthal angle is shown in the non-integrable case, even at short evolution times. Also, in the classically chaotic situation, the appearance of [*sub-planck structures*]{} in the Wigner function is shown, and its evolution analyzed.' author: - 'L. Sanz' - 'K. Furuya' title: 'Entanglement, chaos and atomic Wigner function of the Dicke model.' --- Introduction ============ The Wigner function (WF)[@Wigner32] has been an important tool in physics, particularly to explore the interface between classical and quantum world [@berry83]. Furthermore, it is an useful ingredient in the theory of partial loss of coherence [@decoherence]. Recently, advances in the state reconstruction problems [@Welsch] renewed interest on the WF, particularly after the measurement of negative quasi-probabilities [@leibfried96; @bertet02] which are generally considered as signatures of non-classical states [@leibfried98]. Also, quasi-probability functions are relevant for the study of entanglement process of continuous variables, as in the beam splitters [@kim2002], in order to analyze separability of two-mode Gaussian states [@duan2000; @simon2000; @marian2001], and in studies of teleportation of non-classical states like in Ref. [@lee2000]. Since the proposal of manifestation of chaos in the process of decoherence by Zurek and Paz [@Zurek95], the WF has also been an important tool for studying this issue [@Habib98; @Zurek01]. Here, our focus is the use of the atomic Wigner function to study the ideal atom-field entanglement process. Recent experimental progress on arrays of quantum dots and Josephson junctions has raised the possibility of super-radiance, a phenomenon already known to arise in a system with $N$ [*two-level*]{} atoms coupled to a field mode described by the Dicke model (DM) [@dicke]. Some of the solid-state systems relevant to quantum information that can be mapped into DM are: ‘phonon cavity quantum dynamics’ [@weig04; @vorrath04]; those with Josephson Junctions and quantum dots, with the possibility of multiqubit entanglement Dicke-like model [@lee04]; and the proposal of ‘circuit QED’ [@Blais04], which has been constructed recently for one qubit Jaynes-Cummings case [@Wallraff04]. Finally, the atom-molecule coexistence model near a Feshbach resonance of cold fermions in both strong [@barankov] and weak [@andreev] coupling has been proposed as a DM. We are interested in exploring the atomic (spin) Wigner function dynamics of the generalized $N$-Jaynes-Cummings model ($N$-JCM) [@JCM] where both Jaynes-Cummings (JC) and anti-Jaynes-Cummings (AJC) interaction can be present. These interactions between spin and boson systems has been shown to appear naturally in trapped ions [@CiracAAMOP96; @Solano01], or in cavity QED by means of strong classical driving field [@Solano03]. Classically the model becomes chaotic [@Milonni83; @Lewenkopf91; @Aguiar92], and some of its manifestation in the entanglement process has been shown in previous publications [@Furuya98; @Angelo99; @Angelo01; @Emary03; @Hou04]. To our knowledge, it is the first time the dynamical evolution of the $N$-qubits atomic Wigner function is followed in detail during the entanglement process since it has been introduced [@Arecchi72; @Agarwal81; @Dowling94]. Remarkable features in the AWF can be seen in such wave-packet dynamics, showing dynamical differences between localization of the angular variables $\phi,\theta$ on Bloch Sphere. We also explore the dynamics of the negative-valued parts of the AWF, usually considered as a hallmark of non-classicality and interference effects. Another notable aspect is the distinct time evolution of the AWF, depending on the initial positions chosen for the centers of the wave packets. Such sensitivity to initial conditions have been already noted in references [@Furuya98; @Angelo99], at the level of the integrated quantities like the subsystem linear entropy or mean values, but the details of the behavior of quasi-probability functions was lacking. This paper is organized as follows: in Sec. \[sec:theory\] we present the classical analog of the Dicke model to define and show some quantities used in the following sections. Also, we review the notion of sensitivity of the entanglement process on the initial position of the coherent packet, in both [*integrable*]{} and [*chaotic*]{} cases, already found in previous works. Sec. \[sec:wigners\] is reserved to present our results for the $N$-qubit atomic Wigner function for some selected initial conditions and analyze its time evolution under the point of view of the entanglement process. In Sec. \[sec:summary\] we summarize our results. The model and entanglement dynamics within the large-$N$ approximation {#sec:theory} ====================================================================== We consider a generalized version of $N$-atom (qubit) Dicke model, with variable coefficient for the rotating and counter-rotating wave term. Moreover, since our aim here is to pursue the effect of the classically chaos generating term on the entanglement between the $N$-atom and the field, we will ignore the interaction between the atoms (qubits) and treat the atomic system as a large spin ($N=2J$). $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}&=&\hbar\omega_0\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}+\hbar\omega_a \hat{J}_z + \frac{G}{\sqrt{2J}}\left(\hat{a}\hat{J}_{+}+\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{J}_{-} \right) +\nonumber\\ && +\frac{G^{\prime}}{\sqrt{2J}} \left(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{J}_++\hat{a}\hat{J}_-\right). \label{eq:Hmaserq}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\omega_0$ and $\omega_a$ are frequencies associated with free Hamiltonians for field and atoms respectively. $G$, $G^{\prime}$ are coupling constants associated with atom-field interaction within the dipole approximation. The usual Rotating Wave Approximation (RWA) is recovered by setting $G'=0$. The field observable are described by means of the creation and annihilation operators $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$, whereas $\hat{J}_z$, $\hat{J}_{\pm}$ are pseudo-spin operators associated to an atomic observable. This model is used to describe both, cavity QED experiments [@David93; @Solano03] (with $G=G^{\prime}$, but usually to an excellent approximation one can set $G^{\prime}=0$) and trapped-ion systems. In the last system, interactions with different couplings $G\ne G^{\prime}$ can be generated [@CiracAAMOP96; @Solano01]. For the purpose of our study where both systems are initially pure and separable in quasi-classical states, the appropriate initial state ${\left| w \nu \right>}$ is a product of the field and atomic coherent states defined as [@Glauber63; @Arecchi72; @Zhang90]: $$\begin{aligned} {\left| \nu \right>}&=&\hat{D}\left(\nu\right){\left| 0 \right>}=e^{-\frac{|\nu|^2}{2}} e^{\nu\hat{a}^{\dagger}+\nu^{*}\hat{a}}{\left| 0 \right>} \nonumber\\ {\left| w \right>}&=&\left(1+|w|^2\right)^{-J}e^{w\hat{J}_+}{\left| J,-J \right>}. \label{eq:DEFec}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $J=N/2$ and the variables $w$ and $\nu$ can be written as a function of the classical variables in the corresponding phase spaces, $(q_f,p_f)$ for the field, and $(q_a,p_a)$ for the atomic degree of freedom $$\begin{aligned} w&=&\frac{p_a+\imath q_a}{\sqrt{4J-\left(p^2_a+q^2_a\right)}} \nonumber\\ \nu&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(p_f+\imath q_f\right) \label{eq:PARA}\end{aligned}$$ A corresponding classical Hamiltonian can been obtained by a standard procedure [@Saraceno], using the above defined coherent states ${\left< w\nu \right|}\hat{H}{\left| w\nu \right>}$ [@Aguiar92] $$\begin{aligned} {\cal H}\left(q_a,p_a,q_f,p_f\right)=\frac{\omega_0}{2}\left( p_f^2+ q_f^2\right)+\frac{\omega_a}{2} \left(p_a^2+q_a^2\right)\\ -\omega_aJ+\frac{\sqrt{4J-\left(p_f^2+q_f^2\right)}}{4J}\left( G_{+} p_ap_f+G_{-}q_aq_f\right),\nonumber \label{eq:Hmaserc}\end{aligned}$$ with $G_{\pm}=G\pm G^{\prime}$. The classical dynamics associated with this Hamiltonian were explored before [@Aguiar92], and shown that:[*(i)*]{} integrable situations are recovered when either $G$ or $G^{\prime}$ is zero; [*(ii)*]{} the most chaotic dynamics is associated with the condition $G=G^{\prime}\approx \mathcal{O}(\omega_0, \omega_a)$, as we increase the coupling constant. Our aim is to investigate the time evolution of the initially quasi-classical wave-packet along with the occurrence of entanglement between the $N$-atom and the field systems. Particularly, we are looking for the possible differences in the reduced wave-packet dynamics when we compare [*integrable*]{} and [*chaos generating*]{} interactions. The connection with the classical dynamics is established by choosing coherent states as initial states, centered at the corresponding points of the phase space. Then, we let the system evolve by means of the Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hmaserq\]) and explore the entanglement dynamics solving numerically the Schrödinger equation. In order to know where to put the initial atomic and field wave-packets, the first step is study the structure of classical phase space. This can be done by using the Poincaré section. In Fig. \[fig:poincare\], we plot the projection of Poincaré section in the atomic plane ($q_a$,$p_a$) for $q_f=0.$ and $p_f>0$. The surfaces of section correspond to both, the right one to the integrable case with ($G=0.5$, $G^{\prime}=0$) and the left one to the soft chaos ($G=0.5$, $G^{\prime}=0.2$). Here, and along the present work, the total energy is fixed at $E=2J=21.0$ with $J=10.5$. The coupling values corresponds to the non-super-radiant phase ($G_+ < 1$) [@Aguiar91QO]. The limit of atomic phase space is indicated by a border at radius equal to $\sqrt{4J}$. Integrable section shows a separatrix of motion along the line $p_a=0.0$ and concentric tori around each of the two stable periodic orbits. A pro-eminent feature of the non-integrable surface of section is a large stability island for $p_a>0$. The symbols in Fig. \[fig:poincare\] show the chosen centers for the atomic coherent states. We choose two specific initial conditions (i.c.) for each case. In the integrable case, the first one (I1) is on an internal tori belonging to the region $p_a>0$, marked by a triangle; and the second (I2), marked by a circle, located near the border of the atomic phase space. For soft chaos situation, the first i.c. (N1) where chosen on a point inside the largest stability island (circle). The second condition (N2) is located in the chaotic sea (triangle). Specific values of $q_a$, $p_a$ and the mean value of $\hat{J}_z$ operator for the associated atomic coherent state are listed in Table \[tab:condition\]. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I.C. $q_{a}/\sqrt{4J}$ $p_{a}/\sqrt{4J}$ $\langle\hat{J}_z \rangle/J$ ------ ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- I1 $0.0$ $0.55$ -0.43 I2 $0.1$ $0.95$ 0.83 N1 $0.0$ $0.54$ -0.47 N2 $0.0$ $-0.28$ -0.84 ------------------------------------------------------------------ : $q_a$, $p_a$ and $\langle\hat{J}_z\rangle$ values for the chosen initial conditions. \[tab:condition\] ![Poincaré section for the atomic degree of freedom (with $q_f=0.0$ and $p_f>0$) in the resonant case $\omega_a=\omega_0$ and energy $E=21.$, with $N=2J=21$. Left: integrable case with $G=0.5$ and $G^{\prime}=0.0$. Right: non-integrable case with $G=0.5$ and $G^{\prime}=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig:poincare"}](secaointe.eps "fig:") ![Poincaré section for the atomic degree of freedom (with $q_f=0.0$ and $p_f>0$) in the resonant case $\omega_a=\omega_0$ and energy $E=21.$, with $N=2J=21$. Left: integrable case with $G=0.5$ and $G^{\prime}=0.0$. Right: non-integrable case with $G=0.5$ and $G^{\prime}=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig:poincare"}](secaoj105c.eps "fig:") As a second step, one should calculate the time evolution of the atomic linear entropy (ALE) which, in this globally pure bipartite system, can be used as a measure of entanglement. This calculation is done in three stages: First we diagonalize the Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hmaserq\]) numerically and use the eigenvalues and eigenstates in order to find the temporal total density operator, $\hat{\rho}\left (t\right)$. Then, we calculate the reduced density operator of the atomic subsystem, $\hat{\rho}_a=\mbox{Tr}_f\left[\hat{\rho}\left(t\right)\right]$, and finally obtain $\delta_a\left(t\right)= 1-\mbox{Tr}_a \left[\hat{\rho_a}^{2}\left(t\right)\right]$. Evolution in time of the ALE for i.c.’s I1 and I2 are plotted in Figure \[fig:entropies\](a). For both i.c.’s, the subsystem entropy increases in the mean as time goes on, until a plateau is reached. The details of the curve such as the specific values of the ALE in the plateau, the particular oscillatory behavior and the entanglement rate depend on each initial condition. In particular, we observe that those atomic i.c.’s with the classical dynamics restricted to a well delimited region in phase space on the tori region are more resistant to entangle with field. This relation between fast entanglement process and less localized classical dynamics was pointed out in a previous work [@Angelo99]. The ALE for the soft chaos situation are plotted in Fig. \[fig:entropies\](b). In this plot, it is clear that larger entanglement rate is also associated to the chaotic i.c.’s. It is interesting to compare our results for I1 and N1, solid lines in Fig. \[fig:entropies\](a,b). For I1, ALE shows more regularity in the oscillations and reaches the corresponding plateau around $t \approx 30$, whereas in ALE for N1 the oscillations are less regular and takes a longer time to reach the plateau, at $t \approx 70$. Also, ALE for N1 condition keeps a small oscillation around its mean value (due to the non-RWA term) and one can also see a certain large period modulation in contrast to I1. The relation between the behavior of the classical trajectory and maxima and minima of $\delta_a$ was studied in Ref. [@Angelo01], and we will not discuss here. ![Atomic Linear Entropy of the $N$-JCM associated with the four initial conditions centered at the positions shown in Fig. \[fig:poincare\] (with the same parameter values) and listed in Table \[tab:condition\]. (a) Integrable case: i.c. I1 (Solid line) and I2 (dotted line); (b) Soft chaos: i.c N1 (Solid line) and N2 (dotted line).[]{data-label="fig:entropies"}](entrointe.eps "fig:") ![Atomic Linear Entropy of the $N$-JCM associated with the four initial conditions centered at the positions shown in Fig. \[fig:poincare\] (with the same parameter values) and listed in Table \[tab:condition\]. (a) Integrable case: i.c. I1 (Solid line) and I2 (dotted line); (b) Soft chaos: i.c N1 (Solid line) and N2 (dotted line).[]{data-label="fig:entropies"}](entrochaos.eps "fig:") Instead, the atomic Wigner Function (AWF) is used to visualize the behavior of global state as projected in atomic phase space. In the next section, we will illustrate the following aspects: [*(i)*]{} that the AWF provide us the information that those i.c.’s that are more “protected” against entanglement process, have a strong localization on the Bloch sphere; [*(ii)*]{} we also show how the destruction of tori due to chaos in the classical dynamics goes along with the delocalization of the quantum wave-packet during its temporal evolution. Dynamics of atomic Wigner function. {#sec:wigners} =================================== The phase space quasi-probability distributions of electromagnetic field and atom have been discussed by several authors [@Wigner32; @Gerry97; @Stratonovich57; @Arecchi72; @Agarwal81]. Here, we adopt the definition of Wigner function in terms of arbitrary angular momentum basis, as introduced by Agarwal [@Agarwal81]. This function is defined as $$\begin{aligned} W\left(\theta,\phi,t\right)=\sqrt{\frac{2J+1}{4\pi}}\sum \limits_{K=0}^{2J} \sum\limits_{Q=-K}^{K}\varrho_{KQ}\left(t \right)Y_{KQ}\left(\theta,\phi \right), \label{eq:FWatomica}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varrho_{K,Q}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \varrho_{K,Q}\left(t\right)=\mbox{Tr}\left[\rho_a\left(t\right) \hat{T}_{KQ}\right]. \label{eq:mcaractA}\end{aligned}$$ This is the characteristic function associated with atomic density operator $\rho_a\left(t\right)$. Here, $\hat{T}_{KQ}$ is the multipole operator acting in the angular momentum space [@AngularM] $$\begin{aligned} \hat{T}_{KQ}&=&\sum\limits_{M=-J}^{J}\left(-1\right)^{J-M} \sqrt{2K+1} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} J&K&J\\ -M&Q&M-Q \end{array} \right) \nonumber\\ &&\times{\left| J,M \right>}{\left< J,M-Q \right|}. \label{eq:Tkq}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq.(\[eq:FWatomica\]), the usual Wigner $3J$ symbol has been used, and $Y_{KQ}\left(\theta,\phi\right)$ indicates the spherical harmonics defined over the Bloch sphere. There, $\theta$ is the polar angle and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle. The distribution of any angular momentum state can be studied using the AWF. As shown in Dowling [*et al.*]{} [@Dowling94], it is possible to estimate the indeterminacy in the measure of the atomic observable $\hat{J}_z$, $\hat{J}_x$ $\hat{J}_y$ in the state through its variances . In fact, if the state has a large probability associated to a well-defined eigenvalue of $\hat{J}_z$, its atomic Wigner function shows a strong localization in polar angle $\theta$. In a similar way, indeterminacy associated to the measure of $\hat{J}_x$ and $\hat{J}_y$ means ignorance on the azimuthal angle $\phi$. In order to obtain the AWF, we use our previous results of atomic density matrix operator. Because the basis used was the Dicke states $|\hat{J},\hat{J}_z\rangle$, we can calculate the action of $\hat{T}_{KQ}$ on each atomic density matrix elements, obtaining $W\left(\theta,\phi,t\right)$. Also, we always set the $\phi=0$ value exactly at the center of each initial atomic coherent packet. That means, if the wave packet is not on the $X$-axis, we rotate the $XY$ plane by a certain angle $\phi(t=0)=\phi_0$ in such a way that the direction defined by the vector $(\sin\phi_0,-\cos\phi_0,0)$ coincides with the rotated $X$-axis. Integrable case with $G=0.5$ and $G^{\prime}=0$. {#subsec:integrable} ------------------------------------------------- For the integrable case, we show the snapshots of the temporal evolution of contour lines of AWF in Fig. \[fig:wai1\] for the i.c. I1. The initial coherent state, Fig. \[fig:wai1\](a), has its maximum value ($3.5$) at $\theta=0.64\pi$, which corresponds to $\langle\hat{J}_z\rangle\approx-0.43J$. At the time when the first maxima of ALE is reached, the atomic state has a more delocalized distribution, shown in Fig. \[fig:wai1\](b), with two negative valued regions (in black). A formation of three overlapping positive peaks starts, with maxima (almost) at the equator of Bloch sphere ($\theta=\pi/2$). At this time, AWF has a maximum value lower than the one at the initial time ($\approx 1.7$). The appearance of a negative part in the AWF with value $\approx -0.2$ ($10\%$ of maximum value) indicates the non-classical character of this state. The delocalization of the state in the azimuthal angle is associated with the increase of the ALE. This assertion can be confirmed by checking the evolution for consecutive maxima and minima. The forms of AWF are shown at times corresponding to the [*first minimum*]{}, Fig. \[fig:wai1\](c); [*second maximum*]{}, Fig. \[fig:wai1\](d), and [*second minimum*]{}, Fig. \[fig:wai1\](e). Comparing them, it is clear that the AWF is more localized in the $\phi$ variable at times when ALE has minima. Although in Fig. \[fig:wai1\](d), the three peaks have coalesced into one, the packet sweeps a larger interval over $\phi$ values than those found at the first minimum time scale. We can also observe that AWF maximum value oscillates around $\theta\approx 1.8$. A negative valued portion is still present but it became significantly smaller (less than $1\%$) than in Fig \[fig:wai1\](b), so it is not possible to see in Fig \[fig:wai1\](c,d), but reappears in Fig. \[fig:wai1\](e). From this sequence, it is clear that atomic state looses both, azimuthal and polar localization, associated with the increase in the atomic linear entropy. However, at those times when the ALE plateau is reached, we see how the AWF (plotted in dotted lines) still has localization in $\theta$ (near the equator in the Bloch sphere), having non-zero values only in the interval $1.6 \le \theta \le 2.5$. This shows that for the particular initial condition considered on an internal torus (distant from the separatrix motion and the border of the phase space), an increase in the ALE is associated with the increasing delocalization with respect to the azimuthal angle much more than to the polar variable. ![Shaded contour plots of atomic Wigner function associated with the i.c. I1: (a) initial time; (b) [*first maxima*]{} of the corresponding atomic linear entropy (ALE); (c)[*first minimum*]{} of ALE; (d) [*second maxima*]{}; (e) [*second minima*]{}; (f)$t=40$ at the [*plateau region*]{}. Negative valued regions of AWF are drawn in black.[]{data-label="fig:wai1"}](wai1.eps) ![Shaded contour plot atomic Wigner function associated with the i.c. I2: (a) initial time; (b) [*first maxima*]{} of corresponding atomic linear entropy (ALE); (c) [*first minimum*]{} of ALE; (d) [*second maxima*]{}; (e) [*second minima*]{}; (f)$t=40$ at the [*plateau region*]{}. Negative valued regions of AWF are drawn in black.[]{data-label="fig:wai2"}](wai2.eps) Now we shall compare previous case with the time evolution of the AWF for condition I2 ($\theta\approx 0$) which is close to the largest value of $\langle\hat{J}_z\rangle$, shown in Fig. \[fig:wai2\]. At the initial time, Fig. \[fig:wai2\](a), the AWF is well localized in both angular variables and, as the two subsystems interact, we can see that the AWF begins to lose localization mostly in the polar variable (non-zero values in the interval $1.0 \le \theta \le 2.7$), at the time scale of the first maximum in ALE. Physically, the spreading of the AWF and the increase in the atomic linear entropy, tell us that for this i.c. (I2), the increasing entanglement of the $N$-atoms with the field is mostly associated with an increase of the participating states of atomic levels in the $\hat{J}_z$ spectrum (shown by the spreading of the AWF in $\theta$ variable). The value of the ALE at the first maximum for I2 ($\delta_a \approx 0.5$) is greater than for I1 ($\delta_a$ lower than $0.2$), where the increasing delocalization is primarily in the azimuthal variable $\phi$. At the time corresponding to the [*first minimum*]{} of the ALE, Fig. \[fig:wai2\](c), we observe that AWF forms a three-peak structure seen in the I1 case. However, there is a appreciable spreading in the $\phi$ variable but not allowing the peaks to become separated, and near the central position in $\phi=0$ occurs also a notable delocalization in $\theta$ variable. The negative part is no longer localized as in the previous i.c., and its value is $\approx 10\%$ of the maximum of AWF. Again, we observe the connection between minima of $\delta_a$ and the angular localization: the AWF for the second maximum of ALE, Fig. \[fig:wai2\](d), shows how the atomic state is completely delocalized in both variables at this time. The AWF is non-zero practically at all points on the atomic phase space. This situation is reversed at the time of the second minimum of ALE, with a tentative to re-gain some localization in $\theta$ variable and a structure which roughly resembles Fig. \[fig:wai2\](b). It is also interesting to see how the negative part of AWF reappears and it is even more pronounced than in the previously referred time ($\approx 20\%$). At times when the plateau is reached the AWF is totally delocalized and not even a signal of a main positive peak is present, which was the case we found in the plateau times of the internal torus case. Negative part is less than $1\%$ of maximum value of AWF. From this results, it is clear that initial condition I1 dynamically preserves the localization of the AWF, especially in the polar angle. This is associated with a certain [*inhibition in the entanglement process*]{}. The difference on the value of the atomic linear entropy between the two initial conditions presented here is clearly related with the delocalization process in both azimuthal and polar angles. Hence, the dynamics of the internal tori is protected against the entropy increase, and this is related with the localization in the polar angle; whereas, the i.c.’s located near the separatix and the border do not have such a dynamical protection. Other initial coherent states with similar characteristics has qualitatively analogous behavior for the ALE. Another characteristic is the clear appearance of some [*sub-planck structures*]{}, namely the structures with considerable amplitudes with their supports in areas much smaller than $\hbar$ in phase space, similar to those discussed by Zurek [@Zurek01]. On the Bloch sphere, the minimum action area ($\hbar$ is taken to be $1$ here) is associated with the size of atomic coherent state (at $t=0$) which defines a minimum-uncertainty packet. This minimum action area can be inferred, for instance, in Fig. \[fig:wai1\](a) and Fig. \[fig:wai2\](a) for N=21. Such sub-planck structures which are peaks confined in areas significantly smaller than the size of the initial packet in the ($\phi,\theta$)-plane appear for instance in Figs \[fig:wai2\](f), \[fig:wan1\](d,f) and \[fig:wan2\](f). It is interesting to note that its appearance is indeed connected with the time where the atomic subsystem has lost its own coherence by entangling with the field. What is remarkable is that, for the integrable case, the entanglement process leaves the AWF with sub-planck structure [*only*]{} for i.c. I2 but not for I1. This is, to one side, AWF counterpart of the [*rapid loss of coherence*]{} that occurs for the wave packet located near the separatrix of motion [@Angelo99], but it is more than simply accelerating the entanglement process: the dynamical instability also generates structures similar to chaotic case as we shall see in the next subsection. Non-integrable case: $G=0.5$ and $G^{\prime}=0.2$ {#subsec:non-int} ------------------------------------------------- Now, we present in Figures \[fig:wan1\]-\[fig:wan2\] our results for the time evolution of the AWF corresponding to the [*non-integrable*]{} case for the conditions N1 (regular region) and N2 (chaotic region). Some similarities between integrable and non-integrable cases can be noticed: first, the connection between oscillatory behavior and a delocalization-localization of AWF are still present even in the chaotic i.c. (N2). This can be seen, for example, in Figs. \[fig:wan2\](c, e), as compared with Fig. \[fig:wan2\](d). There, AWF seems to suffer a “recoil" to a restricted area in ($\phi,\theta$) plane at times which correspond to a minimum in the ALE (corresponding to the behavior of Figs. \[fig:wai2\](c, e) compared with Fig. \[fig:wai2\](d) of the integrable case). Second feature is related with the similar “tori protection” that was found in the integrable case. Comparing the forms of AWF in the plateau region, Fig. \[fig:wan1\](f) and Fig. \[fig:wan2\](f), a more localized AWF (particularly for the positive-valued part) is evident for the first condition (N1) inside the large stability island than the second one (N2) in the chaotic region. Notice that, we also obtain a certain difference for the ALE plateau values in Fig. \[fig:entropies\](b). ![ Shaded contour plot of the atomic Wigner function associated with i.c. N1: (a) initial time; (b) [*first maxima*]{} of corresponding atomic linear entropy (ALE); (c) [*first minimum*]{} of ALE; (d) [*second minimum*]{}; (e) [*third maxima*]{}; (f) $t=70$ at the [*plateau region*]{}. Negative valued regions of AWF are drawn in black.[]{data-label="fig:wan1"}](wan1.eps) ![ Shaded contour plot of the atomic Wigner function associated with i.c. N2: (a) initial time; (b) [*first maxima* ]{} of the corresponding atomic linear entropy (ALE); (c) [*first minimum*]{} of the ALE; (d) [*second maxima*]{}; (e) [*second minima*]{}; (f) $t=70$ at the [*plateau region*]{}. Negative valued regions of AWF are drawn in black.[]{data-label="fig:wan2"}](wan2.eps) The most interesting aspects are the dynamical differences between the two cases. Notice that, in the [*integrable*]{} case, AWF has an azimuthal mirror symmetry: $\phi \rightarrow -\phi$, the $\phi< 0$ region being a mirror image of the $\phi> 0$ region. This symmetry is not present in the [*non-integrable*]{} case. At this point, it is important to recall that this symmetry breaking is already observed in the classical Poincaré section in atomic phase space (see Fig. \[fig:poincare\]). Since we are studying a situation within the large-$N$ limit, this symmetry breaking can be associated with [*quantum chaos*]{} at the level of spectral distribution [@Lewenkopf91]. Another distinguishable feature is the behavior of the sub-planck structures in the AWF. They have appeared in Fig. \[fig:wan1\](b), in spite of the tori protection, and remain for times at the plateau region. The size of this sub-planck structures seems to saturate after the entanglement time, confirming for the present model the results shown by Zurek. Also, it is notable the presence of a larger number of negative sub-planck packets than positive ones, although we do not have any explanation for this fact. Summary {#sec:summary} ======= This work gives a complete analysis of the temporal behavior of the entanglement process in the $N$-JCM in the large-$N$ wave packet dynamics. Previous results have pointed out the sensitivity to initial conditions of the atomic linear entropy. Here, a calculation of the atomic Wigner function allowed us to uncover additional information about the atomic subsystem, not visible in an integrated quantities like the entropy. This allowed us to have a better idea of what is happening to the reduced atomic state during the entanglement process, as a function of both, the type of interactions present (rotating and counter-rotating) and the initial position of the coherent wave-packet. A very conspicuous information obtained in this way, is the dynamics of the amount of the delocalization of the AWF during the entanglement process as a function of both angular variables on the Bloch sphere. Also, we show that the presence of the classical tori structure in the phase space surrounding the center of the coherent wave packet, is an indication at the quantum level of a certain inhibition in the coherence loss. Thus, by breaking the integrability we also break this protection against delocalization in the polar angle for the initial coherent state centered on the internal tori. However, the regular surrounding is still an indication of slower loss of coherence and, apparently the larger the island of stability around the wave packet, stronger is this effect on the quantum wave packet. The symmetry breaking of the AWF for any time ($t>0$) is another characteristic of the non-integrable case. The most interesting aspect is the dynamics of the sub-planck structures: it is completely absent in the regular initial conditions of the integrable situation, but do appear in the long-time (ALE plateau region) behavior for the packet placed near the separatrix of motion. In the non-integrable case, even the wave packets placed inside the regular island do develop sub-planck structures well before the plateau of the ALE is reached, and the chaotic cases show such structures already at the first maximum of the ALE. Such sub-planck structures seems to be directly associated with the destruction of the “tori protection” and faster entanglement due to less restricted dynamics in phase space, thus being an indicator of dynamical instability connected to [*quantum chaos*]{}. It is a pleasure to acknowledge R. M. Angelo for many helpful discussions. We thank financial support from FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) under grant 03/06307-9 and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa, Brazil) under grants 146010/99-0 and 300651/85-6. [40]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} E.P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. [**40**]{}, 749 (1932); M. Hillery et al., Phys. Rep. [**106**]{}, 121 (1997). V.M. Berry in [*Chaotic Behaviour of Deterministic Systems*]{}, Les Houches XXXVI, ed. by Iooss et. al (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983); W.H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 715 (2003);[**outros**]{}. see review by D.-W. Welsch and V. Vogel in [*Progress in Optics*]{} XXXIX, ed. by E. Wolf (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1999) p.65. D. Leibfried et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4281 (1996). P. Bertet et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 200402(2002). D. Leibfried, T. Pfau and C. Monroe, Phys. Today [**22**]{} (1998). M.S. Kim, W. Son, V. Buzek and P.L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 032323 (2002). L.-M. Duan et al Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2722 (2000). R. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2726 (2000). P. Marian et al. J. Phys. A, [**34**]{}, 6969 (2001). J. Lee, M. S. Kim and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 032305 (2000). W. H. Zurek and J. P. Paz, Physica (Amsterdam) D [**83**]{}, 300 (1995). S. Habib, K. Shizume and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4361(1998). W.H. Zurek, Nature [**412**]{}, 712 (2001). R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. [**93**]{}, 99 (1954); see also M. Tavis and F.W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. [**170**]{}, 379 (1968). E.M. Weig [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 046804 (2004). T. Vorrath and T. Brandes, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 035309 (2003). C.H. Lee and N.F. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, ,83001 (2004). A. Blais [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 062320 (2004). A. Wallraff [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**431**]{} 162 (2004). R.A. Barankov and L.S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 04130403 (2004). V.A. Andreev, V. Gurarie and L. Radzihovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 04130402 (2004). E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Proc. IEEE [**51**]{}, 89 (1963); B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, J. Mod. Opt. [**40**]{}, 1195 (1993). , , , , ****, (). E. Solano, R.L. de Matos Filho and N. Zagury, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 060402 (2001). E. Solano, G.S. Agarwal and H. Walther, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 027903 (2003). P. W. Milonni, J. R. Akerhalt, and H. W. Galbraith, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 966 (1983); R. Graham and M. Hönerbach, Z. Phys. B [**57**]{},233 (1984). C.H. Lewenkopf, M.C. Nemes, V. Marvulle, M.P. Pato, and W.F. Wreszinski, Phys. Lett. A [**155**]{}, 113 (1991). M.A.M de Aguiar, K. Furuya, C.H. Lewenkopf, and M.C. Nemes, Ann. Phys. [**216**]{}, 291 (1992); [*ibdem*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**15**]{}, 125 (1991). K. Furuya, M.C. Nemes, and G.Q. Pellegrino, Phys. Rev. Lett [**80**]{} 5524 (1998). , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). C. Emary and T. Brandes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 044101 (2003); Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 42110 (2004); Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 066203 (2003). , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). P. Kramer and M. Saraceno, [*Geometry of the Time-Dependent Variational Principle in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**140**]{} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981). M.A.M. de Aguiar, K. Furuya and M.C. Nemes, Quantum Optics,[**3**]{}, 305-314 (1991). , ****, (). , ****, (). , **, Baker lecture series (, ),

--- abstract: 'It is shown that every Jiang-Su stable approximately subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra has finite decomposition rank. This settles a key direction of the Toms–Winter conjecture for simple approximately subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras. A key step in the proof is that subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras are locally approximated by a certain class of more tractable subhomogeneous algebras, namely, a non-commutative generalization of the class of cell complexes. The result is applied to show finite decomposition rank for crossed product ${\text}C^*$-algebras associated to minimal homeomorphisms with mean dimension zero.' address: - '-George A. Elliott, Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 2E4' - '-Zhuang Niu, Department of Mathematics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA.' - '-Luis Santiago and Aaron Tikuisis, Institute of Mathematics, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, AB24 3UE.' author: - 'George A. Elliott' - Zhuang Niu - Luis Santiago - Aaron Tikuisis title: 'Decomposition rank of approximately subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras' --- Introduction ============ Kirchberg and Winter defined the decomposition rank of a ${\text}C^*$-algebra, marrying the topological concept of Lebesgue covering dimension with the functional-analytic ideas of nuclearity and quasidiagonality. This notion subsequently gained currency, particularly in the programme of classifying ${\text}C^*$-algebras, where finite decomposition rank has been shown to imply strong structural conditions on a ${\text}C^*$-algebra [@BrownWinter:quasitraces; @NgWinter:CFP; @TomsWinter:V1; @Winter:RR0drClass; @Winter:drZstable; @Winter:CrProducts]. The concept of decomposition rank is now enshrined in the so-called Toms-Winter conjecture about simple, separable, unital, nuclear, finite ${\text}C^*$-algebras, which says, in particular, that finite decomposition rank and tensorial absorption of the Jiang-Su algebra ($\mathcal Z$) should be equivalent for such ${\text}C^*$-algebras. At the time that this conjecture was made ([@TomsWinter:V1 Remark 3.5]; see also [@ElliottToms]), the only evidence in support of the component “$\mathcal Z$-absorption implies finite decomposition rank” came very indirectly from classification. For example, Lin’s classification [@Lin:AsympClassification] implies that simple, separable, unital, nuclear, $\mathcal Z$-stable ${\text}C^*$-algebras which satisfy the UCT and rationally have tracial rank at most one have decomposition rank at most two. A more general classification result, due to Gong, Lin, and one of us (Z.N.), continues to imply finite decomposition rank for the larger class of ${\text}C^*$-algebras in which rational tracial rank one is weakened to rationally tracially approximated by point–line algebras [@GongLinNiu]. The problem of showing directly that $\mathcal Z$-absorption implies finite decomposition rank (and in particular, avoiding appealing to simplicity or the UCT) has proven a pivotal problem, which has spurred the introduction of novel techniques in two very different streams of attack. On the one hand, for non-simple ${\text}C^*$-algebras of a very particular form—namely, algebras ${\text}C(X) \otimes \mathcal Z$ (and by permanence properties, also limits of ${\text}C^*$-algebras Morita equivalent to these)—a direct computation, giving decomposition rank at most two, was obtained by one of us (A.T.) and Winter [@TW:Zdr], using quasidiagonality of the cone over $\mathcal O_2$, together with a one-dimensional approximation result inside ${\text}C(Y) \otimes \mathcal O_2$ due to Kirchberg and Rørdam [@KirchbergRordam:pi3]. (The present paper uses this result.) On the other hand, for simple, quasidiagonal ${\text}C^*$-algebras, techniques inspired by—and building on—Connes’s proof that injective von Neumann algebras are hyperfinite have been developed by Matui and Sato in the unique trace case [@MatuiSato:dr], and subsequently by Bosa, Brown, Sato, Tikuisis, White, and Winter in the case of compact extreme trace space (where the hypothesis of quasidiagonality needs to be strengthened slightly) [@BBSTWW] (see also [@SWW:Znucdim]). For the class considered in [@BBSTWW], the optimal decomposition rank estimate of one was proven. The present article builds on the $\mathcal Z$-stabilized commutative case dealt with in [@TW:Zdr], showing how to replace the algebra ${\text}C(X)$ by an arbitrary subhomogeneous algebra, i.e., a ${\text}C^*$-algebra for which there is a finite bound on the (Hilbert space) dimension of its irreducible representations. The main result is as follows. \[thm:MainThmA\] Let $A$ be a locally subhomogeneous, $\mathcal Z$-stable ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Then ${\mathrm{dr}}A \leq 2$. This result is novel even in the case of simple, unital, separable, locally subhomogeneous, $\mathcal Z$-stable ${\text}C^*$-algebras. With this result, it is now possible to prove that such ${\text}C^*$-algebras are classifiable; more on this below. The class of simple locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras is very broad: it is known to include many natural examples (see the introduction to [@Toms:rigidity]), it exhausts the range of the Elliott invariant [@Elliott:ashrange]. There are no simple, separable, nuclear, stably finite ${\text}C^*$-algebras which are known to lie outside the class of locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras. While there is some overlap between the class of ${\text}C^*$-algebras in this theorem and in the result of [@BBSTWW] (namely, all simple, locally subhomogeneous algebras with compact extreme trace space), the two results mostly complement each other. The present theorem allows non-simple ${\text}C^*$-algebras, and even in the simple case, allows ${\text}C^*$-algebras with non-compact extreme trace space. On the other hand, the result of [@BBSTWW], where it applies, gives an optimal bound of one instead of two for the decomposition rank. (Also, the result in [@BBSTWW] holds under (potentially) much weaker hypotheses than local subhomogeneity—not even the UCT is required.) In a striking application of our main result, we show in Section \[sec:CrossedProd\] that it applies to the UHF-stabilization of a minimal $\mathbb Z$-crossed product, by using an argument involving Berg’s technique. Using this result, Lin has shown that $\mathcal Z$-stable minimal $\mathbb Z$-crossed products are classifiable [@Lin:CrossedClass]; this includes all crossed products given by minimal homeomorphisms with mean dimension zero by [@ElliottNiu:MeanDim0]. Our proof of Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\] consists of two major steps. The first step consists in proving the following result, which is perhaps of independent interest. \[thm:ApproxCellA\] Let $A$ be a unital subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Then $A$ is locally approximated by non-commutative cell complexes. Moreover, when $A$ is separable, the topological dimension of the approximating non-commutative cell complexes is equal to the topological dimension of $A$. The non-commutative cell complexes in this result, defined formally in Section \[sec:NCcellDef\], are special subhomogeneous algebras, akin to the non-commutative CW complexes of Eilers-Loring-Pedersen, though slightly more general for technical reasons. As the name suggests, they arise by gluing together matrix algebras over spaces $D^n$ along the boundaries $S^{n-1}$. What is most important here is that the boundary $S^{n-1}$ is a neighbourhood retract in $D^n$. The topological dimension of a separable subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra measures a sort of dimension of its primitive ideal space, and agrees with the decomposition rank of the ${\text}C^*$-algebra; see Definition \[def:TopDim\]. Theorem \[thm:ApproxCellA\] is a non-commutative analogue of the result that $n$-dimensional compact metrizable spaces are inverse limits of finite $n$-dimensional CW complexes. Just as CW complexes form a class of spaces that are amenable to deep analysis, so too are the non-commutative cell complexes of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCellA\]. Their tractable structure allows them to be used to prove Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\]. The author A.T. has also made use of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCellA\], in an argument that shows that $C(X,\mathcal Q)$ is not locally approximated by subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras of topological dimension less than the dimension of $X$, where $\mathcal Q$ is the universal UHF algebra [@CXDecomp]. Generalizing the result that cell complexes are absolute neighbourhood retracts, we demonstrate that our non-commutative cell complexes satisfy a restricted semiprojectivity condition (Theorem \[thm:CellRSHSemiproj\]); this condition then plays a key role in the proof of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCellA\]. From the proof that a subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra is locally approximated by non-commutative cell complexes, ideas are borrowed to also prove that any $\mathcal W$-stabilized, locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra is an inductive limit of point–line algebras (Theorem \[thm:WASH\]), where $\mathcal W$ is the stably projectionless ${\text}C^*$-algebra studied in [@Jacelon:R]; this result builds on the case of ${\text}C(X) \otimes \mathcal W$, which was handled by one of us (L.S.) in [@Santiago:DimRed]. The second step in proving Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\] is to show that the $\mathcal Z$-stabilization of a non-commutative cell complex has decomposition rank at most $2$. In fact, in this part, we are able to directly reduce to the problem of the decomposition rank of $\mathcal Z$-stabilized commutative ${\text}C^*$-algebras (which was solved in [@TW:Zdr]), by turning coloured c.p.c. approximations (as in the definition of decomposition rank) of certain commutative ${\text}C^*$-algebras into coloured c.p.c. approximations of non-commutative cell complexes (Theorem \[thm:drBound\]). The commutative ${\text}C^*$-algebras arise in a sort of mapping cone construction involving the eigenvalue patterns of the gluing maps. The cell structure is absolutely essential, as it allows us to relate these non-commutative ${\text}C^*$-algebras to such commutative algebras. The latest results concerning particular values of the decomposition rank suggest that the only possible values in the simple case are $0,1,$ and $\infty$ (to be precise, this is what is shown in [@BBSTWW] in the case of compact extreme tracial boundary). It is unclear whether the upper bound of two, proven here, is optimal for non-simple, $\mathcal Z$-stable, locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras. Our result shows, however, that this depends purely on whether a better bound can be found for ${\text}C(X) \otimes \mathcal Z$. That is, if the bound of two found in [@TW:Zdr] is improved to one (which would be optimal, since decomposition rank zero implies AF), then the same estimate applies to $\mathcal Z$-stable, locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras. Building on the results here, the authors G.A.E. and Z.N., in collaboration with Guihua Gong and Huaxin Lin, have gone on to prove that simple, separable unital, $\mathcal Z$-stable, locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras are rationally tracially approximated by point–line algebras [@EGLN:ASH], and are thereby classified by the results of [@GongLinNiu]. Their result depends on both Theorems \[thm:MainThmA\] and \[thm:ApproxCellA\]. It follows that every simple, separable, unital, $\mathcal Z$-stable, locally subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra is an inductive limit of subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras of topological dimension at most two (this does not constitute an alternative proof of Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\] since it uses said theorem). Acknowledgements ---------------- A.T. had numerous long discussions with Wilhelm Winter about the main problem solved in this article. We would like to thank Wilhelm Winter for these, and for comments on early versions of the article. We would also like to acknowledge Rob Archbold, Etienne Blanchard, Huaxin Lin, Chris Phillips, and Stuart White for discussions and comments that helped to shape this paper. G.A.E. has been supported by NSERC. Z.N. has been supported by NSERC, a start-up grant from the University of Wyoming, and a Simons Foundation collaboration grant. L.S. has been supported by the University of Toronto and a start-up grant from the University of Aberdeen. A.T. has been supported by NSERC and a start-up grant from the University of Aberdeen. All authors were supported by the Fields Institute through the “Thematic program on abstract harmonic analysis, Banach and operator algebras.” Work on this article advanced perceptibly at the EPSRC- and LMS-funded conference “Classification, structure, amenability, and regularity” in Glasgow, and at the BIRS workshop “Dynamics and ${\text}C^*$-algebras: amenability and soficity.” Preliminaries and notation {#sec:Notation} -------------------------- Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Denote the positive cone of $A$ by $A_+$. For $a,b \in A$ and ${\epsilon}> 0$, write $a \approx_{\epsilon}b$ to mean $\|a-b\|<{\epsilon}$. If $\mathcal F,B\subset A$ with $\mathcal F$ finite, and ${\epsilon}> 0$, write $\mathcal F \subset_{\epsilon}B$ to mean that for every $a \in \mathcal F$, $$\mathrm{dist}(a,B) < {\epsilon}.$$ For a unital ${\text}C^*$-algebra $A$, let $U(A)$ denote the unitary group. Write $M_m$ for $M_m(\mathbb C)$ and $U_m$ for $U(M_m(\mathbb C))$. If $A,B$ are unital ${\text}C^*$-algebras, let us consider ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,B)$, the space of *unital* ${}^*$-homomorphisms from $A$ to $B$, with the point-norm topology. Provided that $A$ is separable, this topology on ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,B)$ is metrizable. For a compact Hausdorff space $X$, there is a one-to-one correspondence between ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,{\text}C(X,B))$ and ${\text}C(X,{\mathrm{Hom}}(A,B))$, defined as follows. For $\phi \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,{\text}C(X,B))$, define $\hat\phi \in {\text}C(X,{\mathrm{Hom}}(A,B))$ by $$\hat\phi(x)(a) := \phi(a)(x),\quad x\in X,\ a \in A.$$ Thus, if $Y$ is a closed subspace of $X$ and $r_Y\colon {\text}C(X,B) \to {\text}C(Y,B)$ denotes the restriction map, then for $\phi \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,{\text}C(X,B))$, $$(r_Y \circ \phi)\hspace*{-3pt}\hat{\phantom{)}} = \hat\phi|_Y.$$ Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra and let $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$. One says that the **decomposition rank** of $A$ is at most $n$ (in abbreviated form, ${\mathrm{dr}}A \leq n$) if, for every finite subset $\mathcal F$ of $A$ and every ${\epsilon}> 0$, there exist finite dimensional ${\text}C^*$-algebras $F_0,\dots,F_n$ and c.p.c. maps $$A {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\psi} F_0 \oplus \cdots \oplus F_n {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\phi} A$$ such that $\phi|_{F_i}$ is orthogonality preserving (also called order zero), and $\phi(\psi(a)) \approx_{\epsilon}a$ for every $a \in \mathcal F$. A ${\text}C^*$-algebra $A$ is **subhomogeneous** if there is a finite upper bound on the dimension of the irreducible representations of $A$. Let $A$ be a subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra and denote by ${\mathrm{Prim}}(A)$ the space of primitive ideals of $A$ with the hull-kernel topology (see [@Pedersen:CstarBook Chapter 3]). Then the subset $${\mathrm{Prim}}_{\leq k}(A) := \{\ker\pi \mid \pi \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k'})\text{ is irreducible, }k' \leq k\}$$ is a closed subspace of ${\mathrm{Prim}}(A)$. Moreover, $${\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A) = {\mathrm{Prim}}_{\leq k}(A) {\backslash}{\mathrm{Prim}}_{\leq k-1}(A)$$ is a Hausdorff subspace of ${\mathrm{Prim}}(A)$, and the subquotient $$A|_{{\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A)}$$ is a $k$-homogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra (i.e., every irreducible representation has dimension exactly $k$). (To define $A|_{{\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A)}$, recall that closed sets in ${\mathrm{Prim}}(A)$ correspond to ideals, in a containment-reversing fashion; thus, $A|_{{\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A)}$ is the quotient of the ideal corresponding to ${\mathrm{Prim}}_{\leq k-1}(A)$ by the ideal corresponding to ${\mathrm{Prim}}_{\leq k}(A)$.) \[def:TopDim\] If $A$ is a separable subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra then the **topological dimension** of $A$ refers to the value $$\max_k \dim {\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A).$$ We stick to the separable case in the above definition, due to the following subtlety in the non-separable case: If a locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ is not second countable, the nuclear dimension of $C_0(X)$ is not equal to the covering dimension of $X$. If the definition of Lebesgue covering dimension is modified by replacing “an open set of $X$” by “a set of the form $f^{-1}(U)$ where $f\in C_0(X,{\mathbb{R}})$ and $U\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ is open,” then the resulting notion of “dimension” of $X$ agrees with the nuclear dimension of $C_0(X)$. This notion of dimension would also be the correct one to use in Definition \[def:TopDim\], in order for, say Theorem \[thm:drSHOrig\] to generalize to non-separable algebras. Rob Archbold pointed out to us the following connection to the primitive ideal space (as a topological space without additional structure). Brown and Pedersen gave another definition of topological dimension in [@BrownPedersen:Limits 2.2 (v)], valid for any $\mathrm C^*$-algebra, which agrees with the definition just given in the subhomogeneous case, by [@BrownPedersen:Limits Proposition 2.4]. Incidentally, this shows that the topological dimension is a function of the primitive ideal space—although it is not the covering dimension of the primitive ideal space. \[thm:drSHOrig\] If $A$ is a separable subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra then the topological dimension, nuclear dimension, and decomposition rank of $A$ coincide. As pointed out above, separability is not needed, provided that topological dimension is defined appropriately in the non-separable case. In Corollary \[cor:drSH\], we give an alternative proof of this theorem. Let $\mathcal C$ be a class of ${\text}C^*$-algebras and let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Let us say that $A$ is **locally approximated** by (algebras in) $\mathcal C$ (or simply, locally $\mathcal C$) if, for every finite subset $\mathcal F$ of $A$ and every ${\epsilon}> 0$, there exists a subalgebra $C \subseteq A$ such that $C \in \mathcal C$ and $\mathcal F \subset_{\epsilon}C$. In particular, **locally subhomogeneous** means locally approximated by the class of subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras. Here is a well-known result which is clear from the definition of decomposition rank. \[prop:drLocal\] If $A$ is locally approximated by a class $\mathcal C$ then $${\mathrm{dr}}(A) \leq \sup_{C \in \mathcal C} {\mathrm{dr}}(C).$$ Pull-backs exist in the category of ${\text}C^*$-algebras, and in many places we shall use an explicit realization of them, which we describe now. Let $A,B,C$ be ${\text}C^*$-algebras and let $\alpha\colon A \to C, \beta\colon B \to C$ be ${}^*$-homomorphisms. Set $$D := \{(a,b) \in A \oplus B \mid \alpha(a) = \beta(b)\},$$ and let $\pi_A\colon D \to A$ and $\pi_B\colon D \to B$ denote the first and second coordinate projections. Then $$\xymatrix{ D \ar[r]^-{\pi_A} \ar[d]_{\pi_B} & A \ar[d]^-{\alpha} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\beta} & C}$$ is a pull-back diagram. Non-commutative cell complexes ============================== Non-commutative cell complexes are introduced in this section, and it is shown that all subhomogeneous algebras can be locally approximated by these. This result can be viewed as a (non-commutatively) generalized—though weakened—version of the result that $n$-dimensional compact metrizable spaces are inverse limits of $n$-dimensional simplicial complexes. In particular, as in this topological result, our result has the feature that the topological dimension of the approximating subalgebras is controlled by the dimension of the given subhomogeneous algebra. With regard to how it is weakened, the (non-commutative) result is more like saying that $n$-dimensional compact metrizable spaces are inverse limits of $n$-dimensional cell complexes. As with the commutative case, the result provides building blocks for (approximately) subhomogeneous algebras that are much more tractable and amenable to further analysis (e.g., Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\], [@EGLN:ASH; @Robert:NCCW; @CXDecomp]), compared to general subhomogeneous algebras—or even to Phillips’s recursive subhomogeneous algebras. In proving this approximation theorem, a key result is that non-commutative cell complexes are semiprojective with respect to ${\text}C^*$-algebras of the form ${\text}C(X,M_m)$, for any fixed $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. This result is a generalization of the classical fact that finite cell complexes are absolute neighbourhood retracts; recalling the fact that a compact Hausdorff space $X$ is an absolute neighbourhood retract if and only if ${\text}C(X)$ is semiprojective with respect to the class of unital commutative ${\text}C^*$-algebras, we see that this classical result is the special case that the non-commutative cell complex is commutative and $m=1$. In fact, the proof of the new semiprojectivity result is inspired by the proof in the classical case (see [@Hatcher Appendix A], particularly Corollary A.10, which deals with CW complexes, although the arguments work for finite cell complexes). The classical proof entails showing (i) that cell complexes embed into Euclidean space (equivalently, they have finite topological dimension) and (ii) that cell complexes are locally contractible. Then [@Hatcher Theorem A.7] implies that they embed into Euclidean space as neighbourhood retracts, which implies that they are absolute neighbourhood retracts. Here, using the correspondence between ${}^*$-homomorphisms $A\to {\text}C(X,M_m)$ and continuous maps $X \to {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$, the semiprojectivity result is equivalent to showing that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is an absolute neighbourhood retract, and as in the classical case, we appeal to [@Hatcher Theorem A.7], requiring us to show that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ has finite topological dimension and is locally contractible. Showing that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is finite dimensional is fairly straightforward. Showing that it is locally contractible is somewhat more involved, although the idea behind the commutative case underpins even that argument. Definition of non-commutative cell complexes {#sec:NCcellDef} -------------------------------------------- Non-commutative cell complexes are defined as recursive subhomogeneous algebras (as in [@Phillips:RSH Definition 1.1]) for which the gluing pairs are always of the form $S^{n-1} \subset D^n$. Here is a formal definition. The class of (unital) **non-commutative (NC) cell complexes** is the smallest class $\mathcal C$ of ${\text}C^*$-algebras such that: \(i) every finite dimensional algebra is in $\mathcal C$; and \(ii) if $B \in \mathcal C$, $k,n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\phi\colon B \to {\text}C(S^{n-1},M_k)$ is a unital ${}^*$-homomorphism, and $A$ is given by the pull-back diagram $$\label{eq:NCcellDefpb} \xymatrix{ A \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\text}C(D^n,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{S^{n-1}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(S^{n-1}, M_k), }$$ then $A \in \mathcal C$. \[rmk:NCcellDef\] (i) Of course, every NC cell complex can be constructed by finitely many iterated pull-backs as in . The topological dimension of an NC cell complex is precisely the largest value of $n$ such that $D^n$ appears in one of these pull-backs. (Note that one need not take the minimum over all possible decompositions, since if at one stage, $D^n$ appears, then the algebra at this stage is a quotient of the final algebra, and its topological dimension is at least $n$.) \(ii) A commutative ${\text}C^*$-algebra is an NC cell complex if and only if it is isomorphic to $C(X)$ for some finite cell complex $X$. \(iii) The definition of NC cell complexes is closely related to the definition, due to Eilers-Loring-Pedersen, of NCCW complexes [@EilersLoringPedersen:NCCW Section 2.4]: all NCCW complexes are NC cell complexes, although the converse does not hold (see example below). It is not hard to see that all NC cell complexes of topological dimension at most one are, in fact, one-dimensional NCCW complexes (these have elsewhere been called point–line algebras and occur prominently in the classification results of [@GongLinNiu] and [@Robert:NCCW]). This fails, even in the commutative case, in dimension two. For example, let $\alpha\colon S^1 \to D^2$ be a space-filling curve, and then define $X$ by the push-forward diagram $$\xymatrix{ X & D^2 \ar[l] \\ D^2 \ar[u] & S^1, \ar[l]_-{\alpha} \ar@{^{(}->}[u] }$$ so that $X$ is a (finite) cell complex (i.e., ${\text}C(X)$ is an NC cell complex) but not a CW complex (i.e., ${\text}C(X)$ is not an NCCW complex—since every commutative NCCW complex is equal to ${\text}C(X)$ for a CW complex $X$). Basic facts about ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ ----------------------------------------- In preparation for the proof of our semiprojectivity result for NC cell complexes, we will prove a number of results about ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$, particularly applicable when $A$ is subhomogeneous. A finite dimensional representation of a ${\text}C^*$-algebra decomposes as a direct sum of irreducible representations; we introduce notation to keep combinatorial track of such decompositions. Fix $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Define $$\begin{aligned} \notag T_m &:= \{\alpha = (k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p) \in \mathbb N_{>0}^{2p} \mid \\ &\qquad p \in {\mathbb{N}}\text{ and }k_1\alpha_1 + \cdots + k_p\alpha_p = m\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $A$ be a unital ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Then for $\alpha=(k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p) \in T_m, u \in U_m$, and $\pi_i \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k_i})$ for $i=1,\dots,p$, define $$\begin{aligned} \notag \sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)} &:= {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1 \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p \otimes 1_{\alpha_p}) \\ \label{eq:sigmaDef} &\qquad \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m).\end{aligned}$$ For $\alpha=(k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p) \in T_m$, define $$\begin{aligned} \notag H_\alpha := \{\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)} \mid & u \in U_m\text{ and } \\ &\pi_i \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k_i})\text{ for }i=1,\dots,p\},\end{aligned}$$ and let $H_\alpha^{\mathrm{pure}}$ denote the subset of $H_\alpha$ consisting of those $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$ for which $\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p$ are mutually inequivalent, irreducible representations. For a ${\text}C^*$-algebra $A$ which is not assumed to be unital, use ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m)$ to denote the set of ${}^*$-homomorphisms whose image contains the unit (this coincides with ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ if $A$ is unital), and define $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$, $H_\alpha$, and $H^{\mathrm{pure}}_\alpha$ as in the unital case, with ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m)$ in place of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$. \[prop:sigmaCts\] Fix $\alpha = (k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p) \in T_m$ and a unital ${\text}C^*$-algebra $A$. Then the map $U_m \times {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k_1}) \times \cdots \times {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k_p}) \to {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ given by $$(u,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p) \mapsto \sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$$ is continuous. Obvious. \[lem:sigmaUnitaryKernel\] Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Fix $\alpha = (k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p) \in T_m$, and fix pairwise inequivalent irreducible representations $\pi_i \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_{k_i})$ for $i=1,\dots,p$. Then for $u,v \in U_m$, $$\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)} \approx \sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$$ if and only if $uv^*$ is approximately contained in $$U(1_{k_1} \otimes M_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes M_{\alpha_p}) = 1_{k_1} \otimes U_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes U_{\alpha_p}.$$ To be more precise: \(i) Given $\mathcal F \subset A$ finite and ${\epsilon}> 0$, there exists ${\delta}> 0$ such that if $u,v \in U_m$ and $$d(uv^*,1_{k_1} \otimes U_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes U_{\alpha_p}) < {\delta}$$ then $$\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}(a) \approx_{\epsilon}\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}(a)$$ for all $a \in \mathcal F$; and \(ii) Given ${\epsilon}> 0$, there exists $\mathcal F \subset A$ finite and ${\delta}> 0$, such that if $u,v \in U_m$ and $$\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}(a) \approx_{\delta}\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}(a)$$ for all $a \in \mathcal F$, then $$\label{eq:sigmaUnitaryKernelEq} d(uv^*,1_{k_1} \otimes U_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes U_{\alpha_p}) < {\epsilon}.$$ Note that, by , $$\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}(a) \approx_{\epsilon}\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}(a)$$ is equivalent to saying that $$\|[uv^*, {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p})]\| < {\epsilon}.$$ (i): Given $\mathcal F$ finite and ${\epsilon}> 0$, set $M:= \max_{a \in \mathcal F} \|a\|$ and then $${\delta}:= \frac{\epsilon}{2M}.$$ Then if $u,v \in U_m$ and $$uv^* \approx_{\delta}w \in 1_{k_1} \otimes U_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes U_{\alpha_p},$$ then for $a \in A$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \hspace*{-10mm} uv^* {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p}) \\ \notag &\qquad \approx_{{\epsilon}/2} w {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p}) \\ \notag &\qquad = {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p})w \\ &\qquad \approx_{{\epsilon}/2} {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p})uv^*,\end{aligned}$$ as required. (ii): On the other hand, suppose we are given ${\epsilon}> 0$. Since being a unitary is a stable relation, it suffices to find $\mathcal F$ and ${\delta}>0$ such that, instead of , we have $$d(uv^*,1_{k_1} \otimes M_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes M_{\alpha_p}) < {\epsilon}.$$ By our hypothesis on $\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p$, we may choose $\mathcal F \subset A$ finite such that the set $$\{{\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p}) \mid a \in \mathcal F\}$$ generates $$D:= M_{k_1} \otimes 1_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus M_{k_p} \otimes 1_{\alpha_p}$$ as a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Therefore (and using the fact that $D$ is finite dimensional), we may pick ${\delta}>0$ so that if $w$ is unitary and $$\|[w, {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_1(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_1},\dots,\pi_p(a) \otimes 1_{\alpha_p})]\| < {\delta}$$ for every $a \in \mathcal F$ then $$\|[w,x]\| < {\epsilon}$$ for every contraction $x \in D$. By applying the conditional expectation onto $$M_m \cap D' = 1_{k_1} \otimes M_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes M_{\alpha_p},$$ we see that this implies that $$d(w,M_m \cap D') < {\epsilon},$$ as required. \[prop:TOrder\] Let $\alpha = (k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p) ,\beta = ({l}_1,\beta_1,\dots,{l}_q,\beta_q) \in T_m$. The following statements are equivalent: 1. $H_\alpha \subseteq H_\beta$; 2. There exists $S \in M_{p \times q}(\mathbb N)$ such that $$\begin{pmatrix} k_1 \\ \vdots \\ k_p \end{pmatrix} = S\begin{pmatrix} {l}_1 \\ \vdots \\ {l}_q \end{pmatrix}\quad\text{and}\quad \begin{pmatrix} \beta_1 \\ \vdots \\ \beta_q \end{pmatrix} = S^{\text{tr}} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_1 \\ \vdots \\ \alpha_p \end{pmatrix}.$$ If $H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha$ is non-empty, then these are also equivalent to 1. $H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha \cap H_\beta \neq {\varnothing}$. Also, $H_\alpha = H_\beta$ if and only if $p=q$ and there exists a permutation $\rho$ on $\{1,\dots,p\}$ such that $$k_i = {l}_{\rho(i)} \quad\text{and}\quad \alpha_i=\beta_{\rho(i)}$$ for all $i=1,\dots,p$. Straightforward. \[prop:AllRepsPure\] Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Then ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m) = \bigcup_{\alpha \in T_m} H^{\mathrm{pure}}_\alpha$. Obvious. Dimension of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ ------------------------------------ \[lem:HomDecomp\] Let $A$ be a unital separable subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra such that $A|_{{\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A)}$ is locally trivial for each $k$. Let $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then there exist $q$ and a finite increasing sequence of sets, $${\varnothing}= Z_0 \subset Z_1 \subset \cdots \subset Z_q = {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$$ such that: \(i) $Z_i$ is closed for each $i$; and \(ii) For each $\sigma \in Z_i {\backslash}Z_{i-1}$, there exists a neighbourhood $W$ of $\sigma$ in $Z_i {\backslash}Z_{i-1}$ (that is, $W$ is relatively open in $Z_i$) which is homeomorphic to $$V \times W_1 \times \cdots \times W_p$$ where \(a) $V = U_m/G$ where $G$ is a Lie subgroup of $U_m$; \(b) $p \leq m$; and \(c) For each $j=1,\dots,m'$, $W_j$ is a relatively open subset of ${\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A)$ for some $k$. Consider the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $T_m$ given by $\alpha \sim \beta$ if $H_\alpha = H_\beta$. Enumerate one representative for each equivalence class as $\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^q \in T_m$, in such a way that for each $i,j$, if $H_{\alpha^i} \subseteq H_{\alpha^j}$ then $i \leq j$. Then, define $$Z_i := \bigcup_{j \leq i} H_{\alpha_j}.$$ Since $U_m$ and ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k})$ are compact spaces, Proposition \[prop:sigmaCts\] implies that $H_\alpha$ is closed for each $\alpha$. Consequently, $Z_i$ is closed. By Propositions \[prop:TOrder\] and \[prop:AllRepsPure\], $$Z_i {\backslash}Z_{i-1} = H^{\text{pure}}_{\alpha^i}.$$ So, in order to establish (ii), we must show that every element of $H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha$ has a neighbourhood in $H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha$ of the form described in (ii). For this, fix $\alpha = (k_1,\alpha_1,\dots,k_p,\alpha_p)$ and let $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)} \in H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha$. For each $i$, let $W_i$ be a neighbourhood of $[\pi_i]$ in ${\mathrm{Prim}}_{k_i}(A)$ such that $A|_{W_i}$ is trivial, and such that $W_i \cap W_j = {\varnothing}$ whenever $i \neq j$. Since $A|_{W_i}$ is trivial, let $\dot W_i \subset {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_{k_i})$ be such that $\pi_i\in \dot W_i$ and $\pi \mapsto [\pi]$ is a homeomorphism from $\dot W_i$ onto $W_i$. $W_i$ being open in ${\mathrm{Prim}}_{k_i}(A)$ means that $W_i \cup {\mathrm{Prim}}_{>k_i}(A)$ is open in ${\mathrm{Prim}}(A)$. Using the fact that $A$ is separable, we may therefore find $a_i \in A$ such that, for each irreducible representation $\pi$ of $A$, $\pi(a_i) = 0$ if and only if $[\pi] \in {\mathrm{Prim}}_{\leq k_i}(A) {\backslash}W_i$. Set $$V:=U_m/(1_{k_1} \otimes U_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes U_{\alpha_p}).$$ Define $$W := \{\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')} \mid [v] \in V, \pi_i' \in \dot W_i\text{ for all }i=1,\dots,p\}.$$ Let us first show that $W$ is a neighbourhood of $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$ in $H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha$. Let $\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')} \in H^{\text{pure}}_\alpha$ be close to $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$. If it is close enough, then $$\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')}(a_i) \neq 0,$$ and therefore, for some $j$, $[\pi_j'] \in W_i$. By the pigeonhole principle, permuting indices, we may assume that $[\pi_i'] \in W_i$ for each $i$. Replacing $\pi_i'$ by a unitarily equivalent homomorphism (altering $v$ in the process), we may then assume that $\pi_i' \in \dot W_i$ for each $i$. This concludes the proof that $W$ is a neighbourhood of $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$. Now define $\Phi\colon V \times \dot W_1 \times \cdots \times \dot W_p \to W$ in the obvious way, by $$\Phi([v],\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p') = \sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')}.$$ This is continuous by Proposition \[prop:sigmaCts\], and it is clearly surjective. Since the sets $W_1,\dots,W_p$ are disjoint, and by Lemma \[lem:sigmaUnitaryKernel\], $\Phi$ is also injective. Let us show that that $\Phi$ is open. Suppose that $\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')} \approx \sigma_{\alpha,w,(\pi_1'',\dots,\pi_p'')}$. Then the argument for why $W$ is a neighbourhood of $\sigma_{\alpha,u,(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_p)}$ shows that, up to a permutation, we have $\pi_i' \approx \pi_i''$ for all $i$. Thus $$\sigma_{\alpha,v,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')} \approx \sigma_{\alpha,w,(\pi_1'',\dots,\pi_p'')} \approx \sigma_{\alpha,w,(\pi_1',\dots,\pi_p')},$$ so by Lemma \[lem:sigmaUnitaryKernel\], $vw^*$ is approximately contained in $1_{k_1} \otimes U_{\alpha_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus 1_{k_p} \otimes U_{\alpha_p}$, i.e., $[v] \approx [w]$ in $V$. This shows that $\Phi$ is open. Since $W_i$ is homeomorphic to $\dot W_i$, we conclude that $W$ is homeomorphic to $V \times W_1 \times \cdots \times W_p$, as required. \[cor:HomndDim\] Let $A$ be a unital separable subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebra of finite topological dimension, and let $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ has finite dimension. Suppose that $A$ has topological dimension at most $n$, so that ${\mathrm{Prim}}_k(A)$ has dimension at most $n$ for each $k$, and hence by [@Phillips:RSH Theorem 2.16], it satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[lem:HomDecomp\]. Note also that any quotient of $U_m$ by a Lie subgroup has dimension at most $m^2$. From Proposition \[lem:HomDecomp\] and standard permanence properties for dimension, it follows directly that $$\dim {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m) \leq m^2n^m.$$ Local contractibility of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ ------------------------------------------------ To outline the argument here, consider the purely commutative case: ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,\mathbb C)$ where $A$ is commutative (note that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(C(X),\mathbb C) \cong X$). In order to show that a cell complex is locally contractible, one may use induction, showing that any point on the boundary of a newly-attached cell has small neighbourhoods, each of which can be retracted to a contractible neighbourhood of the old complex (see [@Hatcher Proposition A.4] and its proof). This is the idea behind showing that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is locally contractible when $A$ is a non-commutative cell complex, although even in the case that $A$ is commutative, the argument is more complicated: if $A={\text}C(Y)$, then homomorphisms from $A$ to $M_m$ are parametrized by an $m$-tuple of points in $Y$ together with a unitary $u\in M_m$ (each homomorphism is the direct sum of point-evaluations, conjugated by a unitary), so part of the argument is that the space of $m$-multisets of points in $Y$ is locally contractible. For more general non-commutative cell complexes, we have a similar picture, but with “points in $Y$” replaced by irreducible representations. These need to be handled carefully, chiefly because of the non-Hausdorff nature of the space of irreducible representations. The result, in the case that $A$ is commutative (or a matrix algebra over such), turns out to be a necessary stepping stone to the overall result, and we prove this special case now. Recall that ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m)$ denotes the space of ${}^*$-homomorphisms whose image contains the unit. We recall from topology that a **deformation retraction** of a space $X$ onto a subspace $Y$ is a continuous function $$r = (r_t)_{t\in [0,1]}\colon [0,1] \times X \to X$$ such that $r_0 = \mathrm{id}_X$, $r_1(X) = Y$, and $r_1|_Y = \mathrm{id}_Y$. Thus, a space $X$ is contractible to a point $x_0$ exactly when there exists a deformation retraction from $X$ to $\{x_0\}$. \[lem:HomXMkLocContr\] Let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space. If $X$ is locally contractible then so also is ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(X,M_k),M_{sk})$ for any $k,s \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Using $\alpha := (1,1,\dots,1,1) \in {\mathbb{N}}^{2s}$, note that ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(X,M_k),M_{sk}) = H_\alpha$. To keep notation more concise, write $$\begin{aligned} \check\sigma_{u,(x_1,\dots,x_s)} &:= \sigma_{\alpha,u,({\mathrm{ev}}_{x_1},\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{x_s})} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(X,M_k),M_{ks})\end{aligned}$$ for $x_1,\dots,x_s \in X$ and $u \in U_{sk}$. Consider a point $\sigma = \check\sigma_{u,(x_1,\dots,x_s)} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(X,M_k),M_{sk})$. Choose, for each $x \in \{x_1,\dots,x_s\}$, an arbitrarily small contractible neighbourhood $V_x$ of $x$, such that $V_x \cap V_y = {\varnothing}$ whenever $x \neq y$. Fix a deformation retraction $\alpha_x\colon [0,1] \times V_x \to V_x$ of $V_x$ onto $\{x\}$, (Note that, by our choice of notation, if $x_i=x_j$ then $V_{x_i}=V_{x_j}$ and $\alpha_{x_i}=\alpha_{x_j}$.) Let ${\epsilon}> 0$ be small (to be determined). Define $\tilde U \subset U_{sk} \times X^s$ to consist of those points $(v,(y_1,\dots,y_s))$ for which there exist a unitary $u' \in U_{sk}$ such that 1. $\sigma = \check\sigma_{u',(x_1,\dots,x_s)}$; 2. $\|v-u'\| < {\epsilon}$; and 3. $y_i \in V_{x_i}$ for each $i$. The set $$U:= \{\check\sigma_{v,(y_1,\dots,y_s)} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(X,M_k),M_{sk}) \mid (v,(y_1,\dots,y_s)) \in \tilde U\}$$ is an open neighbourhood of $a$, and by making $V_1,\dots,V_s$ and ${\epsilon}$ small enough, we make this neighbourhood arbitrarily small. Define $\widetilde W \subset U_{sk} \times X^s$ to consist of those points $(v,(x_1,\dots,x_s))$ for which there exist a unitary $u' \in U_{sk}$ such that 1. $\sigma = \check\sigma_{u',(x_1,\dots,x_s)}$; and 2. $\|v-u'\| < {\epsilon}$, and set $$W:= \{\check\sigma_{v,(x_1,\dots,x_s)} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(X,M_k),M_{sk}) \mid (v,(x_1,\dots,x_s)) \in \widetilde W\}.$$ Define $\tilde\beta = (\tilde\beta_t)\colon [0,1] \times \tilde U \to \tilde U$ as follows. Given $(v,(y_1,\dots,y_s)) \in \tilde U$, define $$\tilde\beta_t(v,(y_1,\dots,y_s)) = (v,(\alpha_{x_1}(t, y_1),\dots,\alpha_{x_s}(t,y_s))),$$ where we recall that $\alpha_x$ is a deformation retract of $V_x$ onto $\{x\}$. It is not hard to see that $\tilde\beta$ is a deformation retraction of $\tilde U$ onto $\widetilde W$. It is also not hard to see that, via the surjection $\tilde U \to U$, $\tilde\beta$ induces a continuous map $\beta:[0,1] \times U \to U$, which is therefore a deformation retraction of $U$ onto $W$. Next, define $\dot W \subset U_{sk} \times X^s$ to consist of those points $(v,(x_1,\dots,x_s))$ such that $\|v-u\| < {\epsilon}$. Note that $\check\sigma$ induces a homeomorphism of $\dot W$ onto $W$. For unitaries $u,v$ and $t \in [0,1]$, define $$\lambda_t(u,v) := tu + (1-t)v.$$ If $u$ and $v$ are sufficiently close then $\lambda_t(u,v)$ is invertible, and we may define $$\theta_t(u,v) := \lambda_t(u,v)(\lambda_t(u,v)^*\lambda_t(u,v))^{-1/2},$$ which is unitary. Thus $(\theta(u,v))_{t\in [0,1]}$ is a path of unitaries from $u$ to $v$. For $(v,(x_1,\dots,x_s)) \in \dot W$, define $\dot\gamma = (\dot\gamma_t)\colon [0,1] \times \dot W \to \dot W$ by $$\dot\gamma_t(v,(x_1,\dots,x_s)) = (\theta_t(u,v),(x_1,\dots,x_s))$$ (assume ${\epsilon}$ is sufficiently small so that $\theta_t(u,v)$ is always defined.) This is a deformation retraction of $\dot W$ onto $\{(u,(x_1,\dots,x_s))\}$, so by the homeomorphism $\dot W \to W$, we obtain a deformation retraction $\gamma$ of $W$ onto $\{\sigma\}$. Combining the deformation retracts $\beta$ and $\gamma$ provides a deformation retraction of $U$ onto $\{a\}$, as required. The next lemma generalizes the commutative argument that, for points on the boundary of a cell attached to a cell complex, every relative neighbourhood in the old cell complex is a deformation retract of a neighbourhood in the enlarged cell complex. This lemma does not, in itself, imply that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is locally contractible when $A$ is an NC cell complex, since a ${}^*$-homomorphism $A \to M_m$ can contain a mix of irreducible representations from the boundary of the new cell, the interior of the new cell, and purely from the old NC cell complex. We continue to use ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m)$ to denote the set of ${}^*$-homomorphisms $A \to M_m$ whose images contain the unit of $M_m$. \[lem:GluingDefRetract\] Let $A$ be given by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_{\lambda} \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C_0(X \times [0,1),M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X \times \{0\}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X,M_k), }$$ where $B$ is a unital ${\text}C^*$-algebra and $\phi$ is a unital ${}^*$-homomorphism. Let $U$ be an open set in ${\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_m)$. Then there exists an open set $V$ in ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m)$ such that $$\label{eq:GluingDefRetractURestricts} U \circ \lambda = V \cap ({\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_m) \circ \lambda),$$ and this set is a deformation retract of $V$. To keep notation more concise, for ${l}\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that ${l}k \leq m$, denote $$\alpha_{l}:= (1,1,\dots,1,1,m-k{l},1) \in T_m$$ (where $1,1$ appears ${l}$ times), and for $v_1,\dots,v_{l}\in X \times [0,1)$, $\pi_B \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_{m-k{l}})$, and $u \in U_m$, denote $$\begin{aligned} \notag \check\sigma_{u,(v_1,\dots,v_{l}),\pi_B} &:= \sigma_{\alpha_{l},u,({\mathrm{ev}}_{v_1} \circ \rho,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{v_{l}} \circ \rho,\pi_B \circ \lambda)} \\ \notag &= {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{v_1} \circ \rho,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{v_{l}} \circ \rho,\pi_B \circ \lambda) \\ &\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1(A,M_m).\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\begin{aligned} \notag \hspace*{-10mm} \dot U := \{&(u,(x_1,\dots,x_{l}), \pi_B) \mid {l}\in \mathbb N, \pi_B \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_{m-k{l}}), \\ &\quad x_1,\dots,x_{l}\in X, u \in U_m,\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,0),\dots,(x_{l},0)),\pi_B} \in U \circ \lambda\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,0),\dots,(x_{l},0)),\pi_B} = \sigma_{\alpha_{l},u,({\mathrm{ev}}_{x_1} \circ \phi,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{x_{l}} \circ \phi,\pi_B)} \circ \lambda,$$ where $\sigma_{\alpha_{l},u,({\mathrm{ev}}_{x_1}\circ \phi,\dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{x_{l}} \circ \phi, \pi_B)}$ is in ${\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_m)$. Set $$\begin{aligned} \notag \dot V := \{&(u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B) \mid {l}\in \mathbb N, \\ &\qquad (u,(x_1,\dots,x_{l}),\pi_B) \in \dot U, s_1,\dots,s_{l}\in [0,1)\}.\end{aligned}$$ Define $\dot\theta=(\dot\theta_t)\colon [0,1] \times \dot V \to \dot V$ by $$\begin{aligned} \notag &\vspace*{-10mm} \dot\theta_t(u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B) \\ &\qquad := (u,((x_1,ts_1),\dots,(x_{l},ts_{l})),\pi_B).\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\begin{aligned} \notag V := \{&\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B} \mid \\ &\qquad (u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B) \in \dot V\}.\end{aligned}$$ We shall check two things: (i) that $V$ is open, and (ii) that $\dot\theta$ induces a homotopy $\theta$ on $V$, by $$\theta_t(\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B}) = \check\sigma_{\dot\theta_t(u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B)}, \quad t \in [0,1].$$ It is obvious from the definition that holds and that $\theta$ is a deformation retraction onto $U$. (i): To see that $V$ is open, let $\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B} \in V$ for some $(u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B) \in \dot V$. By possibly modifying the choice of lift in $\dot V$, we may arrange that $\pi_B$ has no subrepresentation that factors through $\phi$, that $s_1,\dots,s_{{l}_1}>0$, and that $s_{{l}_1+1}=\dots=s_{{l}}=0$. Suppose that $\sigma$ is a representation near to $\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B}$. Let us write $\sigma$ as $$\check\sigma_{v,((y_1,t_1),\dots,(y_p,t_p)),\pi_B'}.$$ Assuming that $\sigma$ is near enough, taking into account how far each subrepresentation of $\pi_B$ is from a representation that factors through $\phi$, and by rearranging, we may assume that ${l}_1 \leq p \leq {l}$ and $$\label{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox0} (y_i,t_i) \approx (x_i,s_i), \quad i \leq p.$$ It follows that, for all $i,j$, if $(x_i,s_i) \neq (x_j,s_j)$ then $(y_i,t_i) \neq (y_j,t_j)$, and that $$\label{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox1} \check\sigma_{v,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_p,s_p)),\pi_B'} \approx \check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B}.$$ By the same argument as used to prove Lemma \[lem:sigmaUnitaryKernel\], there exists a unitary $u' \in U_m$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B} &= \check\sigma_{u',((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B} \quad \text{and} \\ \label{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox2} (u')^*v &\approx \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1_{kp}&0 \\ 0&w_2\end{array} \right) =: w \end{aligned}$$ for some $w_2 \in U_{m-kp}$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \check\sigma_{u',((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox1}}\approx& \check\sigma_{v,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_p,s_p)),\pi_B'} \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox2}}\approx& \check\sigma_{u'w,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_p,s_p)),\pi_B'},\end{aligned}$$ so conjugating by $(u')^*$, and looking at $(m-kl) \times (m-kl)$ block on the bottom-right, one obtains $$\label{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox3} {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{x_{p+1}} \circ \phi,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{x_{l}} \circ \phi,\pi_B) \approx {\mathrm{Ad}}(w_2) \circ \pi_B'.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \sigma_{\alpha_p,v,({\mathrm{ev}}_{y_1} \circ \phi, \dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{y_p} \circ \phi),\pi_B'} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox2}}\approx& \sigma_{\alpha_p,u',({\mathrm{ev}}_{y_1} \circ \phi, \dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{y_p} \circ \phi),{\mathrm{Ad}}(w_2) \circ \pi_B'} \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox0}}\approx& \sigma_{\alpha_p,u',({\mathrm{ev}}_{x_1} \circ \phi, \dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{x_p} \circ \phi),{\mathrm{Ad}}(w_2) \circ \pi_B'} \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:GluingDefRetractApprox3}}\approx& \sigma_{\alpha_l,u',({\mathrm{ev}}_{x_1} \circ \phi, \dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{x_l} \circ \phi),\pi_B} \in U.\end{aligned}$$ These approximations can be made arbitrarily close by asking at the outset that $\sigma$ is sufficiently close to $\check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_l,s_l)),\pi_B}$. It then follows that $\sigma_{\alpha_p,v,({\mathrm{ev}}_{y_1} \circ \phi, \dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{y_p} \circ \phi),\pi_B'} \in U$, i.e., $(v,(y_1,\dots,y_p),\pi_B') \in \dot U$. Hence, $$(v,((y_1,t_1),\dots,(y_p,t_p)),\pi_B') \in \dot V, \quad \text{i.e.,} \quad \sigma \in V.$$ This establishes that $V$ is open. (ii): To check that $\dot\theta$ induces a homotopy $\theta=(\theta_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ on $V$, suppose that $$(u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B),(v,((y_1,t_1),\dots,(y_p,t_p)),\pi_B') \in \dot V$$ give rise to the same element of $V$, i.e., that $$\begin{aligned} \check\sigma_{u,((x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})),\pi_B} = \check\sigma_{v,((y_1,t_1),\dots,(y_p,t_p)),\pi_B'}.\end{aligned}$$ It is not hard to see that we may assume that $s_i,t_j > 0$ for all $i,j$. Then it follows that $$\{(x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l})\} = \{(y_1,t_1),\dots,(y_p,t_p)\}$$ as multisets, and so ${l}=p$. Replacing a unitary by its composition with a permutation, if necessary, we may assume that $(x_i,s_i)=(y_i,t_i)$ for all $i$. When this is true, it is clear from the formula for $\dot\theta_t$ that $$\dot\theta_t(u,(x_1,s_1),\dots,(x_{l},s_{l}),\pi_B))$$ and $$\theta_t(v,(y_1,t_1),\dots,(y_p,t_p),\pi_P))$$ induce the same representation of $A$. Finally, we prove the local contractibility result. \[prop:NCCellLocContr\] Let $A$ be an NC cell complex. Then ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is locally contractible. Using induction, we need only prove that if ${\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_m)$ is locally contractible for every $m$ and $A$ is given by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_\lambda \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(D^n,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{S^n \times \{0\}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(S^{n-1},M_k) }$$ then ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is also locally contractible for every $m$. Therefore, let us take a point $\pi \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$. Up to unitary equivalence, $\pi$ decomposes as $$\pi = {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_B \circ \lambda, \pi_D \circ \rho),$$ where $\pi_B \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_{m_B})$ and $\pi_D \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(D^n {\backslash}S^{n-1},M_k),M_{m_D})$, where $m_B + m_D=m$. Since $\pi_D$ is a direct sum of finitely many irreducible representations, it actually comes from ${\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(Y_D,M_k),M_{m_D})$, for some compactly-contained open subset $Y_D$ of $D^n {\backslash}S^{n-1}$. Let $Y_B$ be an open neighbourhood of $S^{n-1}$ in $D^n {\backslash}\overline{Y}$, such that $Y_B$ can be identified with $S^{n-1} \times [0,1)$, compatible with the identification of $S^{n-1}$ with $S^{n-1} \times \{0\}$. By Lemma \[lem:HomXMkLocContr\], there exists a contractible neighbourhood $U_D$ of $\pi_D$ in $${\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(Y_D,M_k),M_{m_D});$$ let $\theta^D = (\theta^D_t)\colon [0,1] \times U_D \to U_D$ be a deformation retraction of $U_D$ onto $\{\pi_D\}$. By the inductive hypothesis, $\pi_B$ has a neighbourhood in ${\mathrm{Hom}}(B,M_{m_B})$ which is contractible to $\pi_B$. Combining the deformation retraction provided by Lemma \[lem:GluingDefRetract\] with this contraction, we see that there exists a neighbourhood $U_B$ of $\pi_B \circ \lambda$ in $${\mathrm{Hom}}_1({\text}C_0(Y_B,M_k) \oplus_{{\text}C(S^{n-1},M_k)} B,M_{m_B})$$ and a deformation retraction $\theta^B = (\theta^B_t)\colon [0,1] \times U_B \to U_B$ of $U_B$ onto $\{\pi_B \circ \lambda\}$. Define $U$ to be the set of ${}^*$-homomorphisms $A \to M_m$ of the form $${\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_B', \pi_D' \circ \rho),$$ where $\pi_B' \in U_B$, $\pi_D' \in U_D$, and $u \in U_m$ such that $\|u-v\|<{\epsilon}$ for some $v \in U_m$ such that $${\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ \pi = \pi.$$ It is not hard to see that $U$ is an open neighbourhood of $\pi$, and by making $U_D, Y_B,$ and ${\epsilon}$ sufficiently small, we turn $U$ into an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of $\sigma$. In particular, by making $U$ small enough, we ensure that if $${\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_B', \pi_D' \circ \rho) = {\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi'_B, \pi_D \circ \rho) \in U$$ where $\pi_B' \in U_B$ and $\pi_D' \in U_D$ then $${\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ \pi = {\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ \pi.$$ To show that $U$ is a contractible neighbourhood of $\pi$, we imitate the steps of the proof of Lemma \[lem:HomXMkLocContr\]: first, we produce a deformation retraction of $U$ onto the set $W$ of all ${}^*$-homomorphisms $A \to M_m$ of the form $${\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\pi_B \circ \lambda, \sigma_D \circ \rho),$$ where $u \in U_m$ is such that $\|u-v\|<{\epsilon}$ for some $v \in U_m$ such that $${\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ \sigma = \sigma,$$ and then we contract $W$ onto $\sigma$. Restricted semiprojectivity of non-commutative cell complexes ------------------------------------------------------------- We are now prepared to show the following, which says that NC cell complexes are semiprojective with respect to the class of ${\text}C^*$-algebras of the form ${\text}C(X,M_m)$, for any fixed $m$. (Note, of course, that most NC cell complexes do not belong to this class.) \[thm:CellRSHSemiproj\] Let $A$ be an NC cell complex. Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space, and $Y$ a closed subspace. Let $\phi\colon A \to {\text}C(Y,M_m)$ be a unital ${}^*$-homomorphism. Then there exists a closed neighbourhood $Z$ of $Y$ in $X$ such that $\phi$ lifts to a map $\tilde\phi\colon A \to {\text}C(Z,M_m)$, where by “lifts,” it is meant that $\phi = \tilde\phi(\cdot)|_Y$. Of course, the conclusion of this theorem, in the case that $X$ is metrizable, is the same as saying that if $B:={\text}C(X,M_m)$, and $I_n$ is an increasing sequence of ideals of $B$, then any unital ${}^*$-homomorphism $A \to B/\overline{\bigcup I_n}$ lifts to a map $A \to B/I_n$ for some $n$. (It is stronger in the non-metrizable case.) Recall the definition of $\hat\phi \in {\text}C(Y,{\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m))$ from Section \[sec:Notation\], and that the existence of the lift $\tilde\phi$ corresponds to extending $\hat\phi$ to a continuous map $\tilde{\hat\phi}\colon Z \to {\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$. To prove the theorem, we must therefore show that ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is an absolute neighbourhood extensor with respect to the class of compact Hausdorff spaces (as defined in [@Hu:RetractBook II.2]), equivalently, an absolute neighbourhood retract [@Hu:RetractBook Lemma 5.1]. Since ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,M_m)$ is finite-dimensional (Corollary \[cor:HomndDim\]) and metrizable, it embeds into ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for some $n$ [@Engelking:DimTheory Theorem 1.11.4]. It is, in addition, compact, since it can be identified with a weak$^*$-closed, bounded subset of $(A \otimes M_m)^*$ (by identifying a ${}^*$-homomorphism $\phi\colon A \to M_m$ with the functional that maps $a \otimes e_{i,j}$ to the $(i,j)$-th entry of the matrix $\phi(a)$). Also, it is locally contractible by Proposition \[prop:NCCellLocContr\]. Therefore, by [@Hatcher Theorem A.7], it is an absolute neighbourhood retract. The following corollary says that the relations defining an NC cell complex $A$ are stable in the class of ${\text}C^*$-algebras of the form ${\text}C(X,M_m)$ (for fixed $m$). \[cor:CellRSHStableRelations\] Given an NC cell complex $A$, a finite set $\mathcal F \subset A$, a tolerance ${\epsilon}> 0$ and an integer $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a finite set $\mathcal G \subset A$ and ${\delta}> 0$ such that the following holds: if $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space and $\phi\colon A \to {\text}C(X,M_m)$ is a ${}^*$-linear map that is $(\mathcal G,{\delta})$-multiplicative, then there is a ${}^*$-homomorphism $\bar\phi\colon A \to {\text}C(X,M_m)$ such that $$\phi(a) \approx_{\epsilon}\bar\phi(a)$$ for all $a \in \mathcal F$. This is a standard argument, involving lifting a map $$A \to \prod_n {\text}C(X_n,M_m)/\bigoplus_n {\text}C(X_n,M_m).$$ See [@Loring:book Theorem 4.1.4]. \[cor:CellRSHCloseRepsHomotopic\] Let $A$ be an NC cell complex and let $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For any finite subset $\mathcal F \subset A$ and ${\epsilon}> 0$ there exists a finite subset $\mathcal G \subset A$ and ${\delta}> 0$ such that, if $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space and $$\phi_0,\phi_1\colon A \to {\text}C(X,M_m)$$ are ${}^*$-homomorphisms such that $$\phi_0(a) \approx_{\delta}\phi_1(a)$$ for all $a \in \mathcal G$, then there exists a homotopy of ${}*$-homomorphisms, $\theta = (\theta_t)\colon A \to {\text}C([0,1]) \otimes {\text}C(X,M_m)$, such that $\theta_i = \phi_i$ for $i=0,1$ and $$\theta_t(a) \approx_{\epsilon}\phi_0(a)$$ for all $a \in \mathcal F$ and $t\in[0,1]$. This argument is probably well-known, although we were unable to find a reference. It is a proof by contradiction. Suppose that the result is false for $\mathcal F$ and ${\epsilon}>0$. Let $(a_i)$ be a dense sequence in $A$. Then for every $n$ we may find a compact space $X_n$ and ${}^*$-homomorphisms $$\phi_0^{(n)},\phi_1^{(n)}\colon A \to {\text}C(X_n,M_k)$$ such that $$\label{eq:CellRSHCloseRepsHomotopicPhiClose} \phi_0^{(n)}(a_i) \approx_{\frac1n} \phi_1^{(n)}(a_i), \quad i=1,\dots,n$$ yet there is no $\theta=(\theta_t)\colon A \to {\text}C([0,1]) \otimes {\text}C(X,M_k)$ such that $\theta_i=\phi_i^{(n)}$ for $i=0,1$ and $$\theta_t(a) \approx_{\epsilon}\phi_0^{(n)}(a)$$ for all $x \in \mathcal F$ and $t\in[0,1]$. Define a c.p.c. map $\Phi^{(n)}\colon A \to {\text}C([0,1]) \otimes {\text}C(X_n,M_k)$ by $$\Phi^{(n)} := {\mathrm{id}}_{[0,1]} \otimes \phi_1^{(n)} + (1-{\mathrm{id}}_{[0,1]}) \otimes \phi_0^{(n)}.$$ This is obviously not multiplicative, but since the $\phi_i^{(n)}$ are multiplicative and by , it induces a ${}^*$-homomorphism $$\Phi\colon A \to \prod_n {\text}C([0,1]) \otimes {\text}C(X_n,M_k) / \bigoplus_n {\text}C_0((0,1)) \otimes {\text}C(X_n,M_k)$$ This map lifts to a ${}^*$-homomorphism $$\tilde\Phi\colon A \to \prod_{n \geq n_0} {\text}C([0,1]) \otimes {\text}C(X_n,M_k),$$ for some $n_0 \in \mathbb N$, giving a contradiction. Approximating arbitrary subhomogeneous algebras ----------------------------------------------- In this section, we prove the following approximation result. \[thm:ApproxCell\] Let $A$ be a unital, separable subhomogeneous algebra of topological dimension at most $n$. Then $A$ is locally approximated by NC cell complexes of topological dimension at most $n$. Note that NC cell complexes are, by definition, unital, and so we could not expect the result above to generalize to non-unital subhomogeneous algebras. The result can, nonetheless, be applied to studying these non-unital algebras, by applying it to their unitizations. We begin with a few technical lemmas. \[lem:ApproxCellB\] Let $A$ be given by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_\lambda \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k) }$$ in which $B$ is locally approximated by subalgebras $B_n$. Define $A_n$ by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A_n \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B_n \ar[r]^-{\phi|_{B_n}} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k). }$$ Then $A$ is locally approximated by the $A_n$. Let $\mathcal F \subset A$ be a finite subset and let ${\epsilon}>0$. There exists $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that, for each $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$, there exists $b_a \in B_n$ such that $$b \approx_{\epsilon}b_a.$$ Then, since $\phi(b_a) \approx_{\epsilon}f|_{X^{(0)}}$, using the definition of the quotient norm, there exists $g_a \in {\text}C(X,M_k)$ such that $$g_a|_{X^{(0)}} = \phi(b_a) \quad \text{and}\quad g_a \approx_{\epsilon}f.$$ Then, $(b_a,g_a) \in A_n$ and $a \approx_{\epsilon}(b_a,g_a)$. \[lem:CellRSHChar\] Let $A$ be given by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_\lambda \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k), }$$ where $B$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$, $X$ is a CW complex of dimension at most $n$, and $X^{(0)}$ is a subcomplex. Then $A$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$. We prove this by induction on the dimension, $m$, of $X$. Removing the interior of $X^{(0)}$ from $X$ (and from $X^{(0)}$) does not change $A$ at all, and allows $X^{(0)}$ to be replaced by its boundary (in $X$). Thus, we may assume that $X^{(0)}$ is an $(m-1)$-dimensional subcomplex. Let $Y \subset X$ be the $(m-1)$-skeleton of $X$, so that $X^{(0)}$ is a subcomplex of $Y$. Define $B'$ and $\rho'$ by the following pull-back diagram: $$\xymatrix{ B' \ar[d] \ar[r]^-{\rho'} & {\text}C(Y,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k). }$$ By the inductive hypothesis, $B'$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$. Moreover, it is not hard to see that the diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d] \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{Y}} \\ B' \ar[r]_-{\rho'} & {\text}C(Y,M_k) }$$ commutes and is a pull-back diagram. This reduces the problem to the case that $X^{(0)}$ is the $m$-skeleton of $X$. To deal with this case, we use induction on the number of $m$-cells in $X$. In the base case of this induction, $X$ has no $m$-cells, and then $X=X^{(0)}$ and so $A=B$ and we are finished. Otherwise, by singling out an $m$-cell of $X$, we obtain a pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ {\text}C(X) \ar[d] \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(D^m) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{S^{m-1}}} \\ {\text}C(X') \ar[r]_-{\alpha} & {\text}C(S^{m-1}), }$$ where $X'$ is a subcomplex of $X$ given by deleting the interior of one $m$-cell, and $\alpha$ is a ${}^*$-homomorphism. This means that $X'$ contains $X^{(0)}$ and has one fewer $m$-cell than $X$ does. Define $B'$ and $\rho'$ by the following pull-back diagram: $$\xymatrix{ B' \ar[d] \ar[r]^-{\rho'} & {\text}C(X',M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k). }$$ By the inductive hypothesis, $B'$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$. Moreover, it is not hard to see that the diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d] \ar[rr] && {\text}C(D^n,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{S^{n-1}}} \\ B' \ar[rr]_-{(\alpha\otimes \mathrm{id}_{M_k}) \circ \rho'} && {\text}C(S^{n-1},M_k) }$$ is a pull-back diagram, and, therefore, $A$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$. \[lem:ApproxCellBaby\] Let $A$ be given by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_\lambda \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k), }$$ where $B$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$, and $X$ is a simplicial complex of dimension at most $n$. Then $A$ is an inductive limit of NC cell complexes of topological dimension at most $n$, where the maps of the inductive system are injective. $X^{(0)}$ is a closed subset of a simplicial complex, and therefore it is the intersection of a decreasing sequence $(Y_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ of closed subsets, such that for each $n$, by changing the simplicial complex structure on $X$, $Y_n$ can be viewed as a subcomplex. By Theorem \[thm:CellRSHSemiproj\], $\phi$ lifts to a map $\tilde\phi\colon B \to {\text}C(Y_{n_0},M_k)$ for some $n_0$. It follows that $A$ is an inductive limit (with injective connecting maps) of algebras $A_n$, defined by the pull-back diagrams $$\xymatrix{ A_n \ar[d]_\lambda \ar[r]^-{\rho} & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{Y_n}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\tilde\phi(\cdot)|_{Y_n}} & {\text}C(Y_n,M_k), }$$ $n=1,2,\dots$. Indeed, as subalgebras of $B \oplus C(X,M_k)$, we have $$A_1 \subseteq A_2 \subseteq \cdots \quad \text{and} \quad A = \overline{\bigcup_i A_i}.$$ Moreover, by Lemma \[lem:CellRSHChar\], $A_n$ is an NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$. By [@Phillips:RSH Theorem 2.16], $A$ is a recursive subhomogeneous algebra. By induction on the length of the recursive subhomogeneous decomposition (see [@Phillips:RSH Definition 1.2]), it suffices to show that if $A$ is given by a pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\text}C(X,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & {\text}C(X^{(0)},M_k), }$$ where $B$ is locally approximated by NC cell complexes of topological dimension at most $n$ and $\dim X \leq n$, then $A$ is locally approximated by images of NC cell complexes of topological dimension at most $n$. Using Lemma \[lem:ApproxCellB\], we may assume that $B$ is a single NC cell complex of topological dimension at most $n$. Let $\mathcal F \subset A$ be a finite subset and let ${\epsilon}> 0$. Without loss of generality, since $B$ is finitely generated, the finite set $\mathcal G := \{b \in B \mid (b,f) \in \mathcal F\}$ includes a set of generators of $B$. Let ${\delta}\in (0,{\epsilon}/3)$ be as provided by Corollary \[cor:CellRSHCloseRepsHomotopic\], with $m=k$ and ${\epsilon}/3$ in place of ${\epsilon}$. By Corollary \[cor:CellRSHStableRelations\], there exists $\eta \in (0,{\delta})$ such that, if $\alpha\colon B \to C$ is a ${}^*$-homomorphism, $D$ is a subalgebra of $C$, $\alpha(\mathcal G) \subset_\eta D$, and $D$ is isomorphic to ${\text}C(W,M_k)$ for some space $W$, then there is a ${}^*$-homomorphism $\hat\alpha\colon B \to D$ such that $\alpha(b) \approx_{{\delta}} \hat\alpha(b)$ for all $b\in\mathcal G$. By Theorem \[thm:CellRSHSemiproj\], there exists a closed neighbourhood $Y$ of $X^{(0)}$ such that $\phi$ lifts to a map $\tilde\phi\colon B \to {\text}C(Y,M_k)$. Replace $Y$ by a smaller neighbourhood, if necessary, so that $$\label{eq:ApproxCellYDef} \tilde\phi(b) \approx_\eta f|_Y, \quad a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F.$$ For each $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$, choose $f_a \in {\text}C(X,M_k)$ such that $$\label{eq:ApproxCellfaDef} f_a|_Y = \tilde\phi(b)\quad \text{and}\quad f_a \approx_\eta f.$$ Since $X {\backslash}Y^{\circ}$ has dimension at most $n$, by [@Engelking:DimTheory Theorem 1.10.16] there exists an $n$-dimensional simplical complex $\Gamma$ and an injective ${}^*$-homomorphism $\sigma\colon {\text}C(\Gamma,M_k) \to {\text}C(X {\backslash}Y^{\circ},M_k)$ such that, for each $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$, $$\label{eq:ApproxCellgaDef} f_a|_{X {\backslash}Y^{\circ}} \approx_\eta \sigma(g_a)$$ for some $g_a \in {\text}C(\Gamma,M_k)$. Let $\bar g_a \in {\text}C(X,M_k)$ be such that $$\label{eq:ApproxCellgbarDef} f_a \approx_\eta \bar g_a, \quad \bar g_a|_{X^{(0)}} = \phi(b), \quad\text{and}\quad \bar g_a|_{X {\backslash}Y^{\circ}} = \sigma(g_a).$$ Note then that for $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$, $$\tilde\phi(b)|_{\partial Y} = f_a|_{\partial Y} \approx_\eta \bar g_a|_{\partial Y} \in \sigma({\text}C(\Gamma,M_k))|_{\partial Y} =: D.$$ Let $\Gamma^{(0)}$ be the closed subset of $\Gamma$ such that $C_0(\Gamma {\backslash}\Gamma)$ is the kernel of the map $\sigma(\cdot)|_{\partial Y}$. Then since $D$ is isomorphic to ${\text}C(\Gamma^{(0)},M_k)$, our choice of $\eta$ ensures that there is a ${}^*$-homomorphism $\theta_1\colon B \to D$ such that $$\label{eq:ApproxCelltheta1Def} \theta_1(b) \approx_{{\delta}} \bar g_a|_{\partial Y}$$ for all $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$. By Theorem \[thm:CellRSHSemiproj\], there is a closed neighbourhood $W$ of $\partial Y$ in $Y$ such that $\theta_1:B \to D \subset C(\partial Y,M_k)$ extends to a map $B \to C(W,M_k)$, that we continue to denote $\theta_1$. Replace $W$ by a smaller neighbourhood, if necessary, so that $\theta_1(b) \approx_{\delta}\tilde\phi(b)|_W$. Corollary \[cor:CellRSHCloseRepsHomotopic\] now provides us with a homotopy $\theta=(\theta_t)\colon B \to {\text}C([0,1]) \otimes {\text}C(W,M_k)$, such that $\theta_0=\tilde\phi(\cdot)|_{W}$, $\theta_1$ agrees with the existing definition, and $$\theta_t(b) \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} \tilde\phi(b)|_{W},\quad b \in \mathcal G.$$ Note that $\partial W$ (taken in $X$) is a disjoint union of $\partial Y$ and the closed set $\partial W {\backslash}\partial Y$. Therefore, by Urysohn’s Lemma, there exists a continuous function $f\colon W \to [0,1]$ satisfying $$f|_{\partial W {\backslash}\partial Y} \equiv 0 \quad\text{and} \quad f|_{\partial Y} \equiv 1.$$ Define $\psi\colon B \to {\text}C(Y,M_k)$ by $$\psi(b)(y) = \begin{cases} \tilde\phi(b)(y),\quad&\text{if }y \in Y {\backslash}W, \\ \theta_{f(y)}(b)(y),\quad&\text{if }y \in W. \end{cases}$$ Since $\tilde\phi(b)|_{\partial W {\backslash}\partial Y} = \theta_0(b)|_{\partial W {\backslash}\partial Y}$, the function $\psi(b)$ is continuous. Also, $$\label{eq:ApproxCellpsiApprox} \psi(b) \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} \tilde\phi(b),\quad b \in \mathcal G \quad \text{and} \quad \psi(\cdot)|_{X^{(0)}} = \phi.$$ Since $\theta_1(B) \subseteq \sigma({\text}C(\Gamma,M_k))$, $\psi(\cdot)|_{\partial Y}$ is a map from $B$ to $\sigma(C(\Gamma,M_k))|_{\partial Y} \cong C(\Gamma^{(0)})$. Define $A'$ by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A' \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\text}C(\Gamma,M_k) \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{\Gamma^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\psi(\cdot)|_{\partial Y}} & {\text}C(\Gamma^{(0)},M_k). }$$ By Lemma \[lem:ApproxCellBaby\], $A'$ is locally approximated by NC cell complexes of topological dimension at most $n$. Let us now describe a map $\pi\colon A' \to A$. For $(b,g) \in A' \subseteq B \oplus {\text}C(\Gamma,M_k)$, define $f \in {\text}C(X,M_k)$ by $$\label{eq:ApproxCellpiDef} f|_{X {\backslash}Y^{\circ}} := \sigma(g)|_{X {\backslash}Y^{\circ}} \quad \text{and} \quad f|_{Y^{\circ}} := \psi(b).$$ The definition of $B$ ensures that $\sigma(b)|_{\partial Y} = \psi(g)|_{\partial Y}$, so that $f$ is indeed continuous. Note that $$f|_{X^{(0)}} = \psi(b)|_{X^{(0)}} \stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellpsiApprox}}= \phi(b),$$ so $(b,f) \in A$; we define $\pi(b,g) := (b,f)$. Since $\sigma$ is injective, $f$ is only $0$ if $g$ is zero; consequently, $\pi$ is injective. Now, let us show that $\mathcal F \subset_{\epsilon}\pi(A')$. Let $a =(b,f) \in \mathcal F$. By and , $$g_a|_{\Gamma_0} \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} \theta_1(b)|_{\partial Y} = \psi(b)|_{\partial Y},$$ so let $g \in {\text}C(\Gamma,M_k)$ be such that $$\label{eq:ApproxCellgDef} g|_{\Gamma_0} = \psi(b)|_{\partial Y}\quad \text{and} \quad g \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} g_a.$$ Then $(b,g) \in A'$; let us show that $\pi(b,g) \approx_{\epsilon}a$. Let $\pi(b,g) = (b,f')$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \notag f'|_Y &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellpiDef}}=& \psi(b) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellpsiApprox}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/3}}& \tilde\phi(b) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellYDef}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/3}}& f,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \notag f'|_{X {\backslash}Y} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellpiDef}}=& \sigma(g)|_{X {\backslash}Z} \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellgDef}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/3}}& \sigma(g_a)|_{X {\backslash}Z} \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellgaDef}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/3}}& f_a|_{X {\backslash}Z} \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxCellfaDef}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/3}}& f|_{X {\backslash}Z}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\pi(b,g) =(b,f') \approx_{\epsilon}(b,f) = a$ as required. Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. Then $A$ is locally subhomogeneous if and only if it is locally approximated by NC cell complexes. Since NC cell complexes are subhomogenous, the reverse direction is obvious. In the other direction, since a ${\text}C^*$-subalgebra of a subhomogeneous algebra is itself subhomogeneous, every locally subhomogeneous algebra is locally approximated by finitely generated, subhomogeneous algebras. Moreover, [@NgWinter:ash Theorem 1.5] shows that every finitely generated, subhomogeneous algebra satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\], and is therefore itself locally approximated by NC cell complexes. $\mathcal W$-stable approximately subhomogeneous algebras --------------------------------------------------------- We include another result here, which is proven using an adaptation of the proof of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\]. Recall the stably projectionless, monotracial, $K$-theoretically trivial algebra $\mathcal W$ studied in [@Jacelon:R]. \[thm:WASH\] Let $A$ be a separable locally subhomogeneous algebra. Then $A \otimes \mathcal W$ is an inductive limit of one-dimensional NC cell complexes (i.e., point–line algebras; see Remark \[rmk:NCcellDef\] (iii)). We need some technical lemmas to prove this. \[lem:drSHext\] Suppose that $$0 \to I \to A \to B \to 0$$ is an extension of ${\text}C^*$-algebras, such that $I$ and $B$ are subhomogeneous. Then the topological dimension of $A$ is the maximum of the topological dimension of $I$ and of $B$. $A$ is subhomogeneous, and for each $k$, $\mathrm{Prim}_k(A)$ can be decomposed into an open set homeomorphic to $\mathrm{Prim}_k(I)$ and a closed sets homeomorphic to $\mathrm{Prim}_k(B)$. Therefore, $$\dim \mathrm{Prim}_k(A) = \max\{\dim \mathrm{Prim}_k(I), \dim \mathrm{Prim}_k(B)\},$$ and the result follows by the definition of topological dimension (Definition \[def:TopDim\]). \[prop:WASHtechnical\] Let $C$ be a ${\text}C(X)$-algebra, let $X^{(0)} \subseteq X$ be closed and let $A$ be given by the pull-back diagram $$\label{eq:WASHtechnicalPB} \xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_\lambda \ar[r]^-{\rho} & C \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{X^{(0)}}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\phi} & C|_{X^{(0)}}, }$$ where $\phi$ is a ${}^*$-homomorphism. If $B$ is approximated by subhomogeneous algebras of topological dimension at most $1$, and $C$ is locally subhomogeneous, then $A$ is locally subhomogeneous. Moreover, if $C$ is approximated by subhomogeneous ${\text}C^*$-algebras of topological dimension at most $n \geq 1$, then so also is $A$. This proof is along the same lines as the proof of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\]. Let $\mathcal F \subset A$ be a finite subset that we wish to approximate, up to a tolerance ${\epsilon}> 0$. Without loss of generality, by Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\] and Lemma \[lem:ApproxCellB\], we may suppose that $B$ is a one-dimensional NC cell complex. Choose a finite generating subset $\mathcal G$ of $B$ containing $\lambda(\mathcal F)$. Since $B$ is (weakly) semiprojective [@EilersLoringPedersen:NCCW] (see also [@Enders:SemiprojPB Remark 3.5]), there exists $\eta \in (0,{\epsilon}/3)$ such that, if $\alpha\colon B \to E$ is a ${}^*$-homomorphism and $E'$ is a subalgebra of $E$ such that $\alpha(\mathcal G) \subset_\eta E'$ then there is a ${}^*$-homomorphism $\hat\alpha\colon B \to E'$ such that $\alpha(b) \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} \hat\alpha(b)$ for all $b\in\mathcal G$. Also since $B$ is semiprojective, there exists a closed neighbourhood $Y$ of $X^{(0)}$ such that $\phi$ lifts to a map $\tilde\phi\colon B \to C|_Y$. Replace $Y$ by a smaller neighbourhood if necessary, so that $\tilde\phi\circ \lambda(a) \approx_\eta \rho(a)|_Y$ for $a \in \mathcal F$. For each $a =(b,f) \in \mathcal F$, choose $f_a \in C$ such that $$\label{eq:1NCCWfaDef} f_a|_Y = \tilde\phi(b) \quad\text{and}\quad f_a \approx_\eta f.$$ Since $C$ is locally subhomogeneous, there exists a subhomogeneous subalgebra $D$ of $C$ such that, for each $a \in \mathcal G$, $$f_a \approx_\eta g_a$$ for some $g_a \in D$. Let $Z$ be a closed neighbourhood of $X {\backslash}Y^\circ$, disjoint from $X^{(0)}$. Choose, for each $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$, an element $\bar g_a \in C$ such that $$\label{eq:1NCCWgbarDef} f_a \approx_\eta \bar g_a, \quad \bar g_a|_{X^{(0)}} = \phi(b)|_{X^{(0)}}, \quad\text{and}\quad \bar g_a|_Z = g_a|_Z \in D|_Z.$$ Consider the quotient of $A$ by $C|_{X {\backslash}Y}$, which we denote by $B \oplus_{C|_{X^{(0)}}} C|_Y$. The pair $({\mathrm{id}}_B,\tilde\phi)$ provides a ${}^*$-homomorphism $B \to B \oplus_{C|_{X^{(0)}}} C|_Y$, and the image of $\mathcal G$ under this ${}^*$-homomorphism is contained, up to $\eta$, in the subalgebra $${\text}C^*(\{(b,\bar g_a|_Y) \mid a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F\}).$$ By the choice of $\eta$, it follows that there is a ${}^*$-homomorphism $$\begin{aligned} \psi=(\psi_1,\psi_2)\colon B \to\, & {\text}C^*(\{(b,\bar g_a|_Y) \mid a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F\})\end{aligned}$$ such that $$\label{eq:1NCCWpsiDef} \psi\circ \lambda(a) \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} (b,\bar g_a|_Y)$$ for all $a=(b,f) \in \mathcal F$. Note that, for $b\in \mathcal G$, there exists $a \in \mathcal F$ such that $\lambda(a)=b$; thus $\psi_2(b)|_{Y \cap Z} \in {\text}C^*(\{\bar g_a|_{Y \cap Z}\}) \subseteq D|_{Y \cap Z}$. Since $\mathcal G$ generates $B$, it follows that $\psi_2(B) \subseteq D|_{Y \cap Z}$; therefore, we may define $E$ by the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ E \ar[r] \ar[d] & D|_Z \ar[d]^{f \mapsto f|_{Y \cap Z}} \\ B \ar[r]_-{\psi_2(\cdot)|_{Y \cap Z}} & D|_{Y \cap Z}, }$$ which is clearly subhomogeneous since $D$ and $B$ are. Moreover, $E$ can be identified with a subalgebra of $A$ by $$(b,d) \mapsto (\psi_1(b), c) \in B \oplus C$$ where $c|_Y := \psi_2(b)$ and $c|_Z := d$. This subalgebra approximates $\mathcal F$ up to ${\epsilon}$. Applying Lemma \[lem:drSHext\] to $E$ yields the final statement, about topological dimension. Since one-dimensional subhomogeneous algebras are approximated by one-dimensional NC cell complexes (Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\]), and one-dimensional NC cell complexes are semiprojective [@EilersLoringPedersen:NCCW] (see also [@Enders:SemiprojPB Remark 3.5]), it suffices to show that $A \otimes \mathcal W$ is locally approximated by one-dimensional subhomogeneous algebras. For this, it suffices to assume that $A$ is recursive subhomogeneous (in fact, by Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\], we could assume it is an NC cell complex—but this isn’t needed). By induction on its decomposition, we need to show that if an algebra $A$ is defined by a pull-back diagram as in (with $X^{(0)}$ possibly empty), where $C:={\text}C(X,\mathcal W)$, and $B$ is approximated by one-dimensional subhomogeneous algebras, then $A$ is approximated by one-dimensional subhomogeneous algebras. In this case, $C$ is approximated by one-dimensional subhomogeneous algebras by [@Santiago:DimRed Theorem 1.4], and hence Proposition \[prop:WASHtechnical\] implies that the same holds for $A$, as required. Decomposition rank ================== Recall the definition of the decomposition rank of a $^*$-homomorphism from [@TW:Zdr Definition 2.2]. If $A \subseteq B$ then we write ${\mathrm{dr}}(A \subseteq B)$ to denote the decomposition rank of the inclusion map; when $A=B$, this is the same as the decomposition rank of $B$, whereas in the case of a first-factor embedding $A \otimes 1_D \subseteq A \otimes D$, where $D$ is strongly self-absorbing, this decomposition rank value relates to the decomposition rank of $A \otimes D$, see [@TW:Zdr Proposition 2.6]. In this section, we prove the following result: \[thm:drBound\] Let $A$ be an NC cell complex. Then for any unital ${\text}C^*$-algebra $D$, $${\mathrm{dr}}(A \otimes 1_D \subseteq A \otimes D) \leq \sup {\mathrm{dr}}({\text}C(Z) \otimes 1_D \subseteq {\text}C(Z) \otimes D),$$ where the maximum is taken over all compact metrizable spaces $Z$ of the same topological dimension as that of $A$. In combination with the main result of [@TW:Zdr] (and Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\] to handle general subhomogeneous $\mathrm C^*$-algebras), Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\] is a consequence (see Corollary \[cor:MainThmA\]). It also provides an alternative proof of the main result of [@Winter:drSH], see Corollary \[cor:drSH\] (although both proofs are fairly technical, they are fundamentally different; A.T. and Wilhelm Winter found out the hard way that the argument in [@Winter:drSH] probably cannot be adapted to prove Theorem \[thm:drBound\]). A special case -------------- We include the construction of c.p.c. approximations for special one-step NC cell complexes, to give an idea of how the general case works. The general case involves a significant amount of recursion and induction which can be avoided in this case. Consider a separable ${\text}C^*$-algebra $A$ which is given by a pull-back diagram $$\label{eq:BabySetup} \xymatrix{ A \ar[r]^-{\sigma} \ar[d]_{\lambda} & {\text}C(X_1 \times [0,1],M_{m_1}) \ar[d]^-{ f \mapsto f|_{X_1 \times \{0\}}} \\ {\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}) \ar[r]_-{\theta} & {\text}C(X_1,M_{m_1}), }$$ where $\theta$ is a unital ${}^*$-homomorphism. This implies that $m_1 = {l}m_0$ for some ${l}\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Recalling that $\hat\theta(x)$ means ${\mathrm{ev}}_x \circ \theta$, define $$S\colon \mathrm{Hom}({\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}),M_{m_1}) \to \{\text{finite subsets of }X_0\}$$ by $$S({\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{z_1},\dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{z_{l}})) := \{z_1,\dots,z_{l}\}$$ (note that we are taking a set, not a multiset, here). Of course, every unital ${}^*$-homomorphism $\alpha\colon {\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}) \to M_{m_1}$ can be expressed as $\alpha={\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{z_1},\dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{z_{l}})$, and although this expression is not unique, the set $S(\alpha)=\{z_1,\dots,z_{l}\}$ is; in fact, $$S(\alpha) = X_0 {\backslash}U$$ where $\ker(\alpha) = C_0(U,M_{m_0})$. Define $$\label{eq:BabyYDef} Y := \{(x_1,x_0) \in X_1 \times X_0 \mid x_1 \in X_1\text{ and }x_0 \in S(\hat\theta(x_1))\};$$ since $S$ is continuous (in, say, the Hausdorff metric on finite subsets of $X_0$), it follows that $Y$ is a closed, and therefore compact, subset of $X_1 \times X_0$. Define $\bar\xi\colon {\text}C(Y,M_{m_0}) \to {\text}C(X_1,M_{m_1})$ as follows. For $x_1 \in X_1$ and $f \in {\text}C(Y,M_{m_0})$, let us express $\hat\theta(x_1)$ as $$\hat\theta(x_1) = \,{\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{z_1},\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{z_{l}}),$$ and then define $$\label{eq:barXiDef} \bar\xi(f)(x_1) := \,{\mathrm{Ad}}(u)({\mathrm{diag}}(f(x_1,z_1),\dots,f(x_1,z_{l}))).$$ (One may check that this is well defined—it does not depend on the chosen representation of $\hat\theta(x)$ and $\bar\xi(f)$ is indeed continuous.) A critical property of $\bar\xi$ is that $\theta$ factors as $$\label{eq:barXiFactors} {\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}) \to {\text}C(Y,M_{m_0}) {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\bar\xi} {\text}C(X_1,M_{m_1}),$$ where the first map is induced by the coordinate projection $Y \to X_0$. Fix $\eta \in (0,1)$ and define $$\label{eq:BabyZDef} Z_\eta := (X_0 \times \{0\}) \amalg (Y \times [0,\eta]) \amalg (X_1 \times [\eta,1])/\sim,$$ where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation generated by the following: 1. for $(x_1,x_0) \in Y$, $$(x_0,0) \sim ((x_1,x_0),0); \text{ and}$$ 2. for $(x_1,x_0) \in Y$, $$((x_1,x_0),\eta) \sim (x_1,\eta).$$ (It is easy to see that $\sim$ is closed, and therefore $Z_\eta$ is Hausdorff.) These constructions will be used in the proof of Proposition \[prop:BabyVersion\] (a baby version of Theorem \[thm:drBound\]) below. This simple example illustrates the constructions. Let $X_0:=\{a,b\}$, $X_1:=\{c,d\}$, $m_0=1, m_1=2$, and define $\theta\colon C(X_0) \to C(X_1,M_2)$ by $$\theta(f)(c) := {\mathrm{diag}}(f(a), f(b)), \quad \theta(f)(d) := {\mathrm{diag}}(f(a),f(a)).$$ In this case, we have $Y=\{(c,a),\, (c,b),\, (d,a)\}$ and $\bar\xi\colon C(Y) \to C(X_1,M_2)$ is given by $$\bar\xi(f)(c) = {\mathrm{diag}}(f(c,a), f(c,b)), \quad \bar\xi(f)(d) = {\mathrm{diag}}(f(d,a), f(d,a)).$$ The space $Z_\eta$ looks like the following: {height="1in"} \[prop:BabyVersion\] Consider the ${\text}C^*$-algebra $A$ given by the pull-back diagram and let $D$ be an infinite dimensional UHF algebra. Then ${\mathrm{dr}}(A \otimes D) \leq 2$. Let $\mathcal F \subset A$ be a finite subset and let ${\epsilon}> 0$; we must show that we can $(\mathcal F,{\epsilon})$-approximately factorize the identity map on $A$ in a $3$-colourable way. We may assume that $\mathcal F$ consists of positive elements. Moreover, by approximating $\mathcal F$, we may assume that there exists $\eta > 0$ such that, for every $a = (f,g) \in \mathcal F \subset {\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}) \oplus {\text}C(X_1 \times [0,1],M_{m_1})$, $x \in X_1$, and $t \in [0,2\eta]$, $$\label{eq:BabyVersionF} g(x,t) = g(x,0).$$ Set $Z:=Z_\eta$ as defined in . Let us identify the spaces $X_0$, $Y \times (0,\eta)$, and $X_1 \times [\eta,1]$ with subspaces of $Z$. Let $\mathcal U_0$ be an open cover of $X_0$ such that for every $(f,g) \in \mathcal F \subset {\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}) \oplus {\text}C(X_1\times [0,1],M_{m_1})$ and every $U \in \mathcal U_0$, the restriction $f|_U$ is approximately constant (to within ${\epsilon}$). Choose an open cover $\mathcal U_1$ of $Z$ such that for $U \in \mathcal U_1$: \(a) If $U \cap X_0 \neq {\varnothing}$ then $U \cap (X \times [\eta,1]) = {\varnothing}$, and there exists $V \in \mathcal U_0$ such that $U \cap X_0 \subseteq V$ and for every $((x,y),t) \in (Y \times (0,\eta)) \cap U$, it is the case that $y \in V$; \(b) If $U \cap (Y \times (0,\eta)) \neq {\varnothing}$ then $U \cap (X \times [2\eta,1]) = {\varnothing}$, and there exist disjoint open sets $V_1,\dots,V_q \in \mathcal U_0$ such that for any $(x,t) \in U \cap (X \times [\eta,2\eta))$ or $((x,y),t) \in U \cap (Y \times (0,\eta))$, $$S(\hat\theta(x)) \subset V_1 \cup \cdots \cup V_q; \text{and}$$ \(c) For every $(f,g) \in \mathcal F \subset {\text}C(X_0,M_{m_0}) \oplus {\text}C(X_1 \times [0,1],M_{m_1})$, the restriction $g|_{U \cap (X \times [\eta,1])}$ is approximately constant (to within ${\epsilon}$). Since the embedding ${\text}C(Z)\otimes 1_D \subset {\text}C(Z) \otimes D$ has decomposition rank at most $2$ [@TW:Zdr Theorem 4.1], we may find a $3$-colourable approximate (to within ${\epsilon}$) finite partition of unity $(a_i)_{i=1}^r$ in ${\text}C(Z,D)_+$ subordinate to $\mathcal U_1$ (by [@TW:Zdr Proposition 3.2], where this concept is defined; see also Definition \[def:Colourable\]). By possibly rescaling, assume that $\sum a_i \leq 1_D$. Let’s now define our c.p.c. approximation $$A {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\psi} F_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus F_r {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\phi} D \otimes A,$$ by defining finite dimensional (in fact matrix) algebras $F_i$ together with the parts of $\psi$ and $\phi$ corresponding to each $F_i$. This is done in cases. *Case 1*: The support of $a_i$ intersects $X_0$. Let $b_i \in {\text}C(Y \times [0,\eta],D)$ be given by composing $a_i$ with the natural map $Y \times [0,\eta] \to Z$ (from the definition of $Z$). Using $\bar\xi\colon C(Y,M_{m_0})\to C(X_1,M_{m_1})$ as defined in , identify the domain and codomain appropriately so as to view $\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D}$ as a map from ${\text}C(Y \times [0,\eta],D) \otimes M_{m_0}$ to $D \otimes {\text}C(X_1 \times [0,\eta], M_{m_1})$. Then, note that by condition (a) on the open cover $\mathcal U_1$, $\bar\xi(b_i \otimes 1_{m_0})$ vanishes on $X_1 \times \{\eta\}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes 1_{m_0}) &\in D \otimes C_0(X_1 \times [0,\eta), M_{m_1})\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \notag (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes 1_{m_0})|_{X_1 \times \{0\}} &=& (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{D})(b_i|_{Y \times \{0\}} \otimes 1_{m_0}) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:barXiFactors}}=& (\theta \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{D})(a_i|_{X_0} \otimes 1_{m_0}),\end{aligned}$$ where, again, we make appropriate identifications of domains and codomains of the maps involved. This shows that $$e_i := (a_i|_{X_0} \otimes 1_{m_0}, (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes 1_{m_0})) \in (D \otimes A)_+.$$ Set $$F_i := M_{m_0}$$ and define the c.p.c. order zero map $\phi_i\colon M_{m_0} \to D \otimes A$ by $$\phi_i(\kappa) := (a_i|_{X_0} \otimes \kappa, (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes \kappa));$$ (the range of this map is contained in $D \otimes A$, for similar reasons as for $e_i$). Fix a choice of $x_i \in X_0 \cap \mathrm{supp}\, a_i$, and use this to define $\psi_i\colon A \to M_k$ by $$\psi_i(f,g) = f(x_i).$$ *Case 2*: The support of $a_i$ intersects $Y \times (0,\eta)$, but not $X_0$. Let $U \in \mathcal U_1$ contain the support of $a_i$ and for this set, let $V_1,\dots,V_q \in \mathcal U_0$ be disjoint sets as in (b), which we relabel $V_{i,1},\dots,V_{i,q(i)}$. We define $F_i:=F_{i,1} \oplus \cdots \oplus F_{i,q(i)}$ where we define $F_{i,j}$ (and the parts of $\phi,\psi$ relating to $F_{i,j}$) now. Let us therefore fix $j=1,\dots,q(i)$. Define $b_{i,j}\colon Y \times (0,2\eta) \to D$ by $$b_{i,j}((x,y),t) := \begin{cases} a_i((x,y),t),\quad &\text{if }t \in (0,\eta)\text{ and }y\in V_{i,j}; \\ a_i(x,t),\quad &\text{if }t\in [\eta,2\eta) \text{ and }S(\hat\theta)(x) \cap V_{i,j} \neq {\varnothing}; \\ 0, \quad &\text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ One may check (using (b)) that $b_{i,j}$ is continuous, and vanishes on $Y \times \{0,2\eta\}$; therefore, we may view it as an element of $$C_0(Y \times (0,2\eta),D) \subset C_0(Y \times (0,1],D).$$ We note, for future use, that for $((x,y),t) \in Y \times (0,2\eta)$, $$\label{eq:BabybFact} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} b_{i,j}((x,y),t) = \begin{cases} a_i((x,y),t), \quad &\text{if }t\in (0,\eta); \\ a_i(x,t),\quad &\text{if }t \in [\eta,2\eta). \end{cases}$$ Define $$e_{i,j}:= (0_{X_0}, (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,1]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes 1_{m_0})) \in A_+.$$ Define the summand $$F_{i,j} := M_{m_0}$$ and define $\phi_{i,j}\colon M_{m_0} \to D \otimes A$ by $$\phi_{i,j}(\kappa):= (0_Y, (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,1]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes \kappa)).$$ Fix a choice of $y_{i,j} \in V_{i,j}$ and use this to define $\psi_{i,j}\colon A \to M_{m_0}$ by $$\psi_{i,j}(f,g) = f(y_{i,j}).$$ *Case 3*: The support of $a_i$ is contained in $X_1 \times (\eta,1]$. In this case, $a_i|_{X_1 \times (\eta,1]} \in C_0(X_1 \times (\eta,1],D)_+ \subset {\text}C(X_1 \times [0,1],D)_+$, so $$e_i := (0_{X_0},a_i|_{X_1 \times [\eta,1]} \otimes 1_{m_1}) \in (D \otimes A)_+.$$ Define the summand $$F_i := M_{m_1}$$ and define $\phi_i\colon M_{m_1} \to D \otimes A$ by $$\phi_i(\kappa) := (0_{X_0},a_i|_{X_1 \times [\eta,1]} \otimes \kappa).$$ Choose $z_i \in \mathrm{supp}\, a_i \subseteq X_1 \times (\eta,1]$ and use this to define $\psi_i\colon A \to M_k$ by $$\psi_i(f,g) := g(z_i).$$ Set $G_1,G_2$ and $G_3$ equal to the set of all $i$ from Cases 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Thus, we have $$F=\bigoplus_{i \in G_1} F_i \oplus \bigoplus_{i \in G_2} \bigoplus_{j=1}^{q(i)} F_{i,j} \oplus \bigoplus_{i \in G_3} F_i.$$ The maps $\psi$ and $\phi$ are given as (direct) sums in the same way. It is easy to see that wheneer $a_ia_{i'}=0$, we also have $e_ie_{i'}=0$ (or $e_ie_{i',j'}=0$, etc.), and that for $i \in G_2$, the elements $e_{i,1},\dots,e_{i,q(i)}$ are mutually orthogonal. Therefore, $\phi$ is $3$-colourable. Since $\sum a_i \leq 1_Z$, we also have $$\phi(1_F) = \sum_{i \in G_1} e_i + \sum_{i \in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} e_{i,j} + \sum_{i\in G_3} e_i \leq 1_{D \otimes A},$$ and so $\phi$ is contractive. Next, we must check that $\phi\psi(a) \approx 1_D \otimes a$ for $a = (f,g) \in \mathcal F$. We see that $\phi\psi(a) = (f',g')$ where $$\label{eq:Babyf'Def} f' := \sum_{i \in G_1} (a_i|_{X_0} \otimes f(x_i))$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \notag g' &:= \sum_{i\in G_1}(\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes f(x_i)) + \\ \notag &\quad \sum_{i \in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes f(y_{i,j})) + \\ &\quad \sum_{i \in G_3} a_i|_{X_1 \times [\eta,1]} \otimes g(z_i).\end{aligned}$$ For $x \in X_0$, we have that $a_i(x) \neq 0$ only if $f(x_i) \approx_{\epsilon}f(x)$. Also, by the definition of $G_1$, $\sum_{i\in G_1} a_i(x) = \sum_i a_i(x) \approx_{\epsilon}1_D$. Therefore, it follows from that $f'(x) \approx_{2{\epsilon}} 1_D \otimes f(x)$. Hence $\|f'-f\| \leq 2{\epsilon}$. Next, let $(x,t) \in X_1 \times [0,\eta)$. Express $\hat\theta(x)$ as $$\label{eq:BabyHatThetaExp} \hat\theta(x) = \,{\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{z_1},\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{z_{l}}).$$ Then, for $i \in G_1$, $$\begin{aligned} &&\quad (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes f(x_i))(x,t) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:barXiDef}}=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(1_D \otimes u)({\mathrm{diag}}(b_i((x,z_1),t) \otimes f(x_i),\dots,b_i((x,z_{l}),t) \otimes f(x_i))) \\ \notag &=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(1_D \otimes u)({\mathrm{diag}}(a_i((x,z_1),t) \otimes f(x_i),\dots,a_i((x,z_{l}),t) \otimes f(x_i))).\end{aligned}$$ using the definition of $b_i$. Likewise, for $i \in G_2$ and $j=1,\dots,q(i)$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag && (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes f(y_{i,j}))(x,t) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:barXiDef}}=& \,{\mathrm{Ad}}(1_D \otimes u)({\mathrm{diag}}(b_{i,j}((x,z_1),t) \otimes f(y_{i,j}),\dots, \\ \label{eq:BabyComputation1} &&\quad b_{i,j}((x,z_{l}),t) \otimes f(y_{i,j}))).\end{aligned}$$ Combining these, we find that $$\begin{aligned} \notag g'(x,t) &= \sum_{i\in G_1}(\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_i \otimes f(x_i))(x,t) + \\ \notag &\quad \sum_{i \in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes f(y_{i,j}))(x,t) \\ \label{eq:BabyComputation2} &= {\mathrm{Ad}}(1_D \otimes u)({\mathrm{diag}}(c_1,\dots,c_l))\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \notag c_k &:= \sum_{i\in G_1} a_i(x,z_k) \otimes f(x_i) + \\ \notag &\qquad \sum_{i \in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} b_{i,j}((x,z_k),t) \otimes f(y_{i,j}) \\ \notag &\approx_{\epsilon}\sum_{i\in G_1} a_i(x,z_k) \otimes f(z_k) + \\ \notag &\qquad \sum_{i \in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} b_{i,j}((x,z_k),t) \otimes f(z_k) \\ &\approx_{\epsilon}1_D \otimes f(z_k), \label{eq:BabycComputation1}\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that $f$ is approximately constant on each set in $\mathcal U_0$ for the first approximation, and using and that $\sum_{i\in G_1 \cup G_2} a_i(x,z_k) \approx_{\epsilon}1$ for the second approximation. Putting into we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \notag g'(x,t) &\approx_{2{\epsilon}}& {\mathrm{Ad}}(1_D \otimes u)({\mathrm{diag}}(1_D \otimes f(z_1), \dots, 1_D \otimes f(z_k)) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:barXiFactors}}=& 1_D \otimes \theta(f)(x) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:BabyVersionF}}=& 1_D \otimes g(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ Next, let $(x,t) \in X_1 \times [\eta,2\eta)$. Express $\hat\theta(x)$ once again as in . For $i\in G_2$ and $j=1,\dots,q(i)$, the computation remains valid, and so $$\sum_{i\in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes f(y_{i,j}))(x,t) = {\mathrm{Ad}}(1_D \otimes u)({\mathrm{diag}}(c_1,\dots,c_l)$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \notag c_k &:=& \sum_{i\in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} b_{i,j}((x,z_k),t) \otimes f(y_{i,j}) \\ \notag &\approx_{\epsilon}& \sum_{i\in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} b_{i,j}((x,z_k),t) \otimes f(z_k) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:BabybFact}}=& \sum_{i\in G_2} a_i(x,t) \otimes f(z_k),\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that $f$ is approximately constant on each set in $\mathcal U_0$, in the approximation. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \sum_{i\in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes f(y_{i,j}))(x,t) \\ \notag &\approx_{\epsilon}& \sum_{i\in G_2} a_i(x,t) \otimes {\mathrm{Ad}}(u)({\mathrm{diag}}(f(z_1),\dots,f(z_k)) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{i \in G_2} a_i(x,t) \otimes \theta(f)(x) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:barXiFactors}}=& \sum_{i \in G_2} a_i(x,t) \otimes g(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ Using this and the fact that $\sum_{i\in G_2 \cup G_3} a_i(x,t) \approx_{\epsilon}1_D$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \notag g'(x,t) &= \sum_{i \in G_2} \sum_{j=1}^{q(i)} (\bar\xi \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_{{\text}C([0,\eta]) \otimes D})(b_{i,j} \otimes f(y_{i,j}))(x,t) \\ \notag &\quad + \sum_{i \in G_3} a_i(x,t) \otimes g(z_i) \\ \notag &\approx_{\epsilon}\sum_{i \in G_2 \cup G_3} a_i(x,t) \otimes g(x,t) \\ &\approx_{\epsilon}1_D \otimes g(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for $(x,t) \in X_1 \times [2\eta,1]$, we have $$g'(x,t) = \sum_{i \in G_3} a_i(x,t) \otimes g(z_i) \approx_{2{\epsilon}} 1_D \otimes g(x,t)$$ This concludes the verification that $1_D \otimes (f,g) \approx_{3{\epsilon}} \phi\psi(f,g)$. This shows that ${\mathrm{dr}}(A \otimes 1_D \subset A \otimes D) \leq 2$. Since $D$ is UHF, it follows that ${\mathrm{dr}}(A \otimes D) \leq 2$. Set-up {#sec:Setup} ------ Let us fix an NC cell complex $A$; below we shall fix a decomposition of it. In subsequent sections, we shall produce a construction based on this fixed data. For a topological space $X$, let $CX$ denote the cone over $X$, defined by $$X \times [0,1]/\sim$$ where $(x,1) \sim (x',1)$ for all $x,x' \in X$. Note that this is the commutative space corresponding to the unitization of the standard ${\text}C^*$-algebraic cone over ${\text}C(X)$. We view $CX$ as the (non-topological) disjoint union of $X \times [0,1)$ and $\{1\}$. Let $A$ have an NC cell decomposition, in which it is the $k_0$-th stage, as follows. The first stage is $A_0 = {\text}C(CX_0,M_{m_0})$ and, for $k \geq 1$, the $k$-th stage is $A_k$ which satisfies the pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{ A_k \ar[d]_{\lambda_k} \ar[r]^-{\sigma_k} & {\text}C(CX_k,M_{m_k}) \ar[d]^-{f \mapsto f|_{X_k \times \{0\}}} \\ A_{k-1} \ar[r]_-{\theta_k} & {\text}C(X_k,M_{m_k}), }$$ where each $X_k$ is a sphere of some dimension. Thus, $A=A_{k_0}$. Occasionally, it will be convenient to use $\sigma_0\colon A_0 \to {\text}C(CX_0,M_{m_0})$ to denote the identity map on ${\text}C(CX_0,M_{m_0})$. We will frequently use the notation $$\lambda_k^{k'}:= \lambda_{k'+1} \circ \cdots \circ \lambda_k\colon A_k \to A_{k'}$$ for $k' \leq k$. Presently we will initiate a construction that will lead to c.p.c. approximations for the inclusion $A_{k_0} \to A_{k_0} \otimes D$. These will involve tuples of paramaters $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{k_0}) \in (0,1)^{k_0}$. We will frequently abbreviate this tuple as $\bar\eta$, and also use $\bar\eta$ to denote $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k)$ for values $k<k_0$ where appropriate. Throughout this section, we will use the notation $x_k$ (or $x_k'$, etc.) to denote a point in $X_k$, $v_k$ to denote a point in $CX_k$, and similar notation for points in sets $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ and $Y_{k,\bar\eta}$ to be introduced in Section \[sec:ZY\]. This is not to be confused with the $k^{\text{th}}$ entry from a tuple or sequence of points. When we wish to refer to an element of a tuple or sequence of points in $X_k$, we use the notation $x_k^{(i)}$ (where the tuple or sequence is indexed over $i$). In the construction to follow, it is not important that the spectrum of $A_0$ is a cone; nor is it important that $X_k$ is a sphere. It only matters that at each stage (after $A_0$), the space is a cone where the gluing occurs at the “wide end” of the cone. (In fact, what is pertinent is that the gluing space is a neighbourhood retract.) However, no stronger theorem (than Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\]) is obtained by replacing $CX_0$ and $X_k$ by more general spaces. Approximating subalgebras {#sec:ApproxSubalgs} ------------------------- Let us now define approximating subalgebras $A_{k,(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k)}$ of $A_k$, parametrized by $\bar\eta=(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k) \in (0,1)^k$. Set $$A_{0,()} := A_0.$$ Having defined $A_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, define $A_{k,\bar\eta}$ to consist of $a \in A_k$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \lambda_k(a) &\in A_{k-1,\bar\eta},\text{ and} \\ \sigma_k(a)(x,t) &= \sigma_k(a)(x,0),\text{ for all }x \in X, t \in [0,\eta_k]. \label{eq:ApproxSubalgs}\end{aligned}$$ Evidently, $A_k$ is locally approximated by the subalgebras $A_{k,\bar\eta}$. Construction of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ {#sec:ZY} -------------------------------- Let us now construct Hausdorff spaces $Y_{k,(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{k-1})}$ (for $k \geq 1$ and $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{k-1} \in (0,1)$) and $Z_{k,(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k)}$ (for $k \geq 0$ and $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{k-1} \in (0,1)$) recursively, together with a map $$S_{k,(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k),m}\colon \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m) \to \{\text{finite subsets of } Z_{k,\bar\eta}\};$$ we emphasize that the values of this map are sets, not multisets. Define $$Z_{0,()} := CX_0,$$ and for $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_0,M_m)$, define $S_{0,(),m}(\alpha)$ to consist of all $x_0 \in CX_0$ for which ${\mathrm{ev}}_{x_0}$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$. Now, having defined $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$ and $S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m}$, set $$Y_{k,\bar\eta} := \{(x_k,z_{k-1}) \in X_k \times Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \mid z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat \theta_k(x_k))\},$$ where we recall that $\hat \theta_k\colon X_k \to \mathrm{Hom}(A_{k-1},M_{m_k})$ is the continuous map induced by $\theta_k\colon A_{k-1} \to {\text}C(X_k,M_{m_k})$. Next, for $\eta_k > 0$, set $$\begin{aligned} \notag Z_{k,\bar\eta} := &\big((Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \times \{0\})\, \amalg\, (Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times [0,\eta_k])\\ &\qquad \amalg\, (X_k \times [\eta_k,1])\big)/\sim,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation generated by the following: 1. For every $z_{k-1} \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$ and $(x_k,z_{k-1}) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta}$, $$(z_{k-1},0) \sim ((x_k,z_{k-1}),0);$$ 2. For every $x_k \in X_k$ and $(x_k,z_{k-1}) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta}$, $$((x_k,z_{k-1}),\eta_k) \sim (x_k,\eta_k); \quad\text{and}$$ 3. For every $x_k,x_k' \in X_k$, $$(x_k,1) \sim (x_k',1).$$ As this equivalence relation is closed, $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ is a Hausdorff space. Identify $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \times \{0\}$, $Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$, $X_k \times [\eta_k,1)$, and $\{1\}$ in the natural way with subsets of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$; note that $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ is in fact the (non-topological) disjoint union of these four subsets. Now let us define maps $$S_{k,\bar\eta,m}\colon \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m) \to \{\text{finite subsets of } Z_{k,\bar\eta}\}.$$ For $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$, let $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ be the set consisting of all $z_k \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ for which one of the following properties obtains: \(i) $z_k = 1$ and ${\mathrm{ev}}_1 \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$; (i)$'$ $z_k = (x_k,t) \in X_k \times [\eta_k,1)$ and ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)} \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$; \(ii) $z_k = ((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$ and ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)} \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$; or \(iii) $z_k = (z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ and $\alpha$ contains a subrepresentation that factors as $$A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\lambda_k} A_{k-1} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\alpha'} M_{m'},$$ such that $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha')$. This concludes the inductive definition of the spaces $Y$, $Z$, and the maps $S$. We may regard $Y_{k,\bar\eta}$ as an “$X$-fibred” space, with its fibres being finite subsets of $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$. For a subset $A$ of $Y_{k,\bar\eta}$ and for $x_k \in X_k$, let us write $A(x_k)$ to denote the set $$\{z_{k-1}\in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \mid (x_k,z_{k-1}) \in A\},$$ and for $B \subseteq X_k$, let us also consider the subset $$A|_B := \{(z_{k-1},x_k) \mid x_k \in B\text{ and }z_{k-1} \in A(x_k)\} \subseteq A.$$ (Note that, while $A(x_k)$ can be canonically identified with $A|_{\{x_k\}}$, they are technically different.) Let us also regard $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ and $CX_k$ as $[0,1]$-fibred spaces, and use similar notation: for $A \subseteq Z_{k,\bar\eta}$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag A(0) &:= \{z_{k-1} \mid (z_{k-1},0) \in A\} \subseteq Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}, \\ \notag A(t) &:= \{(x_k,z_{k-1}) \mid ((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in A\} \subseteq Y_{k,\bar\eta},\quad t \in (0,\eta), \\ \notag A(t) &:= \{x_k \mid (x_k,t) \in A\} \subseteq X_k, \quad t \in [\eta,1), \text{ and}\\ A(1) &:= \{*\};\end{aligned}$$ and for $B \subseteq [0,1]$, $$A|_B := \{(w,t) \mid t \in [0,1]\text{ and }w \in A(t)\} \subseteq A.$$ It is clear how to define similar notation for subsets of $CX_k$. \[rmk:ZAltDesc\] A more explicit description of the points in $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ is as follows. The points of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ are tuples $(v_{k_1},\dots,v_{k_p})$ where 1. $v_{k_i} \in CX_{k_i}$ with $0 \leq k_1 < \cdots < k_p \leq k$; 2. $v_{k_1} \in CX_{k_1}|_{[\eta_{k_1},1]}$ (or $CX_0$ in case $k_1=0$); 3. $v_{k_i}=(x_{k_i},t_i) \in CX_{k_i}|_{(0,\eta_{k_i})}$ for $i=1,\dots,p$; and 4. ${\mathrm{ev}}_{v_{k_i}} \circ \sigma_{k_i} \circ \lambda_{k_{i+1}}^{k_i}\colon A_{k_{i+1}-1} \to M_{k_i}$ is a subrepresentation of $\theta_{k_{i+1}}(x_{k_{i+1}})$ for $i=0,\dots,p-1$. We will refer to this description at times, although we do not use it exclusively because the topology is more accessible using the other description. Under this description, for $\alpha \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A_k,M_m)$, the set $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ consists of $z_k=(v_{k_1},\dots,v_{k_p})$ for which ${\mathrm{ev}}_{v_{k_p}} \circ \sigma_{k_p} \circ \lambda_k^{k_p}$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$. \[lem:SContinuous\] Each map $$S_{k,\bar\eta,m}\colon \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m) \to \{\mathrm{finite\ subsets\ of}\ Z_{k,\bar\eta}\}$$ is continuous, where we use the Hausdorff metric on the set of finite subsets of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$. Implicitly, we are fixing a metric $d$ on $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$, giving rise to a Hausdorff metric. (By compactness, the topology does not depend on this choice of metric). **Step 1.** Let $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$ and let ${\epsilon}>0$; in this step, we show that for each $z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$, there is a neighbourhood $U$ of $\alpha$ such that, for all $\alpha' \in U$, there exists $z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$ with $d(z_k,z_k')<{\epsilon}$. We prove this inductively on $k$, thereby allowing us to assume it is true for $k-1$. (The base case, where $k=0$, is straightforward.) Consider cases: \(i) If $z_k=1$ or $z_k=(x_k,t)$ for $t \in (\eta_k,1)$, then this means that ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_k} \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$. We may then choose $U$ to be a neighbourhood of $\alpha$ such that every $\alpha' \in U$ contains some subrepresentation ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_k'} \circ \sigma_k$, where $z_k' \in CX_k|_{(\eta_k,1]}$ and $d(z_k,z_k') < {\epsilon}$ (inside $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$). Thus, for such $\alpha'$, $z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$. \(ii) If $z_k=(x_k,\eta_k)$, then this means that ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_k} \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$. This is essentially the same as Case (i), but we need to be a bit more careful. Choose $U_x$ and $U_t$ to be neighbourhoods of $x_k$ and $t$ inside $X_k$ and $(0,1)$ respectively, such that the set $$\left(Y_{k,\bar\eta}|_{U_x} \times (U_t \cap (0,\eta_k))\right) \cup \left(U_x \times (U_t \cap [\eta_k,1)\right)$$ is contained in the ball of radius ${\epsilon}$ about $z_k$. We may then choose $U$ to be a neighbourhood of $\alpha$ such that every $\alpha' \in U$ contains some subrepresentation ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k',t')} \circ \sigma_k$, where $x_k' \in U_x$ and $t' \in U_t$. Thus, for such $\alpha'$, if $t' \geq \eta_k$ then $z_k':=(x_k',t') \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$ and $d(z_k,z_k') < {\epsilon}$. Otherwise, $t' < \eta_k$, and for any $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))$, we have $$z_k' := ((x_k',z_{k-1}),t') \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$$ and $d(z_k,z_k') < {\epsilon}$. \(iii) If $z_k=((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$, then this means that ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)} \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$ and that $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))$. Let $U_x,U_z$, and $U_t$ be neighbourhoods of $x_k,z_{k-1}$, and $t$ inside $X_k, Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, and $(0,\eta_k)$ respectively, such that $$\left((U_x \times U_z) \cap Y_{k,\bar\eta}\right) \times U_t$$ is contained in the ball of radius ${\epsilon}$ about $z_k$. By induction and by continuity of $\hat\theta_k$, there is a neighbourhood $U_x'$ of $x_k$ inside $X_k$ such that, for $x_k' \in U_x'$, there exists $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))$ such that $z_{k-1}' \in U_z$. We may suppose that $U_x' \subseteq U_x$. We may then choose $U$ to be a neighbourhood of $\alpha$ such that every $\alpha' \in U$ contains some subrepresentation ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k',t')} \circ \sigma_k$, where $x_k' \in U'_x$ and $t' \in U_t$. For such $\alpha'$, it follows that there exists $z_k':=((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t') \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ with $d(z_k',z_k)<{\epsilon}$. \(iv) If $z_k=(z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \times \{0\}$, then this means that $\alpha$ contains a subrepresentation that factors as $$A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\lambda_k} A_{k-1} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\beta} M_{n},$$ in such a way that $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,n}(\beta)$. By induction, we may pick a neighbourhood $V$ of $\beta$ in ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A_{k-1},M_n)$ such that for every $\beta' \in V$, there exists $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,n}(\beta')$ with $$d((z_{k-1},0),(z_{k-1}',0))<{\epsilon}/2$$ (inside $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$). If $\beta$ is not contained as a subrepresentation of $\hat\theta_k(x_k)$ for any $x_k$, then we may choose $U$ to be a neighbourhood of $\alpha$ such that every $\alpha' \in U$ contains a subrepresentation that factors as $$A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\lambda_k} A_{k-1} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\beta'} M_{n},$$ with $\beta' \in V$. Otherwise, $\beta$ is contained as a subrepresentation of $\hat\theta_k(x_k)$ for some $x_k$ (possibly more than one), and we therefore have a gluing $$(z_{k-1},0) \sim ((x_k,z_{k-1}),0)$$ for any such $x_k$. We may then choose $U$ to be a neighbourhood of $\alpha$ such that for every $\alpha' \in U$, one of the following holds: \(a) $\alpha'$ contains a subrepresentation that factors as $$A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\lambda_k} A_{k-1} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\beta'} M_{n},$$ with $\beta' \in V$. In this case, there exists $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,n}(\beta')$ with $$d((z_{k-1},0),(z_{k-1}',0))<{\epsilon}/2.$$ By construction, $(z_{k-1}',0) \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$. \(b) $\alpha'$ contains a subrepresentation of the form ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k',t)} \circ \sigma_k$ where $t \in (0,\eta_k)$ and $\hat\theta_k(x_k')$ contains a subrepresentation that factors as $$A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\lambda_k} A_{k-1} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\beta'} M_{n},$$ with $\beta' \in V$, and therefore there exists $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,n}(\beta')$ with $$d((z_{k-1},0),(z_{k-1}',0))<{\epsilon}/2.$$ We may also ask (by making $U$ small enough) that in this case, $d(((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t),(z_{k-1}',0))<{\epsilon}/2$. By construction, $z_k':=((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t) \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$ and $$d(z_k',z_k) \leq d(z_k',(z_{k-1}',0)) + d((z_{k-1}',0)),z_k) < {\epsilon}/2+{\epsilon}/2={\epsilon}.$$ This concludes Step 1. **Step 2.** Let $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$. To show continuity at $\alpha$, we must show that for ${\epsilon}> 0$, there is a neighbourhood $U$ of $\alpha$ such that, for all $\alpha' \in U$, the Hausdorff distance from $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ to $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$ is at most ${\epsilon}$. This can be done using Step 1 and a pigeonhole principle argument. Namely, we may associate a non-zero dimension to each $z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ such that the sum of these dimensions (counted with multiplicity) is exactly $m$. To be precise, if $z_k = (v_{k_1},\dots,v_{k_p})$ as in Remark \[rmk:ZAltDesc\], then the “dimension” of $z_k$ is $D(z_k):=m_{k_1}$. Then, with a bit of care, in Step 1, we achieve, for each $z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$, a neighbourhood $U_{z_k}$ of $\alpha$ such that for $\alpha' \in U_{z_k}$, there exist $z_k^{(1)},\dots,z_k^{(q)} \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$ for some $q$ (counting with multiplicity) with $d(z_k,z_k^{(i)}) < {\epsilon}$ for each $i$, and such that $D(z_k^{(1)}) + \cdots + D(z_k^{(q)}) = D(z_k)$. Set $$\textstyle{U := \bigcap_{z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)} U_{z_k}}.$$ Then the pigeonhole principle implies that for $\alpha' \in U$, every $z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha')$ is of the form $z_k^{(i)}$ as above for some $z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$, and so $d(z_k,z_k') < {\epsilon}$. Pointwise finite dimensional approximations {#sec:PointwiseApprox} ------------------------------------------- For $z_k =(v_{k_1},\dots,v_{k_p}) \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ (using the notation of Remark \[rmk:ZAltDesc\]), define $F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}:=M_{m_{k_1}}$ and define the ${}^*$-homomorphism $\nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}:A_k \to F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}$ by $$\label{eq:nuDef1} \nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}(a) := \big(\sigma_{k_1} \circ \lambda_k^{k_1}(a)\big)(v_{k_1}).$$ Next, we construct, for each $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$ and $z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$, a ${}^*$-homomorphism $\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}\colon F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} \to M_m$. This gives us two ${}^*$-homomorphisms $$\label{eq:munuDef1} A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}} F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}} M_m;$$ ultimately, our c.p.c. approximations used to prove Theorem \[thm:drBound\] will be built out of these two maps; in fact, the c.p.c. approximations will look like $$\xymatrix{ A_{k_0} \ar[dr]_-{\psi} \ar[rr]^-{{\mathrm{id}}_{A_{k_0}} \otimes 1_D} && A_{k_0} \otimes D, \\ & F \ar[ur]_-{\phi} & }$$ where $F$ will be a direct sum of certain $F_{k_0,\bar\eta,z_{k_0}}$ and $\psi$ will be a corresponding direct sum of the $\nu_{k_0,\bar\eta,z_{k_0}}$. The components of the map $\phi$ will be built out of $\sigma_k$ and certain $\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}$. The construction of $\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$ is recursive in $k$. For $k=0$, $A_0 = {\text}C(CX_0,M_{m_0})$ and if $z_0 \in S_{0,(),m}(\alpha)$ then this means that $z_0 \in CX_0$ and ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_0}$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$. We have $F_{0,(),z_0} = M_{m_0}$ and $\nu_{0,(),z_0} = {\mathrm{ev}}_{z_0}$. Denote by $\alpha'$ the largest subrepresentation of $\alpha$ that is equivalent to a multiple of ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_0}$, which means that there exists a unique $\mu_{0,(),\alpha,z_0}$ such that is a factorization of $\alpha'$. For $k >0$, the definition breaks into cases. \(i) $z_k \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[\eta_k,1]} = CX_k|_{[\eta_k,1]}$: This means that ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_k} \circ \sigma_k$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of $\alpha$. We handle this in exactly the same way as for $k=0$. We have $F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} = M_{m_k}$ and $\nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} = {\mathrm{ev}}_{z_k} \circ \sigma_k$. Let $\alpha'$ denote the largest subrepresentation of $\alpha$ that is equivalent to a multiple of ${\mathrm{ev}}_{z_k} \circ \sigma_k$, and we define $\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$ to be the unique ${}^*$-homomorphism for which is a factorization of $\alpha'$; thus we have a commuting triangle $$\label{eq:muDef1} \xymatrix{ A_k \ar[rr]^-{\alpha'} \ar[rd]_-{\nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}} && M_m. \\ & F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} \ar[ru]_-{\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}} & }$$ \(ii) $z_k = ((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$: In this case, $F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} = F_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}}$. Also, $z_{k-1} \in S(\hat \theta_k(x_k))$, so by recursion, we have a map $\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat \theta_k(x_k), z_{k-1}}\colon F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} \to M_{m_k}$. We also know that ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)}$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation $\alpha$. Let $\alpha'$ denote the largest subrepresentation that is equivalent to a multiple of ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)}$, and factorize it as $$\label{eq:muDefmu'Def} A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{ev_{(x_k,t)}} M_{m_k} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\mu'} M_m.$$ Now, set $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:muDef2} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k} &:= \mu' \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat \theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}\colon F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} \to M_m.\end{aligned}$$ Diagrammatically (and leaving out some subscripts), we have $$\label{eq:munuDefCommute2} \xymatrix{ A_k \ar[r]^-{\nu_k} \ar[d]_{\lambda_k} & F_k=F_{k-1} \ar[r]^-{\mu_k} \ar[dr]_{\mu_{k-1}} & M_m \\ A_{k-1} \ar[ur]_{\nu_{k-1}} \ar[rr]_{\alpha'} && M_{m_k}, \ar[u]^-{\mu'} }$$ where the bottom triangle approximately commutes (it exactly commutes when restricted to $A_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, as defined in Section \[sec:ApproxSubalgs\]). \(iii) $z_k = (z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}$. In this case, $F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} = F_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}}$ and $\nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} = \nu_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}} \circ \lambda_k$. Then, $\alpha$ contains a subrepresentation that factors as $$A_k {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\lambda_k} A_{k-1} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\alpha'} M_{m'} {{\hspace{4pt}\buildrel {}} \over \longrightarrow \hspace{3pt}}{\mu'} M_m,$$ such that $\alpha'$ is unital, $\mu'$ is injective (usually non-unital), in such a way that $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha')$. Take the largest subrepresentation of this form, i.e., let $m'$ be maximal satisfying these conditions (note that this uniquely determines $\alpha'$, up to unitary equivalence). By recursion we have a map $\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_{k-1}}\colon F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} \to M_{m'}$. Set $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:muDef3} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k} &:= \mu' \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_{k-1}}\colon F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} \to M_m.\end{aligned}$$ Diagrammatically, we have the commuting diagram (with $m'$ in place of $m_k$), except that in this case, all triangles commute exactly. \[lem:PointwiseApprox\] For $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$, and $a \in A_{k,\bar\eta}$ (as defined in Section \[sec:ApproxSubalgs\]), $$\alpha(a) = \sum_{z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}(a).$$ In particular, $$\label{eq:PointwiseApproxMult} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(1_{F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}})\cdot\alpha(a) = \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}(a)$$ and $$\label{eq:muOrthog} (\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(1_{F_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}}))_{z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)}$$ is a partition of unity in $M_m$ (consisting of orthogonal projections). This is proven by induction on $k$. In the case $k=0$, it is trivial. Suppose that the statement holds for $k-1$. Let $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$. The map $\alpha$ decomposes as follows: $$\alpha = {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{v_1} \circ \sigma_k, {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_p} \circ \sigma_k, \alpha' \circ \lambda_k),$$ where $v_1,\dots,v_p \in CX_k|_{(0,1]}$ and $\alpha' \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_{k-1},M_{m'})$ for some $m'$. By possibly reordering, arrange that $$v_1,\dots,v_{p'} \in CX_k|_{[\eta_k,1]}\quad\text{and}\quad v_{p'+1},\dots,v_p \in CX_k|_{(0,\eta_k)}.$$ Let us assume that $v_1,\dots,v_p$ are distinct; this is only to simplify notation—if the $v_i$ are not distinct, the following argument still works provided we keep track of multiplicities. For $i=1,\dots,p'$, we have $v_i \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \notag F_{k,\bar\eta,v_i} &= M_{m_k}, \\ \notag \nu_{k,\bar\eta,v_i} &= {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_i} \circ \sigma_k, \\ \notag \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,v_i} &= {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ \\ &\qquad {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},{\mathrm{id}}_{M_{m_k}},0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},0_{m'}),\end{aligned}$$ by . Thus, for $a \in A_k$, $$\label{eq:PointwiseApprox1} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,v_i} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,v_i}(a) = e_i \alpha(a),$$ where $$\label{eq:PointwiseApproxeiDef} e_i := {\mathrm{Ad}}(u)({\mathrm{diag}}(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},1_{m_k},0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},0_{m'})),$$ with the $1_{m_k}$ appearing in the $i$th position. For $i=p'+1,\dots,p$, write $v_i=(x^{(i)}_k,t_i)$. Then for every $z_{k-1}\in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k))$, $$((x^{(i)}_k,z_{k-1}),t_i) \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha).$$ By induction, for $a \in A_{k,\bar\eta}$, since $\lambda_k(a) \in A_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:PointwiseApproxthetaDecomp} \notag &\hspace*{-10mm}\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k)(\lambda_k(a)) \\ &\ \ = \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k))} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k),z_{k-1}} \circ \nu_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}}(\lambda_k(a)).\end{aligned}$$ By , for $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k))$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:PointwiseApproxmunuIndDef1} \notag \nu_{k,\bar\eta,((x^{(i)}_k,z_{k-1}),t_i)} &= \nu_{k-1,z_{k-1}} \circ \lambda_k, \text{ and} \\ \notag \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,((x^{(i)}_k,z_{k-1}),t_i)} &= {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},\mu_{k-1,\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k),z_{k-1}}, \\ &\qquad\qquad 0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},0_{m'}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, defining $e_i$ again as in , for $a \in A_{k,\bar\eta}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag e_i\alpha(a) &=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0,{\mathrm{ev}}_{(x^{(i)}_k,t)} \circ \sigma_k(a),0,\dots,0,0) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ApproxSubalgs}}=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0,{\mathrm{ev}}_{x_k^{(i)}} \circ \theta_k\circ\lambda_k(a),0,\dots,0,0) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxthetaDecomp}}=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0,\\ \notag &&\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k))} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k),z_{k-1}} \circ \nu_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}}(\lambda_k(a)), \\ \notag &&\qquad\qquad 0,\dots,0,0) \\ \label{eq:PointwiseApprox2} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxmunuIndDef1}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,((x_k,z_{k-1}),t)} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,((x_k,z_{k-1}),t)}(a).\end{aligned}$$ Next let us consider $\alpha'$. $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ contains $S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha') \times \{0\}$, and by induction, for $a \in A_{k,\bar\eta}$, since $\lambda_k(a) \in A_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, $$\label{eq:PointwiseApproxalpha'Decomp} \alpha'(\lambda_k(a)) = \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha')} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_{k-1}} \circ \nu_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}} \circ \lambda_k(a).$$ By , for $z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha')$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:PointwiseApproxmunuIndDef2} \notag \nu_{k,\bar\eta,(z_{k-1},0)} &= \nu_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}} \circ \lambda_k, \text{ and} \\ \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,(z_{k-1},0)} &= {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_{k-1}},).\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\label{eq:PointwiseApproxe'Def} e' := {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},1_{m'}).$$ Then, for $a \in A_{k,\bar\eta}$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag e\alpha(a) &=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0,\alpha' \circ \lambda_k(a)) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxalpha'Decomp}}=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0, \\ \notag &&\qquad \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha')} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_{k-1}} \circ \nu_{k-1,\bar\eta,z_{k-1}} \circ \lambda_k(a)) \\ \label{eq:PointwiseApprox3} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxmunuIndDef2}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha'} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,(z_{k-1},0)} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,(z_{k-1},0)}(a).\end{aligned}$$ Putting these together, for $a \in A_{k,\bar\eta}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-20mm}\sum_{z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}(a) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{i=1}^{p'} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,v_i} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,v_i}(a) + \sum_{i=p'+1}^p \\ \notag &&\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k))} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}),t_i)} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}),t_i)}(a) \\ \notag &&\quad +\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\alpha')} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,(z_{k-1},0)} \circ \nu_{k,\bar\eta,(z_{k-1},0)}(a) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\begin{tabular}{@{}c}{\scriptsize \eqref{eq:PointwiseApprox1},\eqref{eq:PointwiseApprox2},} \\ {\scriptsize \eqref{eq:PointwiseApprox3}} \end{tabular}}=& \sum_{i=1}^{p'} e_i\alpha(a) + \sum_{i=p'+1}^p e_i\alpha(a) + e'\alpha(a) \\ &\stackrel{\begin{tabular}{@{}c} {\scriptsize \eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxeiDef},} \\ {\scriptsize \eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxe'Def}}\end{tabular}}=& \alpha(a).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$ is a ${}^*$-homomorphism, is a family of projections. A partition of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ ------------------------------- We now partition $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ into sets $$Z_{k,\bar\eta,0}^*,\dots,Z^*_{k,\bar\eta,k},$$ where we define $Z^*_{k,\bar\eta,m,k'}$ by fixing $k'$ and using recursion in $k$, from $k'$ to $k_0$. For $k=k'=0$, set $$Z^*_{0,(),0} := Z_{0,()}.$$ For $k=k'>0$, set $$Z^*_{k,\bar\eta,k} := Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[\eta_k,1]}.$$ For $k>k'$, define $Z^*_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ to consist of: 1. $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$ such that $$z_{k-1} \in Z^*_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}; \text{ and}$$ 2. $(z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \times \{0\}$ such that $$z_{k-1} \in Z^*_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}.$$ Likewise, let us define $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Z**Def} \notag Z_{0,(),0}^{**} &:= Z_{0,()} \\ \notag Z_{k,\bar\eta,k}^{**} &:= Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{(\eta_k,1]},\quad k>0 \quad \text{(compare, $Z_{k,\bar\eta,k}^* = Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[\eta_k,1]}$)}, \\ \notag Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^{**} &:= \{((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k) \mid z_{k-1} \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}\}\\ &\qquad \cup\, \{(z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \times \{0\} \mid z_{k-1} \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^{**} \subseteq Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^*$ and $Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}$ is open in $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$. \[lem:ZkPartition\] (i) In the notation of Remark \[rmk:ZAltDesc\], $Z^*_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ consists of points $z_k=(v_{k_1},\dots,v_{k_p}) \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ for which $k_1=k'$; for $k'>0$, the points in $Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ are the ones that additionally satisfy $v_{k_1} \in CX_{k_1}|_{(\eta_{k_1},1]}$. \(ii) $$\label{eq:ZkPartition} Z_{k,\bar\eta} = \coprod_{k'=0}^k Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^*$$ \(i) is easily proven by induction on $k$, and (ii) follows immediately. The map $(\alpha,z_k) \mapsto \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$ has a certain continuity property, which is expressed in the following lemma. \[lem:muContinuous\] For $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$ and $$z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha) \cap Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^{**},$$ and for ${\epsilon}> 0$, there exist neighbourhoods $U_{z_k}$ (respectively $U_\alpha$) of $z_k$ ($\alpha$) in $Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}$ ($\mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$) such that the following approximation holds: For every $\alpha' \in U_\alpha$ and every contraction $\kappa \in M_{m_{k'}}$, $$\label{eq:muContinuous} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(\kappa) \approx_{\epsilon}\sum_{z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k}} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_k'}(\kappa).$$ Decompose $\alpha$: $$\label{eq:muContinuousalphaDecomp} \alpha = \,{\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}( {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_1} \circ \sigma_k,\dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_p} \circ \sigma_k, \beta \circ \lambda_k),$$ where $v_1,\dots,v_p \in CX_k|_{(0,1]}$, and $\beta \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_{k-1},M_{m'})$ for $m'=m-pm_k$. Let us prove the statement inductively on $k \geq k'$. For $k=k'=0$, it is quite easy—and uses the same idea as the case $k=k'>0$ which is done in detail next. For $k=k'>0$, assume that the $v_i$ are ordered so that $v_1=\cdots=v_{p'}=z_k$ and $v_i \neq z_k$ for $i=p'+1,\dots,p$ (thus $p'\geq 1$). Let $U_{z_k}$ be a neighbourhood of $z_k$ in $CX_k|_{(\eta_k,1]}$ such that $v_i \not\in \overline V$ for $i=p'+1,\dots,p$ (we identify this with a subset of $Z_{k,\bar\eta,k}^{**}$). Then define $U_\alpha$ to consist of all $\alpha' \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$ that are of the form $$\label{eq:muContinuousalpha'Decomp} \alpha' = {\mathrm{Ad}}(u') \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{v'_1}\circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{v'_{p'}} \circ \sigma_k,\beta)$$ where $u'$ is a unitary near to $u$, $v'_1,\dots,v'_{p'} \in U_{z_k}$, and $\beta \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_{m-p'm_k})$ does not contain ${\mathrm{ev}}_v \circ \sigma_k$ as a subrepresentation for any $v \in \overline{V}$. Then $U_\alpha$ is a neighbourhood of $\alpha$. For $\alpha' \in U_\alpha$, let us write $\alpha'$ as in , so $$S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k} = \{v_1',\dots,v_{p'}'\}.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \hspace*{-10mm} \sum_{z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k}} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_k'}(\kappa) \\ \notag &= \sum_{i=1}^{p'} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',v_i'}(\kappa) \\ \notag &= {\mathrm{Ad}}(u')({\mathrm{diag}}(\kappa,\dots,\kappa,0_{m-p'm_k}) \\ \notag &\approx_{\epsilon}{\mathrm{Ad}}(u)({\mathrm{diag}}(\kappa,\dots,\kappa,0_{m-p'm_k}) \\ &= \mu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}(\kappa),\end{aligned}$$ thus establishing . For $k>k'$, let us consider two cases. \(i) $z_k=((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$: In this case, $z_{k-1} \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}$. Referring to the decomposition in , we may assume that the $v_i$ are ordered so that $v_1=\cdots=v_{p'}=(x_k,t)$ and $v_i \neq (x_k,t)$ for $i=p'+1,\dots,p$. By induction and by continuity of $\hat\theta_k$, there exist neighbourhoods $U_{z_{k-1}}$, $U_{x_k}$ of $z_{k-1}$, $x_k$ respectively (the neighbourhood $U_{x_k}$ arising from a neighbourhood of $\hat\theta_k(x_k)$), such that, for every $x_k' \in U_{x_k}$ and every contraction $\kappa \in M_{m_{k'}}$, $$\label{eq:muContinuousCase2Ind} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(\kappa) \approx_{{\epsilon}/p} \sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k')) \cap U_{z_{k-1}}} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k'),z_{k-1}'}(\kappa).$$ Choose a neighbourhood $V \subset U_{x_k} \times (0,\eta_k)$ of $(x_k,t)$ such that $v_i \not\in \overline{V}$ for $i=p'+1,\dots,p$. Define $$U_{z_k} := \{((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t') \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k) \mid (x_k',t') \in V, z_{k-1}' \in U_{z_{k-1}}\}.$$ Then define $U_\alpha$ to consist of all $\alpha' \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$ with a decomposition $$\label{eq:muContinuousalpha'Decomp2} \alpha' = {\mathrm{Ad}}(u') \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{v'_1}\circ \sigma_k,\dots,v'_{p'} \circ \sigma_k,\beta)$$ where $u'$ is a unitary near to $u$, $v'_1,\dots,v'_{p'} \in V$, and $\beta \in \mathrm{Hom}(A,M_{m-p'm_k})$ does not contain ${\mathrm{ev}}_v \circ \sigma_k$ as a subrepresentation for any $v \in \overline{V}$. Our set-up ensures that $U_\alpha$ is a neighbourhood of $\alpha$. To see , let $\alpha' \in U_\alpha$ be as in and let $v_i'=(x^{(i)}_k,t_i)$ for each $i$, so that $$\begin{aligned} S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k} = \bigcup_{i=1}^n \{(x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}'),t_i) \mid z_{k-1}' \in R_i\},\end{aligned}$$ where $R_i:=\{z_{k-1}' \in U_{z_{k-1}} \mid (x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}') \in Y_{k,\bar\eta}\}$. For $z_{k-1}' \in R_i$, by we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag &\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}'),t_i)}(\kappa) = \\ &\qquad {\mathrm{Ad}}(u')\circ{\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0,\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(i)}),z_{k-1}'}(\kappa),0,\dots,0,0_{m-p'm_k}),\end{aligned}$$ where the non-zero entry is in the $i^\text{th}$ position. By , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \sum_{z_{k-1}'\in R_i} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}'),t_i)}(\kappa) \\ &\quad \approx_{{\epsilon}} {\mathrm{Ad}}(u')({\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dots,0,\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\theta_k(x_k^{(i)}),z_{k-1}}(\kappa),0,\dots,0,0_{m-p'm_k})).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \hspace*{-10mm} \sum_{z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k}} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_k'}(\kappa) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{i=1}^{p'} \sum_{z_{k-1}' \in R_i} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}'),t_i)}(\kappa) \\ \notag &\approx_{\epsilon}& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u')({\mathrm{diag}}(1_{p'} \otimes \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\theta_k(x_k^{(i)}),z_{k-1}}(\kappa),0_{m-p'm_k})) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:muDef2}}=& \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha}(\kappa)\end{aligned}$$ (the approximation is within ${\epsilon}$ because the errors, each of norm at most ${\epsilon}$, are orthogonal), which establishes . \(ii) $z_k=(z_{k-1},0) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k)$: Then $z_{k-1} \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**} \cap S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\beta)$ (referring to the decomposition ). By induction, there exist neighbourhoods $U_{z_{k-1}}$ of $z_{k-1}$ in $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}$ and $U_{\beta}$ of $\beta$ in ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A_{k-1},M_{m'})$ such that for every $\beta' \in U_{\beta}$ and every contraction $\kappa \in M_{m_{k'}}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:muContinuousCase3Ind} \notag &\hspace*{-10mm}\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\beta',z_{k-1}}(\kappa) \\ &\quad \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} \sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m'}(\beta') \cap U_{z_{k-1}}} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\beta',z_{k-1}'}(\kappa).\end{aligned}$$ Here we need to be particularly careful about our choice of neighbourhoods, to take into account the possibility that $\beta \circ \lambda_k$ can be decomposed differently, involving point evaluations on $CX_k|_{\{0\}}$. For each $q\in \mathbb N$, consider the set $$\begin{aligned} \notag V_q &:= \{(v,x_k^{(1)},\dots,x_k^{(q)},\gamma) \in U(M_{m'}) \times X_k^q \times \mathrm{Hom}(A_{k-1},M_{m'-qm_k}) \mid \\ &\qquad {\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(1)},0)} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(q)},0)} \circ \sigma_k,\gamma \circ \lambda_k) \in U_\beta \circ \lambda_k\}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned} \notag (v,x_k^{(1)},\dots,x_k^{(q)},\gamma) \mapsto\, &{\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(1)},0)} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,\\ &\qquad {\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(q)},0)} \circ \sigma_k,\gamma \circ \lambda_k)\end{aligned}$$ is a continuous map into $\mathrm{Hom}(A_{k-1},M_{m'}) \circ \lambda_k$, the set $V_q$ is open. Let $\eta' < \eta_k$ be such that $v_1,\dots,v_p \in CX_k|_{(\eta',1]}$. Define $$\begin{aligned} \notag W := \bigcup_{q\in\mathbb N} &\{{\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(1)},t_1)} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(q)},t_q)} \circ \sigma_k,\gamma \circ \lambda_k) \mid \\ &(v,x_k^{(1)},\dots,x_k^{(q)},\gamma) \in V_q\text{ and }t_1,\dots,t_q \in [0,\eta')\},\end{aligned}$$ so that $W$ is a neighbourhood of $\beta \circ \lambda_k$ in $\mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_{m'})$. Set $$\begin{aligned} \notag U_\alpha &:= \{{\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{w_1} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{w_p} \circ \sigma_k,\check\beta) \mid \\ &\qquad w_1,\dots,w_p \in CX_k|_{(\eta',1]}, \check\beta \in W, v \in U(M_m), v \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} u\},\end{aligned}$$ which is a neighbourhood of $\alpha$, and set $$\begin{aligned} \notag U_{z_k} :=\, &U_{z_{k-1}} \times \{0\} \cup \\ &\quad \{((x_k,z_{k-1}'),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta') \mid z_{k-1}' \in U_{z_{k-1}}\},\end{aligned}$$ which is a neighbourhood of $z_k$. Let $\alpha' \in U_\alpha$ so that $$\alpha' = {\mathrm{Ad}}(v) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{w_1} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{w_p} \circ \sigma_k,\check\beta),$$ for some $w_1,\dots,w_p \in CX_k|_{(\eta',1]}$, some $\check\beta \in W$, and some $v \in U(M_m)$ with $$\label{eq:muContinuousvApproxu} v \approx_{{\epsilon}/3} u$$ Thus, $$\check\beta = {\mathrm{Ad}}(w) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(1)},t_1)} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(q)},t_q)} \circ \sigma_k, \gamma \circ \lambda_k)$$ where $q \in \mathbb N$, $(x_k^{(i)},t_i) \in CX_k|_{[0,\eta')}$, $\gamma \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(A_{k-1},M_{m'-qm_k})$, and these satisfy $$\label{eq:muContinuousCheckBeta'Def} \check\beta' := {\mathrm{Ad}}(w) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}({\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(1)},0)} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(q)},0)} \circ \sigma_k, \gamma \circ \lambda_k) \in U_\beta \circ \lambda_k.$$ Set $$\label{eq:muContinuousw'Def} w' := {\mathrm{diag}}(1_{pm_k}, w) \in U(M_m),$$ so that $\check\beta$ corresponds to the subrepresentation $${\mathrm{Ad}}(vw') \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{pm_k}, {\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(1)},0)} \circ \sigma_k,\dots,{\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k^{(q)},0)} \circ \sigma_k, \gamma \circ \lambda_k)$$ of $\alpha$. Note that $$\check\beta' = {\mathrm{Ad}}(w) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(1)}),\dots,\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(q)}),\gamma) \circ \lambda_k,$$ and since $\lambda_k$ is surjective, it follows from that $$\beta':= {\mathrm{Ad}}(w) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(1)}),\dots,\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(q)}),\gamma) \in U_\beta.$$ We compute $$\begin{aligned} \notag S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k} &= \bigcup_{i=1}^q R_i \cup R_\gamma\end{aligned}$$ where for $i=1,\dots,q$, $$R_i := \begin{cases} \{((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}'),t_i) \mid z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(i)})) \cap U_{z_{k-1}}\}, \quad &\text{if } t_i>0; \\ \{(z_{k-1}',0) \mid z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(i)})) \cap U_{z_{k-1}}\}, \quad &\text{if }t_i=0, \end{cases}$$ and $$R_\gamma:= \{(z_{k-1}',0) \mid z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'-qm_k}(\gamma) \cap U_{z_{k-1}}\}.$$ For $z_k' \in R_i$, let $z_k'=(x_k,z_{k-1}',t_i)$ if $t_i>0$ or $z_k'=(z_{k-1}',0)$ if $t_i=0$; we see that $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\beta') \cap U_{z_{k-1}}$. Then by (in the former case) or (in the latter), and using $w'$ as defined in , we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_k'} \\ &=& {\mathrm{Ad}}(vw') \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{(p+i-1)m_k},\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k^{(i)}),z_{k-1}'},0_{m-(p-i)m_k})\end{aligned}$$ For $z_k' = (z_{k-1}',0) \in R_\gamma$, by , we have $$\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k'} = {\mathrm{Ad}}(vw') \circ {\mathrm{diag}}(0_{(p+q)m_k},\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\gamma,z_{k-1}'}) \\$$ From these computations, we see that $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\sum_{z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha') \cap U_{z_k}} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_k'}(\kappa) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\beta') \cap U_{z_{k-1}}} {\mathrm{Ad}}(v)({\mathrm{diag}}(0_{pm_k},\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\beta',z_{k-1}'}(\kappa))) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:muContinuousCase3Ind}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/3}}& {\mathrm{Ad}}(v)({\mathrm{diag}}(0_{pm_k},\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\beta,z_{k-1}}(\kappa))) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:muContinuousvApproxu}}{\approx_{2{\epsilon}/3}}& {\mathrm{Ad}}(u)({\mathrm{diag}}(0_{pm_k},\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\beta,z_{k-1}}(\kappa))) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:muDef3}}=& \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(\kappa).\end{aligned}$$ Construction of $\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ ------------------------------------- For $k' < k$ and $f \in C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'},M_{m_{k'}})$, define $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)\colon X_k \times [0,\eta_k) \to M_{m_k}$ by $$\label{eq:checkXiDef} \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k,t) := \begin{cases} \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(f((x_k,z_{k-1}),t)),\quad &\text{if }t>0; \\ \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(f(z_{k-1},0)),\quad &\text{if }t=0. \end{cases}$$ where the sum is taken over all $$z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k)) \cap Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:ZkPartition\] (i), the domain of $\mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}$ is indeed $M_{m_{k'}}$ for such $z_{k-1}$. \[lem:checkXiDef\] For $k' < k$, $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ defines a ${}^*$-homomorphism $$C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'},M_{m_{k'}}) \to C_0(X_k \times [0,\eta_k),M_{m_k})$$ That $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ is a ${}^*$-homomorphism follows from the fact that in , the right hand side is a sum of ${}^*$-homomorphisms (applied to $f$) with orthogonal ranges (by the last part of Lemma \[lem:PointwiseApprox\]). We need to show that $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)$ is continuous and vanishes at infinity, for every $f\in C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'},M_{m_{k'}})$. For continuity, let $(x_k,t) \in X_k \times [0,\eta_k)$, ${\epsilon}> 0$. Let $$\label{eq:xiContinuousSetup0} S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k)) \cap Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'} = \{z_{k-1}^{(1)},\dots,z_{k-1}^{(p)}\}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:muContinuous\], there exists a neighbourhood $V$ of $\hat\theta_k(x_k)$ in ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A_{k-1},M_{m_k})$ and, for each $i=1,\dots,p$, a neighbourhood $U_i$ of $z_{k-1}^{(i)}$ in $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}$ such that for $\alpha \in V$ and each contraction $\kappa \in M_{m_{k'}}$, $$\label{eq:xiContinuousSetup1} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}^{(i)}}(\kappa) \approx_{{\epsilon}/p} \sum_{z_{k-1}'} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_{k-1}'}(\kappa),$$ where the sum is over all $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\alpha) \cap U_i$. By possibly shrinking the $U_i$, arrange that they are disjoint. By Lemma \[lem:SContinuous\], if $\alpha$ is sufficiently close to $\hat\theta_k(x_k)$ then $$\label{eq:xiContinuousSetup2} S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\alpha) \cap Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**} = \coprod_{i=1}^p S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\alpha) \cap U_i.$$ By possibly shrinking $V$, arrange that holds for all $\alpha \in V$. Let $W$ be a neighbourhood of $(x_k,t)$ in $X_k \times [0,\eta_k)$ such that, for $(x_k',t') \in W$, the following hold: \(i) $\hat\theta_k(x_k') \in V$; \(ii) If $t>0$ then $t'>0$ and for $((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t') \in Z_{k,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}$, there exists $i$ (necessarily unique) such that $z_{k-1}' \in U_i$ and $$\label{eq:xiContinuousSetup3a} f((x_k,z_{k-1}^i),t) \approx_{{\epsilon}/p} f((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t').$$ \(iii) If $t=0$ and $t'>0$ then for $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k'))$, there exists $i$ (necessarily unique) such that $z_{k-1}' \in U_i$ and $$\label{eq:xiContinuousSetup3b} f(z_{k-1}^i,0) \approx_{{\epsilon}/p} f((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t').$$ \(iv) If $t=0$ and $t'=0$ then for $z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k'))$, there exists $i$ (necessarily unique) such that $z_{k-1}' \in U_i$ and $$\label{eq:xiContinuousSetup3c} f(z_{k-1}^i,0) \approx_{{\epsilon}/p} f(z_{k-1}',0).$$ Now, for $(x_k',t') \in W$, let us show that $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k,t) \approx_{3{\epsilon}} \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k',t')$. Suppose first that $t,t'>0$. Then for each $i=1,\dots,p$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}^{(i)}}\big(f((x_k,z_{k-1}^{(i)}),t)\big) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiContinuousSetup1}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/p}}& \sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k')) \cap U_i} \\ \notag && \quad \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k'),z_{k-1}'}\big(f((x_k,z_{k-1}^{(i)}),t)\big) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiContinuousSetup3a}}{\approx_{{\epsilon}/p}}& \sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k')) \cap U_i} \\ && \quad \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k'),z_{k-1}'}\big(f((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t')\big). \label{eq:xiContinuousAlmost1}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k,t) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef},\eqref{eq:xiContinuousSetup0}}=& \sum_{i=1}^p \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}^{(i)}}(f((x_k,z_{k-1}^{(i)}),t)) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiContinuousAlmost1}}{\approx_{2{\epsilon}}}& \sum_{i=1}^p \textstyle{\sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k')) \cap U_i}} \\ \notag && \quad \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k'),z_{k-1}'}\big(f((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t')\big) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiContinuousSetup2}}=& \notag \textstyle{\sum_{z_{k-1}' \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k')) \cap Z_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}^{**}}} \\ \notag && \quad \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k'),z_{k-1}'}\big(f((x_k',z_{k-1}'),t')\big) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef}}=& \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k',t').\end{aligned}$$ The argument is almost exactly the same in other cases (if $t=0$ and $t'>0$, or if $t=t'=0$), using or in place of . This concludes the proof that $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)$ is continuous. To see that $\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)$ vanishes at infinity, note that $$\lim_{t\to \eta_k} \|f|_{Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}|_{\{t\}}}\| = 0,$$ and so, by , $$\lim_{t\to \eta_k} \|\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)|_{X_k \times \{t\}}\| = 0,$$ as required. Upon identifying $Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k}$ with $CX_k|_{(\eta_k,1]}$ for $k >0$, we also define $$\label{eq:checkXiTrivDef} \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k}\colon C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k},M_{m_k}) \to C(CX_k,M_{m_k})$$ to be the inclusion. Likewise, $\check\xi_{0,(),0}\colon C_0(Z^{**}_{0,(),0},M_{m_0}) \to {\text}C(CX_0,M_{m_0})$ is defined to be the identity map. Now, for $1 \leq k' \leq k$, we define $$\begin{aligned} \notag \xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}\colon &C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'},M_{m_{k'}}) \to A_{k'-1} \oplus \\ &\qquad {\text}C(CX_{k'},M_{m_{k'}}) \oplus \cdots \oplus {\text}C(CX_k,M_{m_k})\end{aligned}$$ by $$\begin{aligned} \notag \xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f) := &(0_{A_{k'-1}},\check\xi_{k',\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k',\bar\eta,k'}}),\\ \label{eq:xiDef} &\qquad \check\xi_{k'+1,\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k'+1,\bar\eta,k'}}),\dots,\check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)),\end{aligned}$$ where we are viewing $Z^{**}_{k'',\bar\eta,k'}$ as a subset of $Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$, for $k''=k',\dots,k-1$, by identifying $$Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'} \quad\text{with}\quad Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}|_{\{0\}}$$ and so on. For $k'=0$, we define $\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ by more or less the same formula, except that its range is ${\text}C(CX_0,M_{m_0}) \oplus \cdots \oplus {\text}C(CX_k,M_{m_k})$. \[lem:xiWellDef\] The image of $\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ is contained in $A_k$. The proof consists in showing, by induction on $k$, simultaneously both the statement of the lemma and that, for $m\in \mathbb N$, $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$, and $f \in C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'},M_{m_{k'}})$, $$\label{eq:xiWellDefExtra} \alpha(\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)) = \sum_{z_k} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(f(z_k)),$$ where the sum is taken over all $$z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha) \cap Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}.$$ The case $k=k'$ is trivial. For the inductive step, note that $$\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f) = \xi_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}}) \oplus \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f),$$ so that, to show that the image of $\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}$ is contained in $A_k$, we must show that $$\label{eq:xiWellDefToShow} \theta_k(\xi_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}})) = \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)|_{X_k \times \{0\}}.$$ For $x_k \in X_k$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k,0) &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(f(z_{k-1},0)) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiWellDefExtra}}=& \hat\theta_k(x_k)(\xi_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}})) \\ &=& \theta_k(\xi_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}}))(x_k),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used induction for the second line. This establishes . Now, to show , let $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$, and decompose it as $$\alpha = {\mathrm{Ad}}(u) \circ {\mathrm{diag}}( {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_1} \circ \sigma_k,\dots, {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_p} \circ \sigma_k, \beta \circ \lambda_k),$$ where $v_1,\dots,v_p \in CX_k|_{(0,1]}$, and $\beta \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_{k-1},M_{m'})$ for some $m'$. Assume that $v_1,\dots,v_p$ are arranged so that $v_1,\dots,v_{p'} \in CX_k|_{[\eta_k,1]}$ and $v_{p'+1},\dots,v_p \in CX_k|_{(0,\eta_k)}$. Fix $f \in C_0(Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'},M_{m_{k'}})$. For $i=1,\dots,p'$, $${\mathrm{ev}}_{v_i} \circ \sigma_k \circ \xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f) = 0.$$ For $i=p'+1,\dots,p$, let $v_i=(x_k^{(i)},t_i) \in X_k \times (0,\eta_k)$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-10mm} {\mathrm{ev}}_{v_i} \circ \sigma_k \circ \xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiDef}}=& \check\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)(x_k^{(i)},t_i) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef}}=& \textstyle{\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k)) \cap Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}}} \\ &&\quad \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(f((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}),t)),\end{aligned}$$ so that, by , $$\begin{aligned} \notag &{\mathrm{diag}}(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},{\mathrm{ev}}_{v_i} \circ \sigma_k \circ \xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f),0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},0_{m'}) \\ &\quad = \textstyle{\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x^{(i)}_k)) \cap Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}}} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,((x_k^{(i)},z_{k-1}),t_i)}(f(x_k,z_{k-1}),t).\end{aligned}$$ Summing over $i$ gives $$\label{eq:xiWellDefExtra1-e'} (1-e')\alpha(\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)) = \sum_{z_k} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(f(z_k)),$$ where $e' := {\mathrm{Ad}}(u)(0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},1_{m'})$ and the sum is taken over all $$z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha) \cap Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}|_{(0,1]}.$$ By induction, $$\beta(\xi_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}(f|_{Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}})) = \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\beta,z_{k-1}}(f(z_{k-1},0)),$$ where the sum is taken over all $$z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\bar\eta,m'}(\beta) \cap Z^{**}_{k-1,\bar\eta,k'}.$$ By , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:xiWellDefExtrae'} \notag e'\alpha(\xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)) &= (0_{m_k},\dots,0_{m_k},\beta \circ \lambda_k \circ \xi_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(f)) \\ &= \sum_{z_k} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,(z_k)}(f(z_k)),\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is taken over all $$z_k \in S_{k,\bar\eta,k'}(\alpha) \cap Z^{**}_{k,\bar\eta,k'}|_{\{0\}}.$$ Combining and yields . Maps related to changing parameters $\bar\eta$ ---------------------------------------------- Our construction will involve using different $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ given by varying the parameters $\bar\eta$. We will need to relate these spaces, and for this we define maps between them. Let $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k,\eta_1',\dots,\eta_k' \in (0,1)$ with $\eta_i \geq \eta_i'$ for $i=1,\dots,k$. Let $\bar\eta$ and $\bar\eta'$ denote $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_k)$ and $(\eta_1',\dots,\eta_k')$ respectively (or $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{k-1})$, $(\eta_1',\dots,\eta_{k-1}')$, as appropriate). We shall now construct maps $$\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}\colon Z_{k,\bar\eta} \to Z_{k,\bar\eta'}.$$ For $k=0$, set $$\rho_{0,(),()}:= {\mathrm{id}}_{X^{(0)}}.$$ Having defined $\rho_{k-1,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$, let us define $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$. We do this in cases: \(i) For $z_k \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[\eta_k,1)} = CX_k|_{[\eta_k,1]} = Z_{k,\bar\eta'}|_{[\eta_k,1]}$, simply set $$\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(z_k) := (z_k).$$ \(ii) For $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times [\eta_k',\eta_k)$, set $$\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) := (x_k,t).$$ (ii)$'$ For $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta_k')$, set $$\label{eq:rhoDefii'} \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) := ((x_k,\rho_{k-1,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(z_{k-1})),t).$$ By (with $k-1$ in place of $k$, i.e., using induction on $k$) we see that $$\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(x_k,\rho_{k-1,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(z_{k-1})) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta'},$$ so that the right-hand side of is in $Z_{k,\bar\eta'}$. \(iii) For $(z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta} \times \{0\}$, set $$\label{eq:rhoDefiv} \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(z_{k-1},0) := (\rho_{k-1,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(z_{k-1}),0).$$ Here are some easy facts about the maps $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$. \[lem:rhoFacts\] Let $k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'$ be given as above. \(i) $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}\colon Z_{k,\bar\eta} \to Z_{k,\bar\eta'}$ is continuous. \(ii) If $\eta_1'',\dots,\eta_k'' \in (0,1)$ are such that $\eta_i'' \leq \eta_i'$ for each $i$ then $$\label{eq:rhoFacts2} \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta''} = \rho_{k,\bar\eta',\bar\eta''} \circ \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}.$$ \(iii) For each $m$ and $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}(S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)) &= S_{k,\bar\eta',m}(\alpha) \quad \text{and} \\ \label{eq:rhoCommutes} S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha) &= \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(S_{k,\bar\eta',m}(\alpha)).\end{aligned}$$ (i), (ii): These are easy inductive arguments. \(iii) By induction on $k$; the case $k=0$ is easy. For the inductive step, let $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$. By induction, Cases (ii)$'$ and (iii) of the definition of $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$, and Cases (ii) and (iii) of the definition of $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$, we see that holds when both sides are restricted to $[0,\eta_k')$. It is also clear, from Case (i) of the definition of $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$ that holds when both sides are restricted to $[\eta_k,1]$. Finally, Case (ii) of the definition of $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$, together with Cases (i)$'$ and (ii) of the definition of $S_{k,\bar\eta,m}(\alpha)$ shows that holds when both sides are restricted to $[\eta_k',\eta_k)$. \[lem:omegaMuCompat\] Let $\bar\eta,\bar\eta'$ be as above. Let $\alpha \in \mathrm{Hom}(A_k,M_m)$ and $z_k' \in S_{k,\bar\eta',m}(\alpha)$. Then $$\mu_{k,\bar\eta',\alpha,z_k'}(1) = \sum_{z_k \in \rho^{-1}(\{z_k'\})} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}(1).$$ We prove this by induction on $k$. In the base case, $k=0$, it is trivial since $\bar\eta=()=\bar\eta'$. For $k>0$, consider cases. \(i) If $z_k' \in Z_{k,\bar\eta'}|_{[\eta_k,1]}=Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[\eta_k,1]}$ (see Case (i) of the definition of $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$) then $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(\{z_k'\}) = \{z_k\}$ and $\mu_{k,\bar\eta',\alpha,z_k'}=\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$, so the result holds in this case. \(ii) If $z_k'=(x_k,t) \in Z_{k,\bar\eta'}|_{[\eta_k',\eta_k)}$, then by Case (ii) of the definition of $\rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}$, $$\label{eq:muRhoSumSetup1} \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(\{z_k'\}) = \{((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \mid z_{k-1} \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))\}.$$ Let $\alpha'\colon A_k \to M_m$ be the maximal subrepresentation of $\alpha$ that factors through ${\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)} \circ \sigma_k$. Then by , $$\alpha' = \mu_{k,\bar\eta',\alpha,z_k'} \circ {\mathrm{ev}}_{(x_k,t)} \circ \sigma_k,$$ and so, by , for $z_{k-1} \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))$, $$\label{eq:muRhoSumSetup3} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,((x_k,z_{k-1},t)} = \mu_{k,\bar\eta',\alpha,z_k'} \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}.$$ By the final statement of Lemma \[lem:PointwiseApprox\], $$1_{m_k} = \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))} \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(1),$$ and thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \mu_{k,\bar\eta',\alpha,z_k}(1_{m_k}) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k))} \\ \notag &&\qquad \mu_{k,\bar\eta',\alpha,z_k} \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(1) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:muRhoSumSetup3}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,((x_k,z_{k-1}),t}(1) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:muRhoSumSetup1}}=& \sum_{z_k \in \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(\{z_k'\})} \mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k,t}(1),\end{aligned}$$ as required. \(iii) If $z_k'=((x_k,z_{k-1}'),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta'} \times (0,\eta_k')$ then, defining $\mu'$ as in , we have by $$\mu_{k,\bar\eta',z_k'} = \mu' \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta',\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}'}.$$ Every $z_k \in \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(z_k')$ is equal to $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t)$ for some $z_{k-1} \in \rho_{k-1,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(z_{k-1}')$, and for such $z_k$ we likewise have $$\mu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} := \mu' \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}.$$ Therefore, in this case, the conclusion follows from the inductive hypothesis. \(iv) If $z_k'=(z_{k-1}',0) \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta'} \times \{0\}$ then defining $\alpha'$ and $\mu'$ as in Case (iii) of the definition of $\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$, we have by , $$\mu_{k,\bar\eta',z_k'} := \mu' \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta',\alpha',z_{k-1}'}.$$ Every $z_k \in \rho_{k,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(z_k')$ is of the form $(z_{k-1},0)$ for $z_{k-1} \in \rho_{k-1,\bar\eta,\bar\eta'}^{-1}(z_{k-1}')$, and for such $z_k$ we likewise have $$\mu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k} := \mu' \circ \mu_{k-1,\bar\eta,\alpha',z_{k-1}}.$$ So once again, in this case, the conclusion follows from the inductive hypothesis. Open covers {#sec:OpenCover} ----------- Now fix $\eta \in (0,1/2)$ and **let us use $\bar\eta$ or $\overline\eta^k$ to denote $(\eta,\dots,\eta)$**. Further, write $$\overline{2\eta}^{k} := (2\eta,\dots,2\eta) \in (0,1)^k$$ and $$\overline\eta^{k'}\overline{2\eta}^{k''} := (\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta,\dots,2\eta) \in (0,1)^{k'+k''},$$ where $\eta$ appears $k'$ times and $2\eta$ appears $k''$ times. We shall construct open covers $\mathcal U_{k}$ of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$. These will depend on a prescribed finite subset $\mathcal F$ of $A_{k_0,\bar\eta}$ and a tolerance ${\delta}>0$, although this dependence is suppressed in the notation. For simplicity, all open covers will be hereditary, i.e., closed under taking open subsets. First, for each $k$, choose a hereditary open cover $\mathcal V_k$ of $CX_k$ such that, for each $a \in \mathcal F$, the function $\sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(a)$ is approximately constant, to within ${\delta}$, on each set in $\mathcal V_k$, i.e., for $V \in \mathcal V_k$ and $v_k,v_k' \in V$, $$\label{eq:VkApproxConst} \sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(a)(v_k) \approx_{\delta}\sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(a)(v_k').$$ Let us define $\mathcal U_k$ recursively over $k$. For $k=0$, set $\mathcal U_0 := \mathcal V_0$. For $k\geq 1$, set $\mathcal U^{(1)}_{k}$ to the set of all open sets $U \in \mathcal V_k$ which are subsets of $CX_k|_{(\eta,1]}$. Identifying $CX_k|_{(\eta,1]}$ with $Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{(\eta,1]}$, let us view $\mathcal U^{(1)}_{k}$ as a family of open subsets of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$. Set $\mathcal U^{(2)}_{k}$ equal to the collection of all open sets $U \subset Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[0,2\eta)}$ such that the following decomposition holds: We may decompose $$\label{eq:UkDecomp} \rho_{k,(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta),\bar\eta}^{-1}(U) = V_{1} \amalg \cdots \amalg V_{p}$$ such that $V_1,\dots,V_p$ are open in $Z_{k,(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}$, and for each $i=1,\dots,p$, $$\label{eq:UkDecompProperty} V_{i}(0) \cup \{z_{k-1} \mid ((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in V_i, \text{some }x_k \in X_k, t \in (0,2\eta)\} \in \mathcal U_{k-1}.$$ Now set $$\mathcal U_{k} := \mathcal U^{(1)}_{k} \cup \mathcal U^{(2)}_{k}.$$ \[lem:UkOpenCover\] For $k\geq 1$, $\mathcal U^{(1)}_k$ (respectively $\mathcal U^{(2)}_k$) is a hereditary open cover of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{(\eta,1]}$ (respectively $Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[0,2\eta)}$). Therefore, $\mathcal U_k$ is a hereditary open cover of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$. Using the fact that $\mathcal V_k$ is a hereditary open cover of $CX_k$, we see that $\mathcal U^{(1)}_k$ is an open cover of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{(\eta,1]}$. The rest of the lemma is proven by induction; at the outset, we know that $\mathcal U_0$ is an open cover of $Z_{0,()}$. Now let us assume that $\mathcal U_{k-1}$ is an open cover of $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, and prove that $\mathcal U^{(2)}_k$ is an open cover of $Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[0,2\eta)}$. Fix $z_k \in Z_{k,\bar\eta}|_{[0,2\eta)}$, and let us argue that it is contained in a set in $\mathcal U^{(2)}_k$ in cases as follows: \(i) If $z_k=(x_k,t) \in X_k \times [\eta,2\eta)$, write $S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat \theta_k(x)) = \{z_{k-1}^{(1)},\dots,z_{k-1}^{(p)}\} \subset Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$. By the inductive hypothesis, choose $W_1,\dots,W_p \in \mathcal U_{k-1}$ that are disjoint, with $z_{k-1}^i \in W_i$ for each $i$. By continuity of $S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k} \circ \hat \theta_k$, there is a neighbourhood $\hat U$ of $(x_k,t)$ in $CX_k$ such that $$\bigcup_{(x_k',t') \in \hat U} S_{k,\bar\eta,m_k}(\hat\theta_k(x_k',t')) \subseteq W_1\cup \cdots \cup W_p.$$ Set $$\begin{aligned} \notag U:= &\{((x_k',z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta) \mid (x_k',t) \in \hat U\} \\ &\quad \cup (\hat U \cap X_k \times [\eta,2\eta)). \end{aligned}$$ Then, by construction, $U \in \mathcal U^{(2)}_k$ ($p_U = p$ and the sets $V_{U,1},\dots,V_{U,p_U}$ are preimages of $W_1,\dots,W_p$) and $(x_k,t) \in U$. \(ii) If $z_k=((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta)$, we do the exact same thing as in (i). \(iii) For $(z_{k-1},0) \in Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, by the inductive hypothesis, there exists a neighbourhood $W$ of $z_{k-1}$ such that $W \in \mathcal U_{k-1}$. Set $$U:= W \times \{0\} \cup \{((x_k,z'_{k-1}),t) \in Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times [0,\eta) \mid z'_{k-1} \in W\}.$$ By construction, $U \in \mathcal U^{(2)}_k$ ($p_U = 1$) and $(z_{k-1},0) \in U$. \[lem:OpenCoverFact\] Let $U \in \mathcal U_k$. Then we have a decomposition $$\rho_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k,\overline\eta^k}^{-1}(U) = W_{1} \amalg \cdots \amalg W_{q}$$ where, for each $i=1,\dots,q$, there is $k(i) \in \{0,\dots,k\}$ such that the set $$\hat W_{i} := \rho_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k,\overline \eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)}}(W_{i})$$ is open component of $\rho_{k, \overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},\overline\eta^k}^{-1}(U)$, $$\hat W_{i} \subseteq Z^{**}_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},k(i)},$$ and for $a \in \mathcal F$ and $z_k,z_k' \in \hat W_i$ $$\label{eq:OpenCoverFactnuApprox} \nu_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},z_k}(\lambda_{k_0}^k(a) \approx_{\epsilon}\nu_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},z_k'}(\lambda_{k_0}^k(a))$$ in $M_{m_{k(i)}}$. Let us use induction on $k$. For $k=0$, the conclusion is trivial (with $q=1$). For $k\geq 1$, we consider cases as follows. \(i) If $U \in \mathcal U_k^{(1)}$ then by definition, $U \in Z^{**}_{k,\overline\eta^k,k}$. We may therefore set $$q=1,\quad W_1=U,\quad k(1)=k.$$ \(ii) If $U \in \mathcal U_k^{(2)}$, then let $V_1,\dots,V_p$ be as in . Fix $i$ for the moment. Set $$V_i' := V_{i}(0) \cup \{z_{k-1} \mid ((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in V_i, \text{some }x_k \in X_k, t \in (0,2\eta)\} \in \mathcal U_{k-1}.$$ i.e., exactly the set appearing in . By induction, we have the decomposition $$\rho_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\overline\eta^{k-1}}^{-1}(V_i') = W_{i,1}' \amalg \cdots \amalg W'_{i,q_i},$$ and we can find $k(i,j) \in \{0,\dots,k-1\}$ for $j=1,\dots,q_i$ such that the set $$\hat W'_{i,j} := \rho_{k-1, \overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\overline \eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)}}(W'_{i,j})$$ is an open component of $\rho_{k-1, \overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i)},\overline\eta^{k-1}}^{-1}(V'_i)$, $$\hat W'_{i,j} \subseteq Z^{**}_{k-1,\overline\eta_{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},k(i,j)},$$ and for $a \in \mathcal F$, $z_{k-1},z_{k-1}' \in \hat W'_{i,j}$, $$\label{eq:OpenCoverFactnuApproxInd} \nu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i)},z_{k-1}}(\lambda_{k_0}^{k-1}(a)) \approx_{\epsilon}\nu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i)},z_{k-1}'}(\lambda_k(a)).$$ Define $\hat W_{i,j} \subset Z_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}$ to consist of all $$\label{eq:OpenCoverFactWijDef1} (z_{k-1},0) \in \rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}^{-1}(V_i)|_{\{0\}}$$ such that $z_{k-1} \in \hat W'_{i,j}$, together with all $$\label{eq:OpenCoverFactWijDef2} ((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in \rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}^{-1}(V_i)|_{(0,\eta)}$$ such that $z_{k-1} \in \hat W'_{i,j}$. Then $\hat W_{i,j}$ is the preimage of a component of $$\rho_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\overline\eta^{k-1}}^{-1}(V_i')$$ under the continuous map $Z_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}|_{[0,\eta)} \to Z_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)-1}}$ defined by $(z_{k-1},0) \mapsto z_{k-1}$ and $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \mapsto z_{k-1}$. The set $\hat W_{i,j}$ is therefore a component of $$\rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}^{-1}(V_i).$$ Since $V_i$ is a component of $\rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k-1},(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}^{-1}(U)$, it follows that $\hat W_{i,j}$ is a component of $$\rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}^{-1}(U).$$ Moreover, since $\hat W_{i,j} \subseteq Z_{k,(\eta,\dots,\eta,2\eta)}|_{[0,\eta)} = Z_{k,\overline{\eta}^k}|_{[0,\eta)}$, it follows that $\hat W_{i,j}$ is a component of $$\rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},\overline{\eta}^k}^{-1}(U).$$ By the recursive definition of $Z^{**}_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},k(i,j)}$, it follows that $$\hat W_{i,j} \subseteq Z^{**}_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},k(i,j)}.$$ For $z_k,z_k'\in \hat W_{i,j}$, these correspond to points $z_{k-1},z_{k-1}'$ according to the definition of $\hat W_{i,j}$ ( and ), so that by the definition of $\nu_{k,\bar\eta,z_k}$, $$\nu_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},z_k} = \nu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i)},z_{k-1}} \circ \lambda_k,$$ and $$\nu_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},z_k'} = \nu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i)},z_{k-1}'} \circ \lambda_k.$$ Using this, and , it follows that for $a \in \mathcal F$, $$\nu_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},z_k}(\lambda_{k_0}^k(a)) \approx_{\epsilon}\nu_{k,\overline\eta^{k(i)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i)},z_k'}(\lambda_{k_0}^k(a)).$$ Define $$W_{i,j} := \rho_{k,\overline{2\eta}^{k},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}^{-1}(\hat W_{i,j}) \subseteq Z_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k}.$$ We have shown that $W_{i,j}$ has the properties required of each $W_i$ in the statement of the lemma. Moreover, since $$\rho_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\overline\eta^{k-1}}^{-1}(V'_i) = \coprod_j W'_{i,j},$$ it follows that $$\label{eq:OpenCoverFactViDecomp} \rho_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k,\overline\eta^{k-1}}^{-1}(V_i) = \coprod_j W_{i,j}.$$ Consequently, combining these for all $i$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag \rho_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k,\overline\eta^k}^{-1}(U) &= \coprod_{i=1}^p \rho_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k,\overline\eta^k}^{-1}(V_i) \\ &= \coprod_{i=1}^q \coprod_{j=1}^{q_i} W_{i,j}.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude by relabelling the family $(W_{i,j})_{i,j}$ as $W_1,\dots,W_q$. What to do with a partiton of unity ----------------------------------- Let $(e_i)_{i=1}^p$ be a finite family of positive functions in ${\text}C(Z_{k_0,\bar\eta},D)$ for some unital ${\text}C^*$-algebra $D$, subordinate to the open cover $\mathcal U_{k_0}$, which means that for each $i=1,\dots,p$, $$U_i := \{z_{k_0} \in Z_{{k_0},\bar\eta} \mid e_i(z_{k_0}) \neq 0\} \in \mathcal U_{k_0}.$$ (We will soon ask that $e_i$ is an approximate partition of unity, although this is not required yet.) By Lemma \[lem:OpenCoverFact\], for each $i$, we have the decomposition $$\label{eq:UiDecomp} \rho_{\overline{2\eta}^{k_0}, \overline\eta^{k_0}}^{-1}(U_i) = W_{i,1} \amalg \cdots \amalg W_{i,q_i}$$ where, for each $j=1,\dots,q_i$, there is $k(i,j) \in \{0,\dots,{k_0}\}$ such that the open set $$\label{eq:HatWijDef} \hat W_{i,j} := \rho_{{k_0},\overline{2\eta}^{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)}}(W_{i,j})$$ is a component of $\rho_{{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)}}^{-1}(U)$, and $$\label{eq:HatWijSubsetZ**} \hat W_{i,j} \subseteq Z^{**}_{{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-{k(i,j)}},k(i,j)}.$$ Define $$\label{eq:eijDef} e_{i,j} := (e_i \circ \rho_{{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)},\overline{\eta}^{k_0}})|_{\hat W_{i,j}} \in C_0(\hat W_{i,j},D)_+,$$ and use this to define a c.p.c. order zero map $$\phi_{i,j}\colon M_{m_{k(i,j)}} \to A_{k_0} \otimes D$$ by $$\label{eq:phiDef} \phi_{i,j}(\kappa) := \xi_{{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)},k(i,j)}(\kappa \otimes e_{i,j}).$$ Also, pick some $$\label{eq:zijDef} z_{k_0}^{(i,j)} \in \hat W_{i,j}$$ and set $$\label{eq:psiDef} \psi_{i,j}:=\nu_{{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)},z_{k_0}^{(i,j)}}\colon A_{k_0} \to M_{m_{k(i,j)}}$$ (the range is correct by and Lemma \[lem:ZkPartition\] (i)). Also set $$\phi_i := \sum_{j=1}^{q_i} \phi_{i,j}\colon \bigoplus_{j=1}^{q_i} M_{m_{k(i,j)}} \to A_{k_0} \otimes D.$$ To save space, let us write $\sigma_k$ to mean $(\sigma_k \otimes {\mathrm{id}}_D)\colon A_k \otimes D \to \mathrm C(CX_k, M_{m_k}) \otimes D$, and likewise for other maps such as $\lambda_{k'}^k$ and $\mu_{k,\bar\eta,\alpha,z_k}$. \[lem:phiPtEval\] Let $i=1,\dots,p$, $j=1,\dots,q_i$, and $k =0,\dots,{k_0}$. Consider the c.p.c. map $\sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k \circ \phi_{i,j}\colon M_{m_{k(i,j)}}\to C(CX_k,M_{m_k}) \otimes D$. \(i) If $k<k(i,j)$ then $$\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}})) = 0.$$ \(ii) If $k=k(i,j)$ then $$\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}})) = 1_{m_{k}} \otimes e_{i,j}|_{CX_{k}|_{(\eta,1]}},$$ where we canonically identify $M_{m_{k}} \otimes C_0(CX_{k}|_{(\eta,1]}, D)$ (to which the right-hand side belongs) with a subalgebra of $C(CX_{k}, M_{m_{k}}) \otimes D$ (for the left-hand side). \(iii) If $k\geq k(i,j)$ and $(x_{k},t) \in X_{k} \times (0,2\eta)$ then $$\begin{gathered} \notag \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}))(x_{k},t) \\ \notag = \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}) \\ \otimes e_{i} \circ \rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k},\overline{2\eta}^{k}}((x_{k},z_{k-1}),t).\end{gathered}$$ where the sum is over all $$z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},m_{k}}(\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}))$$ for which $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in W_{i,j}$. \(iv) If $k > k(i,j)$ then $$\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}))$$ vanishes on $CX_{k}|_{[2\eta,1]}$. We compute $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-15mm} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}})) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:phiDef}}=& \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k \circ \xi_{{k_0},\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)},k(i,j)} (1_{m_{k(i,j)}} \otimes e_{i,j}) \\ \label{eq:phiPtEvalComp1} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiDef}}=& \begin{cases} 0,\quad &\text{if }k<k(i,j), \\ \check\xi_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},k(i,j)} & \\ \quad (1_{m_{k(i,j)}} \otimes e_{i,j})|_{Z^{**}_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}},\quad &\text{if }k\geq k(i,j), \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where, in the latter case, as in , we view $Z^{**}_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}$ as a subset of $Z_{{k_0},\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)}}$. The former case proves (i). Point (iv) follows from the latter case and Lemma \[lem:checkXiDef\]. Picking up in the latter case, for $k = k(i,j)$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-15mm} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}})) \\ \notag &=& \check\xi_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{{k_0}-k(i,j)},k(i,j)} (1_{m_{k(i,j)}} \otimes e_{i,j}|_{Z^{**}_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}}) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiTrivDef}}=& 1_{m_{k(i,j)}} \otimes e_{i,j}|_{CX_{k}|_{(\eta,1]}},\end{aligned}$$ thus establishing (ii). On the other hand, for $k > k(i,j)$ and for $(x_{k},t) \in X_{k} \times (0,2\eta)$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-15mm} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}))(x_{k},t) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:phiPtEvalComp1}}=& \check\xi_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},k(i,j)} (1_{m_{k(i,j)}} \otimes e_{i,j}|_{Z^{**}_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}})(x_{k},t) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}})\\ \label{eq:phiPtEvalComp2} &&\quad \otimes e_{i,j}((x_{k},z_{k-1}),t),\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is taken over all $$\begin{aligned} \notag z_{k-1} \in &S_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},m_{k}}(\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k})) \cap \\ \label{eq:phiPtEvalzQuant} &\quad Z^{**}_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},k(i,j)}.\end{aligned}$$ For $z_{k-1}$ as in , by Lemma \[lem:omegaMuCompat\], $$\begin{aligned} \notag &\mu_{k-1,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}) \\ \label{eq:phiPtEvalComp3} &\quad = \sum_{z_{k-1}'} \mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_k(x_k),z_{k-1}'}(1),\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all $$\begin{aligned} \notag z_{k-1}' \in &\rho_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)}}^{-1}(\{z_{k-1}\}) \\ &\subset Z_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ For such $z_{k-1}$ and $z_{k-1}'$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag && e_{i,j}((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \\ \notag &=& e_{i,j}((x_k,\rho_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)}}(z_{k-1}')),t) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\begin{tabular}{@{}c}{\scriptsize \eqref{eq:rhoDefiv},\eqref{eq:rhoFacts2},} \\ \scriptsize{\eqref{eq:eijDef}} \end{tabular}}=& \begin{cases} e_i \circ \rho_{k_0,\overline{2\eta}^{k_0},\overline{\eta}^{k_0}}&((x_k,z_{k-1}'),t),\\ &\quad\text{if }((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in \hat W_{i,j}; \\ 0, &\quad\text{otherwise} \end{cases} \\ \label{eq:phiPtEvalComp4} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:rhoFacts2},\eqref{eq:HatWijDef}}=& \begin{cases} e_i \circ \rho_{k_0,\overline{2\eta}^{k_0},\overline{\eta}^{k_0}}&((x_k,z_{k-1}'),t),\\ &\quad\text{if }((x_k,z_{k-1}'),t) \in W_{i,j}; \\ 0,&\quad\text{otherwise,} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where we are viewing $Z_{k,\overline{2\eta}^k}$ as a subset of $Z_{k_0,\overline{2\eta}^{k_0}}$. Putting together , , and , and using , we obtain $$\begin{gathered} \notag \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}))(x_{k},t) \\ \notag = \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}) \\ \otimes e_{i} \circ \rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k},\overline{2\eta}^{k}}((x_{k},z_{k-1}),t),\end{gathered}$$ where the sum is over all $$z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},m_{k}}(\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}))$$ for which $((x_k,z_{k-1}),t) \in W_{i,j}$. This establishes (iii), in the case $k>k(i,j)$. In the case $k=k(i,j)$, (iii) follows from (ii) and Lemma \[lem:omegaMuCompat\]. \[def:Colourable\] Let $F,A$ be ${\text}C^*$-algebras, with $F$ finite dimensional, and let $\phi\colon F \to A$ be a c.p. map. The map $\phi$ is **$(n+1)$-colourable** if $F$ decomposes as a direct sum of subalgebras, $F=F_0 \oplus \cdots \oplus F_n$, such that $\phi|_{F_i}$ is orthogonality preserving (i.e. order zero), $i=0,\dots,n$. Likewise, a finite family $(e_j)_{j\in I}$ of positive contractions is **$(n+1)$-colourable** means that we can decompose $I=I_0\amalg \cdots \amalg I_n$ such that $(e_j)_{j\in I_i}$ is a pairwise orthogonal family, $i=0,\dots,n$. \[lem:CpcFacts\] (i) For each $i$, the map $\phi_i$ is c.p.c. order zero. \(ii) If $e_{i_1}$ and $e_{i_2}$ are orthogonal, then so are the ranges of $\phi_i$ and $\phi_i'$. Therefore, if the elements $(e_i)_i$ are $(n+1)$-colourable then so also is the map $\phi=\sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j}$. \(iii) If $(e_i)_i$ is an exact partition of unity then $\sum_{i,j} \phi_i(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}) = 1_B$. (iii)$'$ If $\sum_i e_i \approx_{\epsilon}1$ (i.e., $(e_i)_i$ is an **${\epsilon}$-approximate partition of unity**) then $\sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}}) \approx_{\epsilon}1_B$. \(i) and (ii): $\phi_{i,j}$ is quite clearly a c.p.c. order zero map. To show that $\phi_i$ is order zero, it therefore suffices to show that $$\phi_{i,j_1}(1_{m_{k(i,j_1)}}) \quad\text{and}\quad \phi_{i,j_2}(1_{m_{k(i,j_2)}})$$ are orthogonal for $j_1\neq j_2$. The key fact to be used here is $$W_{i,j_1} \cap W_{i,j_2} = {\varnothing}.$$ Similarly, for (ii), we need to show that, for all $j_1,j_2$, $$\phi_{i_1,j_1}(1_{m_{k(i_1,j_1)}}) \quad\text{and}\quad \phi_{i_1,j_2}(1_{m_{k(i_1,j_2)}})$$ are orthogonal, where we can assume that $$W_{i_1} \cap W_{i_2} = {\varnothing}.$$ Thus, (i) and (ii) both reduce to showing that, if $$W_{i_1,j_1} \cap W_{i_2,j_2} = {\varnothing}$$ then $\phi_{i_1,j_1}(1)$ and $\phi_{i_2,j_2}(1)$ are orthogonal, for which it is sufficient to show that they have orthogonal images in each irreducible representation, i.e., that for $k =0,\dots,{k_0}$ and $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{(0,1]}$, the two operators $$\label{eq:CpcFactsToShowOrthog} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i_s,j_s}(1))(v_{k}),\quad s=1,2,$$ are orthogonal. Three cases naturally arise. \(a) $k(i_s,j_s)>k$ for some $s$: By Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (i), one of the elements in is already 0. \(b) $k(i_s,j_s)=k$ for $s=1,2$: In this case, $e_{i_1,j_1}$ and $e_{i_2,j_2}$ are orthogonal (their supports lie in disjoint sets $W_{i_1,j_1}$ and $W_{i_2,j_2}$ respectively), and so by Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (ii), the elements in are orthogonal. \(c) $k(i_s,j_s) \leq k$ for $s=1,2$, with at least one inequality strict: If $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{[2\eta,0)}$ then by Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (iv), one of the elements in is already zero. So assume that $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{(0,2\eta)}$, so that the elements in are both described in Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (iii). The sum in Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (iii) is taken over a subset of $W_{i,j}$, and therefore, for $(i,j)=(i_1,j_1)$ and $(i,j)=(i_2,j_2)$, it is taken over disjoint sets. Since the ranges of $\mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}$ are orthogonal as $z_{k-1}$ varies, it follows that the two elements in are orthogonal. \(iii) follows from (iii)$'$, which we do presently. (iii)$'$: We work again in each irreducible representation, that is, we will show that for $k =0,\dots,{k_0}$ and $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{(0,1]}$, $$\label{eq:CpcFactsToShowPOU} \sum_{i,j} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1))(v_{k}) \approx_{\epsilon}1_{m_{k}}.$$ We must break our analysis into two cases. \(a) $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{[2\eta,1]}$: By Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (i) and (iv), the only contribution to the sum in comes from $(i,j)$, for which $k(i,j)=k$, and then by Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (ii), we get $$\begin{aligned} \notag \sum_{i,j} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1))(v_{k}) &= \sum_{i,j} 1_{m_{k}} \otimes e_{i,j}(v_{k}) \\ &\approx_{{\epsilon}} 1_{m_{k}} \otimes 1_D,\end{aligned}$$ (by hypothesis). \(b) $v_{k} = (x_{k},t) \in CX_{k}|_{(0,2\eta)}$: By Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (i), the only contributions to the sum in come from those $(i,j)$ for which $k(i,j)\geq k$. From Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (iii) and , we derive that $$\begin{aligned} \notag &\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i}(1))(x_{k},t) \\ &\quad= \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(e_{i} \circ \rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k},\overline{2\eta}^{k}}((x_{k},z_{k-1}),t)),\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all $$z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},m_{k}}(\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k})).$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-15mm}\sum_{i,j} \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1))(v_{k}) \\ \notag &=& \hspace*{-5mm}\sum_{i,z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(e_{i} \circ \rho_{k,\overline\eta^{k},\overline{2\eta}^{k}}((x_{k},z_{k-1}),t)) \\ \notag &\approx_{{\epsilon}}& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline{2\eta}^{k-1},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1) \\ &\stackrel{\text{Lemma\ }\ref{lem:PointwiseApprox}}=& 1,\end{aligned}$$ where the approximation to within ${\epsilon}$ is possible since the summands are orthogonal. Recall that the open cover $\mathcal U_{k_0}$ depended on open covers $\mathcal V_k$ of $CX_k$ which in turn depended on an open set $\mathcal F$ and a tolerance ${\delta}>0$, by the fact that $\sigma_k\circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(a)$ is approximately constant on each set in $\mathcal V_k$, for $a \in \mathcal F$. We exploit this relationship in proving the following. \[lem:CpcApproximation\] Suppose that $(e_i)_i$ is an $(n+1)$-colourable ${\epsilon}$-approximate partition of unity. Let $a \in \mathcal F$. Then $$\sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j} \circ \psi_{i,j}(a) \approx_{(n+1){\delta}+{\epsilon}} a \otimes 1_D.$$ Let us first show that $$\label{eq:CpcApproximationToShow} \phi_{i,j}(1)\cdot(a \otimes 1_D) = (a \otimes 1_D)\cdot\phi_{i,j}(1) \approx_{\delta}\phi_{i,j} \circ \psi_{i,j}(a)$$ for every $i,j$, by showing that this holds in every irreducible representation. To this end, let $k =0,\dots,{k_0}$, let $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{(0,1]}$ and consider images under the representation $${\mathrm{ev}}_{v_{k}} \circ \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k.$$ Set $$a_{k} := \lambda_{k_0}^k(a) \in A_{k}.$$ The analysis divides naturally into three cases. \(i) $k < k(i,j)$: In this case, everything in is zero in $A_{k}$, by Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (i). \(ii) $k=k(i,j)$: By Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (ii), $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-20mm}\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1)\cdot (a \otimes 1_D))(v_{k}) \\ \notag &=& (1_{m_{k}} \otimes e_{i,j}(v_{k}))\cdot(\sigma_{k}(a_{k})(v_{k}) \otimes 1_D) \\ \notag &=& (\sigma_{k}(a_{k})(v_{k}) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_{k})) \\ \notag &=& \nu_{k_0,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k_0-k(i,j)},v_k}(a) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\begin{tabular}{@{}c}{\scriptsize \eqref{eq:OpenCoverFactnuApprox},\eqref{eq:eijDef},} \\ \scriptsize{\eqref{eq:zijDef}} \end{tabular}}{\approx_{\delta}}& \nu_{k_0,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k_0-k(i,j)},z_{k_0}^{(i,j)}}(a) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:psiDef}}=& (\psi_{i,j}(a) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_{k})) \\ &=& \sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j} \circ \psi_{i,j}(a)).\end{aligned}$$ We clearly get the same thing in the second line if we start with the expression $$\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k((a \otimes 1_D)\cdot\phi_{i,j}(1))(v_{k}),$$ and thus we have established in this irreducible representation. \(iii) $k > k(i,j)$: By Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (iv) and the fact that $\phi_{i,j}$ is order zero, everything in is zero in this representation for $v_{k} \in CX_{k}|_{[2\eta,1]}$. For $v_{k} = (x_{k},t) \in CX_{k}|_{(0,2\eta)}$, note that $$\label{eq:CpcApproximationQuicky} \sigma_k(a_k) = \hat\theta_k(x_k)(a_{k-1}).$$ As in Lemma \[lem:phiPtEval\] (iii), we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag &&\hspace*{-15mm}\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\phi_{i,j}(1)\cdot(a \otimes 1_D))(v_{k}) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:phiDef}}=& \sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k(\xi_{k_0,\bar\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k_0-k(i,j)},k(i,j)}(1_{m_{k(i,j)}} \otimes e_{i,j})(v_k)\\ \notag &&\quad\cdot (\sigma_k(a_k) \otimes 1_D)(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiDef}}=& \check\xi_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)},k(i,j)} \big(1 \otimes e_{i,j}|_{Z^{**}_{k,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-k(i,j)}}}\big)(v_k) \\ \notag &&\quad \cdot(\sigma_{k}(a_{k}) \otimes 1_D)(v_{k}) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef},\eqref{eq:eijDef}}=& \textstyle{\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},m_{k}}(\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k})) \cap \hat W_{i,j}}} \\ \notag && \hspace*{-25mm}\big(\mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k)\big)\cdot(\sigma_k(a_{k-1}) \otimes 1_D)(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:CpcApproximationQuicky}}=& \textstyle{\sum_{z_{k-1} \in S_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},m_{k}}(\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k})) \cap \hat W_{i,j}}} \\ \notag && \hspace*{-25mm}\big(\mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k)\big)\cdot(\hat\theta_k(x_k)(a_{k-1}) \otimes 1_D) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \big(\mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(1)\cdot\hat\theta_k(x_k)(a_{k-1})\big) \\ \notag && \quad \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k) \\ \label{eq:CpcApproximationMidComp} &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:PointwiseApproxMult}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}} \\ \notag &&\quad \circ \nu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},z_{k-1}}(a_{k-1}) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:nuDef1}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}} \\ \notag &&\quad \circ \nu_{k_0,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k_0-k(i,j)},((x_k,z_{k-1}),t)}(a) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\begin{tabular}{@{}c}{\scriptsize \eqref{eq:OpenCoverFactnuApprox},\eqref{eq:eijDef},} \\ \scriptsize{\eqref{eq:zijDef}} \end{tabular}}{\approx_{\delta}}& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}} \\ \notag &&\quad \circ \nu_{k_0,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k_0-k(i,j)},z_{k_0}^{(i,j)}}(a) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:psiDef}}=& \sum_{z_{k-1}} \mu_{k-1,\overline\eta^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta}^{k-1-k(i,j)},\hat\theta_{k}(x_{k}),z_{k-1}}(\psi_{i,j}(a)) \\ \notag &&\qquad \otimes e_{i,j}(v_{k}) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:checkXiDef}}=& \check\xi_{k_0,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta},k}(\psi_{i,j}(a) \otimes e_{i,j}(v_k)) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:xiDef}}=& \left(\sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k \circ \xi_{k_0,\overline{\eta}^{k(i,j)}\overline{2\eta},k}(\psi_{i,j}(a) \otimes e_{i,j})\right)(v_k) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:phiDef}}=& \sigma_k \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k \circ \phi_{i,j} \circ \psi_{i,j}(a),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that the summands are orthogonal to get the approximation to within ${\delta}$. We clearly get the same thing in if we start with the expression $$\sigma_{k} \circ \lambda_{k_0}^k((a \otimes 1_D)\cdot\phi_{i,j}(1))(v_{k}),$$ and thus we have shown in this irreducible representation. We have finished establishing . By Lemma \[lem:CpcFacts\] (ii), we may colour (i.e., partition) the set of all indices $(i,j)$ into $$I_0 \amalg \cdots \amalg I_n,$$ in such a way that for $c=0,\dots,n$, $$(\phi_{i,j})_{(i,j) \in I_c}$$ have orthogonal ranges. It follows from that $$\label{eq:CpcApproximationOneColour} \sum_{(i,j) \in I_c} \phi_{i,j}(1)(a \otimes 1_D) \approx_{{\delta}} \sum_{(i,j) \in I_c} \phi_{i,j} \circ \psi_{i,j}(a).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag a \otimes 1_D &\stackrel{\mathrm{Lemma\ }\ref{lem:CpcFacts}\mathrm{\ (iii)}'}{\approx_{\epsilon}}& \sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j}(1)(a \otimes 1_D) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{c=0}^n \sum_{(i,j) \in I_c} \phi_{i,j}(1)(a \otimes D) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:CpcApproximationOneColour}}{\approx_{(n+1){\delta}}}& \sum_{c=0}^n \sum_{(i,j) \in I_c} \phi_{i,j}\circ\psi_{i,j}(a) \\ &=& \sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j}\circ\psi_{i,j}(a),\end{aligned}$$ as required. Proof of Theorem \[thm:drBound\] and applications ------------------------------------------------- Since $A$ is an NC cell complex, we may assume it is $A_{k_0}$. Since $A_{k_0}$ is locally approximated by $A_{{k_0},\bar\eta}$, it suffices to show that $${\mathrm{dr}}(A_{{k_0},\bar\eta} \otimes 1_D \subseteq A_{k_0} \otimes D) \leq n.$$ Let $\mathcal F \subseteq A_{{k_0},\bar\eta}$ and let ${\epsilon}>0$. Using this $\mathcal F$ and ${\delta}:=\frac{\epsilon}{2(n+1)}$, form the open cover $\mathcal U_{k_0}$ as in Section \[sec:OpenCover\]. By the hypothesis, applied to $Z:=Z_{{k_0},\bar\eta}$, and by [@TW:Zdr Proposition 3.2], there exists an $(n+1)$-colourable ${\epsilon}/2$-approximate partition of unity $(e_i)_i$ in ${\text}C(Z_{{k_0},\bar\eta},D)$ subordinate to $\mathcal U_{k_0}$. Form the c.p.c. maps $\phi_{i,j}$ and $\psi_{i,j}$ as in , . By Lemma \[lem:CpcFacts\] (ii), $\phi=\sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j}$ is $(n+1)$-colourable, and by Lemma \[lem:CpcFacts\] (iii)$'$, $\|\phi\| \leq 1+{\epsilon}/2$. Rescaling, we may arrange that $\phi$ is c.p.c. Finally, by Lemma \[lem:CpcApproximation\], $$\sum_{i,j} \phi_{i,j} \circ \psi_{i,j}(a) \approx_{\epsilon}a \otimes 1_D$$ for all $a \in \mathcal F$. \[cor:MainThmA\] ${\mathrm{dr}}A \leq 2$ for any $\mathcal Z$-stable, locally subhomogeneous algebra. Since locally subhomogeneous algebras are locally approximated by NC cell complexes, and by [@TW:Zdr Proposition 2.6], it suffices to show, for any NC cell complex $A$, that the inclusion $$A \otimes \mathcal Z \otimes 1_{\mathcal Z} \subset A \otimes \mathcal Z \otimes \mathcal Z$$ has decomposition rank at most $2$. By approximating, it suffices to show this for the inclusion $$A \otimes \mathcal Z_{p,q} \otimes 1_{\mathcal Z} \subset A \otimes \mathcal Z_{p,q} \otimes \mathcal Z.$$ Note that $A \otimes \mathcal Z_{p,q}$ is itself an NC cell complex, so that this inclusion has decomposition rank at most $2$ follows from Theorem \[thm:drBound\] and [@TW:Zdr]. Theorem \[thm:drBound\] also gives a different proof of the following result, the main theorem of [@Winter:drSH]. \[cor:drSH\] ${\mathrm{dr}}A \leq n$ for any separable subhomogeneous algebra, provided that for each $k$, $\mathrm{Prim}_k(A)$ has dimension at most $n$. By Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\], $A$ is locally approximated by NC cell complexes where the cells have dimension at most $n$. (Note that this does not use the result of [@Winter:drSH], since the proof of Theorem \[thm:ApproxCell\] only uses the fact that $\mathrm{Prim}_k(A)$ has dimension at most $n$.) Therefore, by Proposition \[prop:drLocal\], we may assume that $A$ is such an NC cell complex. This means that $A$ has the form given in Section \[sec:Setup\], where $\dim X_i \leq n-1$ for all $i=0,\dots,k$. In order to apply Theorem \[thm:drBound\], we must show that $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ has dimension at most $n$. Evidently, there exists a finite-to-one continuous map $Y_{k,\bar\eta} \to X_i$ and so by [@Engelking:DimTheory Theorem 1.12.4], $$\dim Y_{k,\bar\eta} \leq \dim X_i \leq n$$ for every $k$. Then since $Z_{k,\bar\eta}$ can be decomposed into a closed set homeomorphic to $Z_{k-1,\bar\eta}$, an open set homeomorphic to $Y_{k,\bar\eta} \times (0,\eta)$, and a closed set homeomorphic to $CX_k$, we can show inductively that $$\dim Z_{k,\bar\eta} \leq n.$$ Minimal $\mathbb Z$-crossed products {#sec:CrossedProd} ==================================== Let us now consider crossed products associated to minimal homeomorphisms $\alpha\colon X \to X$, for compact metrizable spaces $X$. Using ${\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$ to denote the crossed product, we show the following result. \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\] Let $X$ be a compact metrizable space, let $\alpha\colon X \to X$ be a minimal homeomorphism, and let $U$ be an infinite dimensional UHF algebra. Then $$({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U$$ is locally subhomogeneous. In particular, this result shows that Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\] applies to $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U$, and then on using [@Carrion:RFproducts Lemma 3.1], it follows that $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z$ has finite decomposition rank, as explained in Corollary \[cor:CrProddr\], below. In fact, using the heavy classification machinery of Gong, Lin, and Niu [@GongLinNiu], Lin has shown that $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z$ is approximately subhomogeneous (see Remark \[rmk:LinCrossedClass\]) [@Lin:CrossedClass]. It would be nice to have a direct proof (such as the proof of Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\]) that $\mathcal Z$-stable (or even all) minimal $\mathbb Z$-crossed products are locally subhomogeneous, not using lengthy classification results. Let $X,\alpha$ as in Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\], and let $x \in X$. Let $u \in {\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$ denote the canonical unitary, so that $$u^*fu = f \circ \alpha \text{ for }f \in {\text}C(X) \subset {\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z.$$ Define $$A_x := {\text}C^*({\text}C(X) \cup uC_0(X {\backslash}\{x\})) \subset {\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z.$$ This algebra is known to be locally subhomogeneous (in fact, an inductive limit of fairly explicit subhomogeneous algebras), as well as simple; these facts are largely due to Q. Lin [@QLin]; see [@Phillips:arsh Theorem 4.1] for a concise account. Many times has the structure of ${\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$ been studied using $A_x$ [@ElliottEvans:IrratRotation; @ElliottNiu:MeanDim0; @GiordanoPutnamSkau:OrbitEq; @LinPhillips:CrProd; @Phillips:arsh; @Putnam:CantorCrProd; @Putnam:KTheoryGroupoids; @LinPhillips:mindiffeos; @TomsWinter:rigidity; @TomsWinter:MinClassification]! In Lemma \[lem:UHFCrossedProdSpecific\], below, Berg’s technique is used to show a new link: up to UHF stabilization, ${\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$ is locally approximated by the direct sum of a corner of $A_x$ and a circle-matrix algebra. From this, Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\] will immediately follow. First, a few (known) preparatory lemmas. In the following, for positive elements $a,e$, we write $a \vartriangleleft e$ to mean $ea=ae=a$. \[lem:ProjBetween\] Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra with stable rank one. Suppose that $a,b,c \in A_+$ are positive contractions and $p \in A$ is a projection such that $$\begin{gathered} \notag a \vartriangleleft b \vartriangleleft c \quad \text{and} \\ [b] \leq [p] \leq [c]\end{gathered}$$ in the Cuntz semigroup $W(A)$. Then there exists a projection $q \in A$ such that $a \vartriangleleft q \vartriangleleft c$ and $[p]=[q]$. Using [@Rordam:UHFII Proposition 2.4], we may replace $p$ by a Murray-von Neumann equivalent projection in $A \cap \{1-c\}^\perp$. Therefore, without loss of generality, $p \vartriangleleft c$. Since stable rank one passes to hereditary subalgebras, we may apply [@Rordam:UHFII Proposition 2.4 (iv)] to obtain a unitary $u \in (A \cap \{1-c\}^\perp)^\sim$ such that $$uau^* \in {\mathrm{her}}(p).$$ Therefore, $q = upu^*$ satisfies the conclusion. \[lem:InAx\] Let $X,\alpha$ be as in Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\], let $x \in X$, $h \in {\text}C(X)$ and $k \in \mathbb N$. 1. If $h(\alpha^{-i}(x)) = 0$ for $i=0,\dots,k-1$ then $u^kh \in A_x$. 2. If $h(\alpha^{i}(x)) = 0$ for $i=1,\dots,k$ then $hu^k \in A_x$. (i): It suffices to show that $u^kh$ is approximately contained in $A_x$. Therefore, perturbing $h$, we may assume that $h$ is zero in a neighbourhood of $\alpha^{-i}(x)$ for each $i=0,\dots,k-1$. Then there exists $e \in C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\})$ such that $$(e \circ \alpha^i)h=h$$ for $i=0,\dots,k-1$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \notag u^kh &= u^k(e \circ \alpha^{k-1}) \cdots (e \circ \alpha)eh \\ &= (ue)^kh \in A_x.\end{aligned}$$ (ii): Note that $hu^k = u^k(h \circ \alpha^k)$. In view of this, (ii) follows directly from (i). \[lem:CPProjs\] Let $X,\alpha$ be as in Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\], let $x \in X$, and let $U$ be an infinite dimensional UHF algebra. Let $\mathcal G \subset C(X)$ be a finite set, let $\eta > 0$, and let $k \in \mathbb N$. Then there exist $m \in \mathbb N$ with $k < m$, a finite set $\mathcal H \subset C(X)$, and orthogonal projections $$p_{-k}, p_{-k+1},\dots,p_{m-1},p_m \in A_x \otimes U \cap \mathcal H'$$ such that: \(i) $\mathcal G \subset_\eta \mathcal H$; \(ii) $1-p_0 \in {\mathrm{her}}(C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\}))$; \(iii) for $j \neq 0$, $p_{j} \in {\mathrm{her}}(C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\}))$; \(iv) for $j=-k,\dots,m-1$, $$p_{j+1} = u p_j u^*.$$ \(v) for $f \in \mathcal H$ and $j=-k,\dots,m$, there exists $\lambda_{f,j} \in \mathbb C$ such that $$fp_j = \lambda_{f,j}p_j;$$ \(vi) for $f \in \mathcal H$ and $j=0,\dots,k$, $$\lambda_{f,-j} \approx_\eta \lambda_{f,m-j}.$$ The crux of this argument is the use of Berg’s techniques, inspired by the proof of [@LinPhillips:CrProd Lemma 4.2]. Fix a compatible metric $d$ on $X$ and let ${\delta}> 0$ be such that, for $x,y \in X$, if $d(x,y) < {\delta}$ then $$\label{eq:CPProjsdlDef} |f(x)-f(y)| < \eta, \text{ for all }f \in \mathcal G.$$ By minimality, there exists $m > k$ be such that $$\label{eq:CPProjsmDef} d(\alpha^{m-j}(x),\alpha^{-j}(x)) < {\delta}$$ for all $j=0,\dots,k$. Let $V$ be a neighbourhood of $x$ such that $$\label{eq:CPProjsVTranslates} \alpha^{-k}(V),\alpha^{-k+1}(V),\dots,\alpha^m(V)$$ are disjoint. By possibly shrinking $V$, each function $f \in \mathcal G$ can be perturbed by at most $\eta$ to a function $f'$ which is constant on each set in . Set $$\mathcal H := \{f' \mid f \in \mathcal G\},$$ and we see that (i) holds. For $f \in \mathcal H$ and $j=-k,\dots,m$, set $\lambda_{f,j}$ equal to the complex number satisfying $$\label{eq:CPProjslambdaDef} f|_{\alpha^j(V)} \equiv \lambda_{f,j}.$$ It follows from and that $$\label{eq:CPProjslambdaClose} |\lambda_{f,-j}-\lambda_{f,m-j}| < \eta$$ for all $f \in \mathcal H$, $j=0,\dots,k$, establishing (vi). Let $h_0 \in C_0(V)_+$ be a function that is constant equal to $1$ in a neighbourhood of $x$. Since $(A_x \otimes U) \cap \{1-h_0\}^\perp$ is a non-zero full hereditary subalgebra of the UHF-stable, unital algebra $A_x \otimes U$, there exists a non-zero projection $$p_0' \in (A_x \otimes U) \cap \{1-h_0\}^\perp.$$ Since $\alpha$ is minimal, we may find $g_0',g_0 \in C(X)_+ \cap \{1-h_0\}^\perp$ such that $$d_\tau(g_0') < \tau(p_0')\text{ for all }\tau \in T(A_x),$$ $g_0 \vartriangleleft g_0'$, and $g_0$ is constantly equal to $1$ in a neighbourhood of $x$. By strict comparison, it follows that $[g_0'] \leq [p_0']$ in the Cuntz semigroup. Therefore, by Lemma \[lem:ProjBetween\], there exists a projection $$\begin{aligned} p_0 &\in A_x \otimes U\end{aligned}$$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:CPProjsg0p0h0} g_0 &\vartriangleleft p_0 \vartriangleleft h_0.\end{aligned}$$ (We can now forget $g_0'$ and $p_0'$.) For $j = -k,\dots,m$, set $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:CPProjsp0Def} p_j &:= u^j p_0 u^{-j}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have defined projections $p_{-k},\dots,p_m \in A \otimes U$, and it is quite clearly the case that (iii)–(v) hold. From (v), it follows that each $p_j$ commutes with $\mathcal H$. Point (ii) follows since $$0 \leq 1-p_0 \leq 1-g_0 \in C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\}).$$ The projections are orthogonal by disjointness of $(\alpha^j(V))_{j=-k,\dots,m}$. Let us show that $p_j \in A_x \otimes U$ for $j=-k,\dots,m$. For $j=0$, this is true by our choice of $p_0$. For $j=-k,\dots,0$, $$p_j = u^j p_0 u^{-j} = (h_0u^{-j})^*p_0(h_0u^{-j}) \in A_x \otimes U$$ by Lemma \[lem:InAx\] (ii). $j=1$ is a special case; here, we note that since $h_0-g_0$ vanishes in a neighbourhood of $x$, and by , it follows that there exists $e \in C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\})_+$ such that $p_0-g_0 \vartriangleleft e$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag p_1 &= up_0u^* \\ &= ue(p_0-g_0)(ue)^* + ug_0u^* \in A_x \otimes U.\end{aligned}$$ Now, for $j=2,\dots,m$, $$p_j = u^{j-1}p_1 u^{-(j-1)} = (u^{j-1}(1-h_0)) p_1 (u^{j-1}(1-h_0))^* \in A_x \otimes U$$ by Lemma \[lem:InAx\] (i). \[lem:NilPIPath\] Let $A$ be a ${\text}C^*$-algebra. There exists a uniformly continuous map $$\begin{aligned} \gamma\colon \{v \in A \mid v \text{ is a partial isometry and } v^2=0\} \times [0,1] &\to A\end{aligned}$$ such that, for each $v$, the assignment $t \mapsto \gamma(v,t)$ defines a path of projections in ${\text}C^*(v)$, from $vv^*$ to $v^*v$. Also, for any unitary $u \in A$, $$u\gamma(v,t)u^* = \gamma(uvu^*,t).$$ Simply set $$\gamma(v,t) := t^2v^*v + t(1-t)(v+v^*) + (1-t)^2vv^*.$$ In matrix form, this is $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} t^2 & t(1-t) \\ t(1-t) & (1-t)^2 \end{array}\right).$$ The desired properties are easy to verify. \[lem:UniversalCircle\] The universal ${\text}C^*$-algebra generated by partial isometries $w_1,\dots,w_m$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \notag w_i^*w_i &= w_{i+1}w_{i+1}^*,\quad i=1,\dots,m-1, \\ \notag w_{m}^*w_{m} &= w_1w_1^*, \quad \text{and} \\ \label{eq:UniversalCircleRels} w_i^*w_j&=0, i \neq j\end{aligned}$$ is isomorphic to ${\text}C(\mathbb T) \otimes M_m$, via an isomorphism sending $w_i$ to $1 \otimes e_{i,i+1}$ for $i=1,\dots,m-1$ and $w_m$ to $z \otimes e_{m,1}$ where $z \in {\text}C(\mathbb T)$, is a generating unitary. Let $A$ be the universal ${\text}C^*$-algebra generated by the $w_i$ satisfying the relations . It is easy to see that the described map, call it $\pi$, is a surjective homomorphism. To see that $\pi$ is injective, one derives from the relations that \(i) $\sum_{i=1}^m w_i^*w_i$ is a unit for $A$; \(ii) $u:= \sum_{i=1}^m w_iw_{i+1}\cdots w_mw_1 \cdots w_{i-1}$ is a unitary in the centre of $A$, so that under any irreducible representation, the image of $u$ is a scalar of modulus $1$; \(iii) $\{w_i \mid i=0,\dots,m-1\}$ generates a unital copy of $M_m$ in $A$ (therefore also in any irreducible representation); and \(iv) $w_m=w_{m-1}^*\cdots w_1^* u$. From this, one sees that every irreducible representation of $A$ is equivalent to ${\mathrm{ev}}_z \circ \pi$ for some point $z \in \mathbb T$, and therefore, $\pi$ is injective. \[lem:UHFCrossedProdSpecific\] Let $X,\alpha$ be as in Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\], let $x \in X$, and let $U$ be an infinite dimensional UHF algebra. Let $\mathcal C$ denote the class of all ${\text}C^*$-algebras of the form $$p(A_x \otimes U)p \oplus {\text}C(\mathbb T, M_k),$$ where $p \in A_x \otimes U$ is a projection and $k \in \mathbb N$. Then $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U$ is locally $\mathcal C$. This proof uses ideas from [@LinPhillips:CrProd Lemma 4.2]. Let $\mathcal F \subset ({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U$ be a finite subset to be approximated and let ${\epsilon}> 0$ be a specified tolerance. By approximating within $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes M$ for some matrix subalgebra $M$ of $U$, and then observing that it suffices to approximate the matrix entries in $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes (U \cap M')$, we see that without loss of generality, $\mathcal F \subset ({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes 1_U$, which we hereby identify with ${\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$. Without loss of generality again, $\mathcal F = \{u\} \cup \mathcal G$ where $\mathcal G \subset {\text}C(X)$. Let $k \in \mathbb N$ be such that, for the map $\gamma$ defined in Lemma \[lem:NilPIPath\] (for $A=({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U$), if $|t-t'|<1/k$ then $$\label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecifickDef} \|\gamma(v,t)-\gamma(v,t')\| < {\epsilon}/16.$$ Apply Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\] with $\eta:={\epsilon}/16$, to obtain $m, \mathcal H$, and $p_{-k},\dots,p_m \in A_x \otimes U$ satisfying the conclusions of that lemma. Note that $p_m=u^m p_0 u^{-m} \sim p_0$ in $A \otimes U$. Since the embedding of $A_x \otimes U$ in $A \otimes U$ induces an isomorphism between ordered $K_0$-groups [@Phillips:arsh Theorem 4.1 (3)], and since $A_x \otimes U$ has cancellation of projections, there exists $v_0 \in A_x \otimes U$ such that $$p_0 = v_0v_0^* \quad \text{and} \quad v_0^*v_0 = p_m.$$ For $j=k,\dots,1$, set $$v_j := u^{-j}v_0u^j = u^{-j}h_0v_0h_mu^j.$$ By Lemma \[lem:InAx\] $v_j \in A_x \otimes U$. Also, an easy calculation yields $$p_{-j} = v_jv_j^* \quad \text{and} \quad v_0^*v_0 = p_{m-j}.$$ Using $\gamma$ from Lemma \[lem:NilPIPath\], set $$\tilde p_{-j} := \gamma(v_j,j/k) \in (A_x \otimes U) \cap {\mathrm{her}}(p_{-j}+p_{m-j}).$$ From the definition, $$\label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecifictildepEndpts} \tilde p_0=p_0, \quad \tilde p_{-k} = p_{m-k},$$ and for each $j=1,\dots,k$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificApproxConj} \notag \|u\tilde p_{-j}u^* - \tilde p_{-j+1}\| &=& \|u\gamma(v_{-j},j/k)u^* - \gamma(v_{-j+1},(j-1)/k)\| \\ \notag &=& \|\gamma(uv_{-j}u^*,j/k) - \gamma(v_{-j+1},(j-1)/k)\| \\ \notag &=& \|\gamma(v_{-j+1},j/k) - \gamma(v_{-j+1},(j-1)/k)\| \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecifickDef}}<& {\epsilon}/16,\end{aligned}$$ and, therefore, there exists $w_{-j} \in A \otimes U$ such that $$\label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificwjDef1} w_{-j}^*w_{-j} = \tilde p_{-j+1}, \quad w_{-j}w_{-j}^* = \tilde p_{-j}, \quad\text{and}\quad \|w_{-j}-\tilde p_{-j}u^*\| < {\epsilon}/4.$$ For $j=0,\dots,m-k-1$, set $$\label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificwjDef2} w_j := p_ju^* \in A \otimes U.$$ Now, set $$C := {\text}C^*(\{w_{-k},\dots,w_{m-k-1}\}) \subseteq A \otimes U.$$ To complete the proof, we shall show that: 1. $C \cong {\text}C(\mathbb T, M_m)$; 2. $1_C \in A_x \otimes U$ and therefore $1_{A\otimes U}-1_C \in A_x \otimes U$; 3. $\|[1_C,\mathcal F]\| < {\epsilon}/2$; 4. $\mathcal F(1_{A\otimes U}-1_C) \subset A_x \otimes U$; and 5. $\mathcal F1_C \approx_{{\epsilon}/2} C$. (i): Lemma \[lem:UniversalCircle\] shows that there is a surjective map from ${\text}C(\mathbb T) \otimes M_m$ to $C$. Moreover, since $u1_C$ has non-zero $K_1$-class (in $1_{\text}C(({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U)1_C$) and is approximately contained in $C$ (as will be shown in (v)), $K_1(C) \neq 0$, and, therefore, this map must be surjective. (ii): We have already seen that $\tilde p_{-k},\dots,\tilde p_0, p_1,\dots,p_{m-k-1} \in A_x$. It is not hard to see that the sum of these projections is $1_C$. (iii): For $g \in \mathcal G$, let $f \in \mathcal H$ be such that $g \approx_\eta f$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \notag [1_C,f] &= \left[ \sum_{j=0}^k \tilde p_{-j} + \sum_{j=1}^{m-k} p_j, f \right] \\ \label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecific1CCommuteA} &= \sum_{j=0}^k [\tilde p_{-j},f] + \sum_{j=1}^{m-k-1} [p_j,f].\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\], each $p_j$ commutes with $f$, so that the second term vanishes. By Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\] (v) and (vi), and since $\tilde p_{-j}$ is in the hereditary subalgebra generated by $p_{-j}+p_{m-j}$, we see that for $f \in \mathcal F'$, $$\label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecific1CCommuteB} \|[\tilde p_{-j},f]\| < 2\eta.$$ Also, since $p_{-j}+p_{m-j}$ commutes with $f$, $[\tilde p_{-j},f]$ is in the hereditary subalgebra generated by $p_{-j}+p_{m-j}$, and therefore, the first sum in is orthogonal. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} \|[1_C,f]\| &=& \max_{j=0,\dots,k} \|[\tilde p_{-j},f]\| \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecific1CCommuteB}}<& 2\eta,\end{aligned}$$ and thus $\|[1_C,g]\| < 4\eta < {\epsilon}/2$. Next, we compute $$\begin{aligned} \notag && u1_Cu^* - 1_C \\ \notag &=& \sum_{j=0}^k (u\tilde p_{-j}u^*-\tilde p_{-j}) + \sum_{j=1}^{m-k-1} (up_ju^*-p_j) \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecifictildepEndpts}}=& \sum_{j=1}^k (u\tilde p_{-j}u^*-\tilde p_{-j+1}) + up_0u^* - p_{m-k} + \sum_{j=1}^{m-k-1} (up_ju^*-p_j) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{j=1}^k (u\tilde p_{-j}u^*-\tilde p_{-j+1}) + \sum_{j=0}^{m-k-1} (up_ju^*-p_{j+1}) \\ &\stackrel{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:CPProjs} (iv)}}=& \sum_{j=1}^k (u\tilde p_{-j}u^* - \tilde p_{-j+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tilde p_{-j}$ is in the hereditary subalgebra generated by $p_{-j}+p_{m-j}$, so that by Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\] (iv), $u\tilde p_{-j}u^*$ is in the hereditary subalgebra generated by $p_{-j+1}+p_{m-j+1}$, and, therefore, this last sum is orthogonal. Consequently, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \|u1_Cu^* - 1_C\| &=& \max_{j=1,\dots,k} \|u\tilde p_{-j}u^* - \tilde p_{-j+1}\| \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificApproxConj}}<& {\epsilon}/16,\end{aligned}$$ as required. (iv): Since $(1-1_C) \in A_x \otimes U$, it follows that $\mathcal G(1-1_C) \subset A_x \otimes U$. The non-trivial part is showing $u(1-1_C) \in A_x \otimes U$. For $j=1,\dots,m$, since $\tilde p_{-j} \in {\mathrm{her}}(p_{-j}+p_{m-j})$ and by Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\] (iii), we see that $\tilde p_{-j} \in {\mathrm{her}}(C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\})$. Using this and Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\] (ii) and (iii), we find that $$1-1_C = 1-p_0 + \sum_{j=1}^k \tilde p_{-j} + \sum_{j=1}^{m-k-1} p_j \in {\mathrm{her}}(C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\})).$$ Therefore, for ${\delta}> 0$, there exists $e \in C_0(X {\backslash}\{x\})$ such that $1-1_C \approx_{\delta}e(1-1_C)$. Hence, $$u(1-1_C) \approx_{{\delta}} ue(1-1_C) \in A_x \otimes U.$$ Since ${\delta}$ is arbitrary, $u(1-1_C) \in A_x \otimes U$ as required. (v): For $g \in \mathcal G$, let $f \in \mathcal H$ be such that $g \approx_\eta f$. We shall show that $$g1_C \approx_{{\epsilon}/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k} \lambda_{f,-j} \tilde p_{-j} + \sum_{j=0}^{m-k-1} \lambda_{f,j} p_j.$$ Of course, it suffices to show this with $f$ in place of $g$ and $\eta$ in place of ${\epsilon}/2$ (since $\eta < {\epsilon}/2$). We have $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \hspace*{-20mm} f1_C - \left(\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lambda_{f,-j} \tilde p_{-j} + \sum_{j=0}^{m-k-1} \lambda_{f,j} p_j\right) \\ \notag &=& \sum_{j=1}^{k} (f - \lambda_{f,-j}) \tilde p_{-j} + \sum_{j=0}^{m-k-1} (f-\lambda_{f,j})p_j \\ \label{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificvStep} &\stackrel{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:CPProjs} (v)}}=& \sum_{j=1}^{k} (f - \lambda_{f,-j}) \tilde p_{-j}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tilde p_{-j} \in {\mathrm{her}}(p_{-j}+p_{m-j})$, by Lemma \[lem:CPProjs\] (v) and (vi), $$\|(f-\lambda_{f,-j})\tilde p_{-j}\| < \eta.$$ Moreover since $f$ commutes with $p_{-j}+p_{m-j}$, it follows that $(f-\lambda_{f,-j})\tilde p_{-j} \in {\mathrm{her}}(p_{-j}+p_{m-j})$, whence the sum in is an orthogonal sum, so that $$\begin{aligned} \notag && \hspace*{-20mm} \|f1_C - \left(\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lambda_{f,-j} \tilde p_{-j} + \sum_{j=0}^{m-k-1} \lambda_{f,j} p_j\right)\| \\ \notag &=& \max_{j=1,\dots,k} \|(f-\lambda_{f,-j}) \tilde p_{-j}\| \\ &<&\eta.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace*{-10mm} \| u1_C - (w_{-k}^* + \cdots + w_{m-k-1}^*) \| \\ \notag &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificwjDef2}}=& \| (u\tilde p_{-k} - w_{-k}^*) + \cdots + (u\tilde p_{-1} - w_{-1}^*)\| \\ \notag &\leq& \| \sum_{j \text{ even}} (u\tilde p_{-j} - w_{-j}^*) \| + \| \sum_{j \text{ odd}} (u\tilde p_{-j} - w_{-j}^*) \|.\end{aligned}$$ Now, note that $p_{-j+1}+p_{m-j+1}$ (respectively, $p_{-j}+p_{m-j}$) acts as the unit on $u\tilde p_{-j} - w_{-j}^*$ on the left (respectively, right). Therefore, we can see that each of the two sums in the last inequality above is an orthogonal sum, and we continue, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \| u1_C - (w_{-k}^* + \cdots + w_{m-k-1}^*) \| &\leq& 2\max_{j=1,\dots,k} \|(u\tilde p_{-k} - w_{-k}^*) \| \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:UHFCrossedProdSpecificwjDef1}}{\leq}& {\epsilon}/2,\end{aligned}$$ as required. In the context of Lemma \[lem:UHFCrossedProdSpecific\], $A_x$ is locally subhomogeneous, and therefore so also is any unital corner of $A_x$ (any subhomogeneous approximation that approximately contains a projection $p$ will exactly contain a projection $p'$ which is near to $p$). Thus, it follows from Lemma \[lem:UHFCrossedProdSpecific\] that $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U$ is locally subhomogeneous. \[cor:CrProddr\] Let $X$ be an infinite compact metrizable space, let $\alpha\colon X \to X$ be a minimal homeomorphism, and let $U$ be an infinite dimensional UHF algebra. Then $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{dr}}\left(({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes U\right) &\leq 2 \quad \text{and} \\ {\mathrm{dr}}\left(({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z\right) &\leq 5.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $\alpha$ has mean dimension zero then ${\mathrm{dr}}({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \leq 5$. \[rmk:LinCrossedClass\] In fact, in [@Lin:CrossedClass Corollary 5.3], Lin has very recently proven that when $\alpha\colon X \to X$ is a minimal homeomorphism (with $X$ infinite), $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z$ belongs to the class of ${\text}C^*$-algebras classified in [@GongLinNiu Theorem 29.4]. Combined with the range of invariant result [@GongLinNiu Theorem 13.41], it follows that $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z$ is approximately subhomogeneous and has decomposition rank at most two. Lin’s proof uses the present corollary, and thus relies on Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\] (specifically, that a UHF-stabilization of ${\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$ has finite nuclear dimension—which is weaker than finite decomposition rank). (Thus, Lin’s proof uses Theorem \[thm:MainThmA\]—and therefore also Theorem \[thm:ApproxCellA\]—, as well as Theorem \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\], of the present paper.) The first inequality follows directly from Theorems \[thm:UHFCrossedProd\] and \[thm:MainThmA\], upon noting that $U$ is itself $\mathcal Z$-stable. For the second inequality, note that by [@RordamWinter:Z Theorem 3.4], $({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z$ is an inductive limit of copies of the ${\text}C^*$-algebra $$({\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z) \otimes \mathcal Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty},$$ which is a continuous field over $[0,1]$, whose fibres are each equal to ${\text}C(X) \rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z \otimes U$ for a UHF algebra $U$. Therefore, the second line follows from the first line and [@Carrion:RFproducts Lemma 3.1]. The last statement follows from the main result of [@ElliottNiu:MeanDim0], which is that when $\alpha$ has mean dimension zero, the crossed product is $\mathcal Z$-stable. [10]{} Joan Bosa, Nathaniel Brown, Yasuhiko Sato, Aaron Tikuisis, Stuart White, and Wilhelm Winter. Covering dimension of [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras and 2-coloured classification, 2015. Preprint available at http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/a.tikuisis/BBSTWW.pdf. Lawrence G. Brown and Gert K. Pedersen. Limits and [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras of low rank or dimension. , 61(2):381–417, 2009. Nathanial P. Brown and Wilhelm Winter. Quasitraces are traces: a short proof of the finite-nuclear-dimension case. , 33(2):44–49, 2011. Jos[é]{} R. Carri[ó]{}n. Classification of a class of crossed product [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras associated with residually finite groups. , 260(9):2815–2825, 2011. S[ø]{}ren Eilers, Terry A. Loring, and Gert K. Pedersen. Stability of anticommutation relations: an application of noncommutative [CW]{} complexes. , 499:101–143, 1998. George A. Elliott. An invariant for simple [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. In [*Canadian [M]{}athematical [S]{}ociety. 1945–1995, [V]{}ol. 3*]{}, pages 61–90. Canadian Math. Soc., Ottawa, ON, 1996. George A. Elliott and David E. Evans. The structure of the irrational rotation [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebra. , 138(3):477–501, 1993. George A. Elliott, Guihua Gong, Huaxin Lin, and Zhuang Niu. The classification of simple separable unital locally [ASH]{} algebras. In preparation. George A. Elliott and Zhuang Niu. The [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebra of a minimal homeomorphism of zero mean dimension, 2014. arXiv preprint math.OA/1406.2382. George A. Elliott and Andrew S. Toms. Regularity properties in the classification program for separable amenable [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 45(2):229–245, 2008. Dominic Enders. Subalgebras of finite codimension in semiprojective [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras, 2014. arXiv preprint math.OA/1405.2750. Ryszard Engelking. . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1978. Translated from the Polish and revised by the author, North-Holland Mathematical Library, 19. Thierry Giordano, Ian F. Putnam, and Christian F. Skau. Topological orbit equivalence and [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-crossed products. , 469:51–111, 1995. Guihua Gong, Huaxin Lin, and Zhuang Niu. Classification of finite simple amenable [$\mathcal Z$]{}-stable [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. arXiv preprint math.OA/1501.00135, 2015. Allen Hatcher. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. Sze-tsen Hu. . Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1965. Bhishan Jacelon. A simple, monotracial, stably projectionless [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebra. , 87(2):365–383, 2013. Eberhard Kirchberg and Mikael R[ø]{}rdam. Purely infinite [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras: ideal-preserving zero homotopies. , 15(2):377–415, 2005. Eberhard Kirchberg and Wilhelm Winter. Covering dimension and quasidiagonality. , 15(1):63–85, 2004. Huaxin Lin. Asymptotic unitary equivalence and classification of simple amenable [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 183(2):385–450, 2011. Huaxin Lin. Crossed products and minimal dynamical systems, 2015. arXiv preprint math.OA/1502.06658. Huaxin Lin and N. Christopher Phillips. Crossed products by minimal homeomorphisms. , 641:95–122, 2010. Qing Lin. Analytic structure of transformation group [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras associated with minimal dynamical systems. Preprint. Qing Lin and N. Christopher Phillips. The structure of [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras of minimal diffeomorphisms. In preparation. Terry A. Loring. , volume 8 of [*Fields Institute Monographs*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997. Hiroki Matui and Yasuhiko Sato. Decomposition rank of [UHF]{}-absorbing [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 163(14):2687–2708, 2014. Ping Wong Ng and Wilhelm Winter. A note on subhomogeneous [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 28(3):91–96, 2006. Ping Wong Ng and Wilhelm Winter. Nuclear dimension and the corona factorization property. , (2):261–278, 2010. Gert K. Pedersen. , volume 14 of [*London Mathematical Society Monographs*]{}. Academic Press Inc. \[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers\], London, 1979. N. Christopher Phillips. Cancellation and stable rank for direct limits of recursive subhomogeneous algebras. , 359(10):4625–4652 (electronic), 2007. N. Christopher Phillips. Recursive subhomogeneous algebras. , 359(10):4595–4623 (electronic), 2007. Ian F. Putnam. The [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras associated with minimal homeomorphisms of the [C]{}antor set. , 136(2):329–353, 1989. Ian F. Putnam. On the [$K$]{}-theory of [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras of principal groupoids. , 28(4):1483–1518, 1998. Leonel Robert. Classification of inductive limits of 1-dimensional [NCCW]{} complexes. , 231(5):2802–2836, 2012. Mikael R[ø]{}rdam. On the structure of simple [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras tensored with a [UHF]{}-algebra. [II]{}. , 107(2):255–269, 1992. Mikael R[ø]{}rdam and Wilhelm Winter. The [J]{}iang-[S]{}u algebra revisited. , 642:129–155, 2010. Luis Santiago. Reduction of the dimension of nuclear [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras, 2012. arXiv preprint math.OA/1211.7159. Yasuhiko Sato, Stuart White, and Wilhelm Winter. Nuclear dimension and [$\mathcal Z$]{}-stability. Invent. Math., to appear. arXiv:1403.0747. Aaron Tikuisis. High-dimensional [$\mathcal Z$]{}-stable [AH]{} algebras. To appear. arXiv preprint math.OA/1406.0883. Aaron Tikuisis and Wilhelm Winter. Decomposition rank of [${\mathcal Z}$]{}-stable [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 7(3):673–700, 2014. Andrew Toms. -theoretic rigidity and slow dimension growth. , 183(2):225–244, 2011. Andrew S. Toms and Wilhelm Winter. The [E]{}lliott conjecture for [V]{}illadsen algebras of the first type. , 256(5):1311–1340, 2009. Andrew S. Toms and Wilhelm Winter. Minimal dynamics and the classification of [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 106(40):16942–16943, 2009. Andrew S. Toms and Wilhelm Winter. Minimal dynamics and [K]{}-theoretic rigidity: [E]{}lliott’s conjecture. , 23(1):467–481, 2013. Wilhelm Winter. Decomposition rank of subhomogeneous [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras. , 89(2):427–456, 2004. Wilhelm Winter. On the classification of simple [$\mathcal Z$]{}-stable [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras with real rank zero and finite decomposition rank. , 74(1):167–183, 2006. Wilhelm Winter. Decomposition rank and [$\mathcal Z$]{}-stability. , 179(2):229–301, 2010. Wilhelm Winter. Classifying crossed product [[${\text}C^*$]{}]{}-algebras, 2013. arXiv preprint math.OA/1308.5084.

--- title: On geometric phases for quantum trajectories --- Introduction {#intro} ============ Imagine a quantum particle prepared in a pure state. If the state evolves in a unitary fashion so that it remains pure, this particle is said to constitute a closed system. Berry [@berry84] and others [@aharonov87; @samuel88; @mukunda93] have shown that a closed system picks up a phase factor of geometric origin; a geometric phase factor, or quantum holonomy. But what happens if the system fails to be closed? Is there a natural generalization of the geometric phase to open systems? Considerations of phases of geometric origin for open quantum systems go back to work by Uhlmann [@uhlmann86] on holonomy accompanying density operators. Garrison and Wright [@garrison88] have assigned complex-valued geometric phases to open systems on a phenomenological basis by the use of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. Ellinas [*et al.*]{} [@ellinas89] have introduced geometric phases associated with adiabatic evolution of eigenmatrices of the Liouvillian superoperator describing an open system. Gamliel and Freed [@gamliel89] demonstrated that the adiabatic Berry phases may appear also in the presence of open system effects, as phase factors in the off-diagonal elements of the density operator expressed in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis (see also [@fonseca02; @kamleitner04]). More recently, open system geometric phases have been revisited from various perspectives, such as interferometry [@ericsson03; @peixoto03; @tong04], quantum trajectories [@carollo03; @fuentes05], phase distributions [@marzlin04], the adiabatic theorem [@sarandy06], and stochastic Schrödinger evolutions [@bassi06]. A reason for this renewed interest is the need to better understand the robustness properties of geometric phases in the presence of open system effects, triggered by the conjectured [@zanardi99] importance of quantum holonomy for fault tolerant quantum computation. To address the robustness issue, it is commonly assumed that the system evolves under a Markovian master equation. The quantum trajectory approach is specifically designed for the analysis of the robustness of geometric phases to Markovian open system effects (see, e.g., [@pachos04; @cen04]). In this paper, we focus on the quantum trajectory approach to the open system geometric phase. The purpose is fourfold. First, we wish to reformulate the quantum trajectory approach to the geometric phase on the basis of discrete sets of completely positive maps (CPMs), without invoking continuous master equations. This reformulation is a generalization of previous treatments [@carollo03; @fuentes05] (see also [@carollo05]) in the sense that it yields the master equation in the continuous limit. Secondly, we wish to extend [@carollo03] to quantum trajectories that start in a nonpure state. To this end, it seems most natural to use Uhlmann’s concept of parallel transport [@uhlmann86] along the trajectories. Thirdly, we put forward an experimental procedure to implement the geometric phase for an individual trajectory. Finally, we briefly address whether the geometric phases for individual quantum trajectories can be used to define a meaningful geometric phase for an open system. The paper ends with the conclusions. Open quantum systems and quantum trajectories ============================================= Consider a quantum system $s$ in contact with some environment $e$, also of quantum nature. Suppose $s+e$ is in the state $\varrho$. Any observable property pertaining only to $s$ is given by the reduced density operator $\rho$ obtained by tracing $\varrho$ over $e$. Let $U(t,t_0)$ be the time evolution operator for $s+e$. Further, let ${|e_0\rangle},\ldots,{|e_{\mu}\rangle}$ ($\mu$ could be finite or infinite) be a complete basis for $e$ and suppose that $\varrho = {|e_0\rangle} {\langlee_0|} \otimes \rho$ is prepared at $t_0$. Then, for an arbitrary $t$, the state of $s$ reads $$\begin{aligned} \rho (t) = \mathcal{E}_{t,t_0} (\rho) = \sum_{p=0}^{\mu} E_p (t,t_0) \rho E_p^{\dagger} (t,t_0) , \label{eq:cpm}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_p (t,t_0) = {\langlee_p|} U(t,t_0) {|e_0\rangle}$ are the Kraus operators [@kraus83] that constitute a Kraus representation of $\mathcal{E}_{t,t_0}$. The map $\mathcal{E}_{t,t_0}$ is trace preserving and completely positive, i.e., it takes normalized density operators into normalized density operators and all trivial extensions $\hat{1} \otimes \mathcal{E}_{t,t_0}$ likewise. To introduce the concept of quantum trajectories it is convenient to consider $N$ identical copies of the environment. Prepare them in the product state ${|e_0\rangle} = {|e_0^0\rangle} \otimes \ldots \otimes {|e_0^{N-1}\rangle}$, with the superscript labeling the copies. Let $s$ interact only with the first copy between $t_0$ and $t_1$, only with the second copy between $t_1$ and $t_2$, and so on. These interactions are described by the unitary operators $U^0(t,t_0), \ldots,$ $U^{N-1} (t,t_{N-1})$, respectively. It results in the composite map $$\begin{aligned} \rho \rightarrow \mathcal{E} (\rho) = \mathcal{E}_{t_N,t_{N-1}} \circ \ldots \circ \mathcal{E}_{t_1,t_0} (\rho) . \label{eq:compmap} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $E_p (t_{k+1},t_k) = {\langlee_p^k|} U^k(t_{k+1},t_k) {|e_0^k\rangle}$, $p=0,\ldots,\mu$, can be taken as Kraus operators for $\mathcal{E}_{t_{k+1},t_k}$, $k=0,\ldots,N-1$. In terms of the above $s+e$ picture, the relevant part of the input state at $t_k$ is ${|e_0^k\rangle}{\langlee_0^k|}\otimes \rho_k$, where $\rho_0 = \rho$ and $\rho_{k\in [1,N-1]} = \mathcal{E}_{t_k,t_{k-1}} \circ \ldots \circ \mathcal{E}_{t_1,t_0} (\rho)$. A quantum trajectory $\alpha$ is a sequence of (unnormalized) states $\rho \rightarrow \rho_1^{\alpha} \rightarrow \ldots \rightarrow \rho_N^{\alpha}$, where $$\begin{aligned} \rho_k^{\alpha} = E_{\alpha(k)} (t_k,t_{k-1}) \ldots E_{\alpha(1)} (t_1,t_0) \rho E_{\alpha(1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) \ldots E_{\alpha(k)}^{\dagger} (t_k,t_{k-1}), \label{eq:states} \end{aligned}$$ for $k=1,\ldots,N$. Here, $\alpha (l) \in [0,\mu]$ is the l$th$ element of a sequence of indexes. The map $\mathcal{E}$ is recovered by summing over all trajectories. Geometric phase of quantum trajectories {#sec:gp} ======================================= There is in general an infinite number of possible Kraus representations for a given CPM. For the composite map $\mathcal{E}$ in Eq. (\[eq:compmap\]), different choices of Kraus representations in each step lead to different sets of trajectories. It follows that no physical meaning can be associated to an individual trajectory without imposing some additional physical constraint. Nevertheless, it is still possible to formally associate a geometric phase or holonomy to an individual quantum trajectory. Here, we wish to do so. In particular, we wish to stress the importance of whether the initial state of the trajectory is pure or nonpure. In the pure case, which has been treated in [@carollo03; @carollo05], the standard Pancharatnam connection can be used, while in the nonpure case we need to address the issue of parallel transport of density operators. Let us first consider the case where the initial state is pure, i.e., $\rho = {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|}$. Here, the trajectories may be lifted to sequences of (unnormalized) vectors: ${|\psi\rangle} \rightarrow {|\psi_1^{\alpha}\rangle} \rightarrow \ldots \rightarrow {|\psi_N^{\alpha}\rangle}$, where ${|\psi_k^{\alpha}\rangle} = E_{\alpha(k)} (t_k,t_{k-1}) \ldots E_{\alpha(1)} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle}$. The Pancharatnam connection [@pancharatnam56] yields the geometric phase factor of the trajectory $\alpha$ as $$\begin{aligned} \gamma^{\alpha} = \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi|} \psi_N^{\alpha} \rangle {\langle\psi_N^{\alpha}|} \psi_{N-1}^{\alpha} \rangle \ldots {\langle\psi_1^{\alpha}|} \psi \rangle \big] , \label{eq:pure}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi \big[ z \big] = z/|z|$ for any nonzero complex number $z$. When the initial state is nonpure, though, one needs to consider geometric phases for mixed states, since the trajectories then contain nonpure states $\rho,\rho_1^{\alpha},\ldots,\rho_N^{\alpha}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:states\])). To deal with this, it seems most natural to use the Uhlmann approach [@uhlmann86], since this approach is particularly well adopted to discrete sequences of density operators. Assume that $\rho,\rho_1^{\alpha},\ldots,\rho_N^{\alpha}$ are full rank and introduce the amplitudes $W=\sqrt{\rho}V$ and $W_k^{\alpha} = \sqrt{\rho_k^{\alpha}} V_k^{\alpha}$, $k=1,\ldots,N$, where $V,V_1^{\alpha},\ldots,V_N^{\alpha}$ are the unitary operators or ‘phases’ of the amplitudes. For a given but arbitrary $V$, $V_1^{\alpha}$ is fixed by the parallelity condition $W_1^{{\alpha}\dagger} W > 0$ and similarly $V_{k+1}^{\alpha}$ is fixed iteratively by $W_{k+1}^{{\alpha}\dagger} W_k^{\alpha} > 0$, for $k=1,\ldots,N-1$. In this way, the final unitary operator $V_N^{\alpha}$ is uniquely determined by the trajectory $\alpha$ up to the arbitrary phase $V$ of the initial amplitude $W$. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned} V_N^{\alpha} & = & \Big( \sqrt{\rho_N^{\alpha}} \rho_{N-1}^{\alpha} \sqrt{\rho_N^{\alpha}} \Big)^{-1/2} \sqrt{\rho_N^{\alpha}} \sqrt{\rho_{N-1}^{\alpha}} \ldots \nonumber \\ & & \times \Big( \sqrt{\rho_2^{\alpha}} \rho_1^{\alpha} \sqrt{\rho_2^{\alpha}} \Big)^{-1/2} \sqrt{\rho_2^{\alpha}} \sqrt{\rho_1^{\alpha}} \Big( \sqrt{\rho_1^{\alpha}} \rho \sqrt{\rho_1^{\alpha}} \Big)^{-1/2} \sqrt{\rho_1^{\alpha}} \sqrt{\rho} \, V . \end{aligned}$$ To remove the arbitrary phase $V$, define $$\begin{aligned} U^{\alpha} = V_N^{\alpha} V^{\dagger} , \end{aligned}$$ which is the holonomy of the trajectory $\alpha$. Note that $U^{\alpha}$ reduces to $\gamma^{\alpha}$ in the limit of pure initial states. Accessing the geometric phase of a quantum trajectory {#sec:access} ===================================================== As already mentioned, no physical meaning can be associated with a single trajectory and its concomitant geometric phase or holonomy if no further physical constraint is imposed. This is so because there are infinitely many Kraus representations of a given CPM, and therefore infinitely many equivalent ways to decompose the open system evolution into quantum trajectories. Nevertheless, the geometric phase for a single quantum trajectory can be accessed in principle by performing measurements on the environment. To see this, let us first make some simplifying assumptions. Suppose that $\rho = {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|}$ (pure initial state) and that the observables $O_e^k$, $k=0,\ldots,N-1$, with eigenstates ${|e_0^k\rangle},\ldots,{|e_{\mu}^k\rangle}$, are measured projectively. We further assume that these measurements are performed precisely at $t_1,\ldots,t_N$, i.e., that the first copy of the environment is measured at $t_1$, the second at $t_2$, and so on. In the first step, $s+e$ evolves as (ignoring all copies except the first one) $$\begin{aligned} {|e_0^0\rangle} {\langlee_0^0|} \otimes {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} & \rightarrow & U^0(t_1,t_0) {|e_0^0\rangle} {\langlee_0^0|} \otimes {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} U^{0\dagger}(t_1,t_0) \nonumber \\ & \rightarrow & {|e_{\alpha (1)}^0\rangle} {\langlee_{\alpha (1)}^0|} \otimes E_{\alpha (1)} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) \label{eq:1st} \end{aligned}$$ for the registered outcome $\alpha (1) \in [0,\mu]$. In the second step, the state of $s+e$ similarly evolves as (now ignoring all copies except the second one) $$\begin{aligned} & & {|e_0^1\rangle} {\langlee_0^1|} \otimes E_{\alpha (1)} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) \nonumber \\ & & \rightarrow U^1(t_2,t_1) {|e_0^1\rangle} {\langlee_0^1|} \otimes E_{\alpha (1)} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) U^{1\dagger} (t_2,t_1) \nonumber \\ & & \rightarrow {|e_{\alpha (2)}^1\rangle} {\langlee_{\alpha (2)}^1|} \otimes E_{\alpha (2)} (t_2,t_1) E_{\alpha (1)} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) E_{\alpha (2)}^{\dagger} (t_2,t_1) \hskip 0.5 cm \label{eq:2nd} \end{aligned}$$ for the registered outcome $\alpha (2) \in [0,\mu]$. Continuing in this way provides a physical realization of the trajectory $\alpha$. We now show that this measurement procedure can be used to experimentally implement $\gamma^{\alpha}$. Suppose ${|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|}$ is the input state of the internal degree of freedom (e.g. spin) of an ensemble of particles in an ordinary two-beam Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The evolution in Eq. (\[eq:1st\]) is implemented in one of the interferometer arms by post-selecting those particles for which $\alpha(1)$ is registered. A variable U(1) phase shift is applied to the other arm. The maximum of the resulting interference fringes is obtained for $\Phi \big[ {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle} \big] = \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi_1^{\alpha}|} \psi \rangle \big]$. In the next step, the internal state $E_{\alpha (1)} (t_1,t_0) {|\psi\rangle} {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0)$ is used as input to a second interferometer in which Eq. (\[eq:2nd\]) is implemented in one arm by post-selecting the outcome $\alpha (2)$. The other arm is again exposed to a variable U(1) shift, yielding an interference maximum at $\Phi \big[ {\langle\psi|} E_{\alpha (1)}^{\dagger} (t_1,t_0) E_{\alpha (2)}^{\dagger} (t_2,t_1) E_{\alpha (1)} (t_1,t_0){|\psi\rangle} \big] = \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi_2^{\alpha}|} \psi_1^{\alpha} \rangle \big]$. Continuing in this way up to $\psi_N^{\alpha}$ and back to $\psi$ yields the phase factors $\Phi \big[ {\langle\psi|} \psi_N^{\alpha} \rangle \big], \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi_N^{\alpha}|} \psi_{N-1}^{\alpha} \rangle \big],$ $\ldots ,\Phi \big[ {\langle\psi_1^{\alpha}|} \psi \rangle \big]$. By taking the product of these phase factors, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi|} \psi_N^{\alpha} \rangle \big] \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi_N^{\alpha}|} \psi_{N-1}^{\alpha} \rangle \big] \ldots \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi_1^{\alpha}|} \psi \rangle \big] = \Phi \big[ {\langle\psi|} \psi_N^{\alpha} \rangle {\langle\psi_N^{\alpha}|} \psi_{N-1}^{\alpha} \rangle \ldots {\langle\psi_1^{\alpha}|} \psi \rangle \big] , \end{aligned}$$ which is precisely the geometric phase factor $\gamma^{\alpha}$ in Eq. (\[eq:pure\]). It should be noted, though, that in order for this procedure to work it is in each step necessary to erase any path information related to the state change of the environment caused by the measurement. Open system geometric phase {#sec:open} =========================== So far, we have discussed how a geometric phase factor $\gamma^{\alpha}$ or holonomy $U^{\alpha}$ can be assigned to a single quantum trajectory $\alpha$ and how $\gamma^{\alpha}$ can be verified in interferometry. However, since an individual quantum trajectory can differ very much from the original evolution $\mathcal{E}$, it is not obvious in what way $\gamma^{\alpha}$ gives information about the geometry of the path that is generated by $\mathcal{E}$ itself. Such a connection can be established if it is possible to use the geometric phases for the trajectories to assign a well-defined geometric phase for $\mathcal{E}$. Here, we briefly address this issue. The map $\mathcal{E}$ is recovered by summing over all trajectories $\alpha$. In the case of pure initial state ${|\psi\rangle}$, it is therefore natural to guess that there is a geometric phase factor $\Gamma_{\mathcal{E}}$ of $\mathcal{E}$ that is the average over the phase factors of the individual quantum trajectories. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\mathcal{E}} = \sum_{\alpha} p_{\alpha} \gamma^{\alpha} , \end{aligned}$$ where $p_{\alpha} = \langle \psi_N^{\alpha} {|\psi_N^{\alpha}\rangle}$ is the probability of $\alpha$. Unfortunately, though, this quantity depends on the specific decomposition of $\mathcal{E}$ into trajectories. Thus, unless a specific set of trajectories is singled out (e.g., by repeatedly measuring the environment, as described in the preceding section), no physical meaning can be assigned to $\Gamma_{\mathcal{E}}$. An analogous conclusion in the context of stochastic Schödinger equations has been drawn in [@bassi06]. Conclusions {#concl} =========== The quantum trajectory approach has recently been proposed to tackle the issue of geometric phase [@carollo03; @carollo05] and quantum holonomy [@fuentes05] for an open quantum system. The main merit of the approach appears to be its usefulness in the analysis of the robustness of geometric phase based quantum gates to open system effects [@pachos04; @cen04]. Here, we have reformulated the quantum trajectory approach to the geometric phase, on the basis of sequences of completely positive maps. It has been stressed [@carollo03; @carollo05] that the quantum trajectory approach is useful in that it avoids the apparent need to introduce parallel transport of nonpure states. This holds only under the assumption that the trajectory starts in a pure state. We have pointed out that even in the case where the initial state is nonpure it is possible to assign well-defined holonomies by using Uhlmann’s concept of parallel transport [@uhlmann86] along the quantum trajectories. The geometric phase of an individual trajectory can be made physical by repeatedly measuring the environment of the system. This opens up the possibility to experimentally implement such phases by measuring post-selectively the environment in one of the arms of a standard Mach-Zehnder interferometry. In this way, we have put forward an iterative procedure to measure the geometric phase of a single quantum trajectory. Finally, we have addressed the question whether the geometric phases for the trajectories comprising an open system evolution can be used to define the geometric phase of the open system evolution itself. A natural approach is to sum over the individual phase factors weighted by the corresponding probabilities. However, this works only if a specific set of trajectories is singled out by some physical means. It is interesting to note the analogous situation for the geometric phase proposed in [@ericsson03]. This phase depends on the additional detailed knowledge of the system-environment interaction. Thus, neither the approach in [@ericsson03] nor the averaging over quantum trajectories put forward here, result in a genuine concept of geometric phase for an open system. It seems more appropriate to use the path of density operator itself as the basis for such a concept [@uhlmann86; @tong04]. Acknowledgment(s) {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} ================= This work was financed in part by the Swedish Research Council. Notes {#notes .unnumbered} ===== E-mail: eriks@kvac.uu.se [99]{} M.V. Berry, [*Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A*]{} [**392**]{} (1984) 45. Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**58**]{} (1987) 1593. J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**60**]{} (1988) 2339. N. Mukunda and R. Simon, [*Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)*]{} [**228**]{} (1993) 205. A. Uhlmann, [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**24**]{} (1986) 229. J.C. Garrison and E.M. Wright, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**128**]{} (1988) 177. D. Ellinas, S.M. Barnett and M.A. Dupertuis, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**39**]{} (1989) 3228. D. Gamliel and J.H. Freed, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**39**]{} (1989) 3238. K.M. Fonseca Romero, A.C. Aguiar Pinto and M.T. Thomaz, [*Physica A*]{} [**307**]{} (2002) 142. I. Kamleitner, J.D. Cresser and B.C. Sanders, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**70**]{} (2004) 044103. M. Ericsson, E. Sjöqvist, J. Brännlund, D.K.L. Oi and A.K. Pati, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**67**]{} (2003) 020101. J.G. Peixoto de Faria, A.F.R. de Toledo Piza and M.C. Nemes, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**62**]{} (2003) 782. D.M. Tong, E. Sjöqvist, L.C. Kwek and C.H. Oh, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{} (2004) 080405. A. Carollo, I. Fuentes-Guridi, M. Franca Santos and V. Vedral, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{} (2003) 160402. I. Fuentes-Guridi, F. Girelli and E. Livine, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{} (2005) 020503. K.-P. Marzlin, S. Ghose and B.C. Sanders, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{} (2004) 260402. M.S. Sarandy and D.A. Lidar, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**73**]{} (2006) 062101. A. Bassi and E. Ippoliti, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**73**]{} (2006) 062104. P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**264**]{} (1999) 94. J.K. Pachos and A. Beige, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**69**]{} (2004) 033817. L.-X. Cen and P. Zanardi, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**70**]{} (2004) 052323. A. Carollo, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**20**]{} (2005) 1635. K. Kraus, [*States, Effects, and Operations*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1983. S. Pancharatnam, [*Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. A*]{} [**44**]{} (1956) 247.

--- abstract: 'The properties of low-frequency convective fluctuations and transport are investigated for the boundary region of magnetized plasmas. We employ a two-dimensional fluid model for the evolution of the global plasma quantities in a geometry and with parameters relevant to the scrape-off layer of confined toroidal plasmas. Strongly intermittent plasma transport is regulated by self-consistently generated sheared poloidal flows and is mediated by bursty ejection of particles and heat from the bulk plasma in the form of blobs. Coarse grained probe signals reveal a highly skewed and flat distribution on short time scales, but tends towards a normal distribution at large time scales. Conditionally averaged signals are in perfect agreement with experimental measurements.' author: - | O. E. Garcia, V. Naulin, A. H. Nielsen, and J. Juul Rasmussen\ Association EURATOM-Ris[ø]{} National Laboratory\ Optics and Plasma Research, OPL-128 Ris[ø]{}\ DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark title: '**Intermittent transport in edge plasmas**' --- It is well established that the cross field transport of particles and heat near the edge of magnetically confined plasmas is strongly intermittent. This is observed in a variety of devices including linear [@huldetal91; @ct:antar] as well as toroidal configurations [@endleretal95; @antonietal01]. Detailed investigations of the spatial fluctuation structure have revealed strong indications that the intermittent nature of particle and heat transport is caused by localized structures in the form of plasma “blobs” propagating radially far into the scrape-off-layer ([[SOL]{}]{}) of toroidal plasmas [@ct:antar; @ct:boedo; @ct:terry]. It was suggested that this is caused by a dipolar vorticity field formed by the charge separation in a density blob due to guiding-center drifts in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field [@ct:krash]. In this contribution we will provide a self-consistent description of the intermittent particle and heat flux and link it to the of the emergence and evolution of such blob-like structures. We base our investigations on a novel model for interchange turbulence in slab geometry for the outboard midplane of a toroidal device [@garciaetal04]. The model includes the self-consistent evolution of the full profiles in the edge/SOL. A local Boussinesq-like model, where the “background" profile is separated from the fluctuations, fails to provide a realistic description. The geometry comprises distinct production and loss regions, corresponding to the edge and [[SOL]{}]{} of magnetized plasmas. The separation of these two regions defines an effective last closed flux surface ([[LCFS]{}]{}), though we do not include magnetic shear in our model. In the edge region, strong pressure gradients maintain a state of turbulent convection. A self-regulation mechanism involving differential rotation leads to a repetitive expulsion of hot plasma into the [[SOL]{}]{}, resulting in a strongly intermittent transport of density and heat. The model derives from the continuity equations for the electrons, the electron temperature and the quasi-neutrality condition. Assuming cold ions and neglecting electron inertia effects, we obtain a three-field model for electrostatic perturbations of the full particle density $n$, electric potential $\phi$ and electron temperature $T$. Using slab coordinates with ${{{\widehat}{\mathbfz}}}$ along the magnetic field, ${{{\widehat}{\mathbfx}}}$ in the radial and ${{{\widehat}{\mathbfy}}}$ in the poloidal direction we obtain [@garciaetal04], $$\begin{gathered} \frac{d \Omega}{dt} - \mathcal{C}(p) = \nu_{\Omega} \nabla^2 \Omega - \sigma_{\Omega} \Omega , \\ \frac{dn}{dt} + n\mathcal{C}(\phi) - \mathcal{C}(nT) = \nu_n \nabla^2 n - \sigma_n ( n-1 ) + S_n , \\ \frac{dT}{dt} + \frac{2T}{3}\,\mathcal{C}(\phi) - \frac{7T}{3}\,\mathcal{C} (T) - \frac{2T^2}{3n}\,\mathcal{C}(n) = \nu_{T} \nabla^2 T - \sigma_{T}( T-1 ) + S_{T} , $$ where time is normalized by $1/\omega_{ci}$ and spatial scales by $\rho_s=c_s/\omega_{ci}$. The density $n$ and temperature $T$ are normalized to fixed characteristic values at the outer wall. We further define the advective derivative, the magnetic field curvature operator and the toroidal magnetic field by $$\frac{d}{dt} = \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} + \frac{1}{B}\,{{{\widehat}{\mathbfz}}}\times\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla , \quad \mathcal{C} = - \zeta\,\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}y} , \quad B = \frac{1}{1 + {\epsilon}+ \zeta x} .$$ The vorticity $\Omega=\nabla_{\perp}^2\phi$, the inverse aspect ratio ${\epsilon}=a/R_0$ and $\zeta=\rho_s/R_0$ where $a$ and $R_0$ are the minor and major radius of the device. The terms on the right hand side of the equations describe external sources $S$, parallel losses along open field lines through the damping rates $\sigma$ [@garciaetal04], and collisional diffusion with coefficients $\nu$. The geometry and boundary conditions are sketched in Fig. \[fig:geometry\]. ![Geometry of the simulation domain showing the forcing region to the left, corresponding to the edge plasma, and the parallel loss region to the right, corresponding to the scrape-off layer. Parameters are $\delta= 8$ and $\xi=1$. Data time series are collected at the probe positions $P_i$.[]{data-label="fig:geometry"}](icpp04_rasmussen_fig1.eps){width=".60\textwidth"} In the absence of external forcing and dissipative processes the model equations non-linearly conserves the global energy to lowest order in $\zeta $ $$E = \int d{{\mathbfx}}\:\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left( {{\nabla_{\perp}}}\phi \right)^2 + \frac{3}{2}\,nT \right] ,$$ where the integral extends over the whole plasma layer. We define the kinetic energy of the fluctuating and mean components of the flows, $$\label{kinenergy} K = \int d{{\mathbfx}}\:\frac{1}{2}\left( \nabla_{\perp}{\widetilde}{\phi} \right) , \qquad U = \int d{{\mathbfx}}\:\frac{1}{2}\,v_0^ 2 ,$$ where the zero index denotes an average over the periodic direction $y$ and the spatial fluctuation about this mean is indicated by a tilde. The linearly damped mean flows, $v_0={\partial}\phi_0/{\partial}x$, does not yield any radial convective transport and hence form a benign path for fluctuation energy. The energy transfer rates from thermal energy to the fluctuating motions, and from the fluctuating to the mean flows, are given respectively by $$\label{transfer} F_p = \int d{{\mathbfx}}\:nT\mathcal{C}(\phi) , \qquad F_{v} = \int d{{\mathbfx}}\:{\widetilde}{v}_x{\widetilde}{v}_y\frac{{\partial}v_0}{{\partial}x} .$$ Note that $F_p$ is directly proportional to the domain integrated convective thermal energy transport, while $F_v$ shows that structures tilted such as to transport positive poloidal momentum up the gradient of a sheared flow will sustain the flow against collisional dissipation [@ct:garcia; @ct:gb; @ct:naulin]. In the following we present results from numerical simulations of the interchange model using parameters relevant for [[SOL]{}]{} plasmas. $L_x=2L_y=200$ and the [[LCFS]{}]{} is located at $x_\text{\tiny LCFS}=50$. The parameters are ${\epsilon}=0.25$, $\zeta=5 \times 10^{-4}$, and $\nu=10^{-2}$ for all fields. The parallel loss rate of temperature is assumed to be five times larger than that on the density and vorticity, $\sigma_n=\sigma_{\Omega}=\sigma_T/5=3\zeta/2\pi q$, since primarily hot electrons are lost through the end sheaths. $\sigma_n$ and $\sigma_\Omega$ correspond to losses at the nearest target plate over a distance of $L_{\parallel} = 2\pi R_0 q/3$ (one third of the connection length) with the acoustic speed $c_s$, where $q=3$ is the safety factor at the edge. Finally, the radial line-integral of the sources $S_n$ and $S_T$ equals $0.1$. For the numerical solution the spatial resolution is $ 512 \times 256 $ grid points in the radial and poloidal directions, and the time span of the simulation is $2\times10^6$. We have performed several runs with varying parameters, showing that the qualitative behavior is robust, whereas the quantitative results depend on the parameters and particular on the value of the collisional diffusivities. ![Evolution of the kinetic energy contained by the mean $U$ and fluctuating $K$ motions \[Eq. \] and the collective energy transfer terms \[Eq. \] .[]{data-label="fig:kinetic"}](icpp04_rasmussen_fig2.eps){width=".75\textwidth"} The general observation is that the turbulent flux is strongly intermittent: quite periods are interrupted by strong bursts of particle and heat fluxes. This is correlated with the kinetics in the fluctuations, as is shown in Fig. \[fig:kinetic\]. We observe that the convective energy and thermal transport appears as bursts during which particles and heat are lost from the edge into the [[SOL]{}]{} region. As discussed in Refs. [@ct:garcia; @ct:gb; @ct:naulin], this global dynamics is caused by a self-regulation mechanism in which kinetic energy is transfered from the fluctuating to the mean components of the flows, and subsequently damped by collisional dissipation. The thermal energy ejected in a bursty manner from the edge and into the [[SOL]{}]{} region, will eventually be lost by transport along open field lines. The characteristics time between the bursts is related to the viscous diffusion (compare with Fig. 3 in Ref. [@garciaetal04], where the value of $\nu $ is $ 5 \times 10^{-3}$). We further verified that the self-sustained poloidal flow profiles are strongly sheared in the edge region, and have larger amplitudes during the strong fluctuation period. The statistics of single-point recordings at different radial positions $P_i$ indicated in Fig. \[fig:geometry\] agree very well with experimental measurements. In Fig. \[fig:pdf\] we present the probability distribution functions (histogram of counts) ([[PDF]{}]{}) of the density signals taken from a long-run simulation containing more than a hundred strong burst events. It is notably that the PDF at the first probe inside the [[LCFS]{}]{} is close to a Gaussian with skewness $ 0.12$ and flatness factor $ 2.97$, while the PDF becomes more flat and skewed further into the [[SOL]{}]{}. This indicates the high probability of large positive fluctuations corresponding to blobs of excess plasma. The skewness and flatness factors grow through out the [[SOL]{}]{} and take values up to 4 and 25, respectively. The [[PDF]{}]{}’s in the [[SOL]{}]{} have similar structure with a pronounced exponential tail towards large values, a characteristic feature of turbulent convection in the presence of sheared flows [@ct:garcia; @ct:gb]. ![In the left panel is shown the probability distribution functions of particle density measured at seven different radial positions $P_i$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:geometry\]. To the right is the coarse grained probability distribution function taken at probe 3, averaged over the time intervals $\tau $ indicated by the labels. With increasing $\tau $ the skewness decreases as: 2.6, 1.9, 0.73, 0.16, and the flatness factor decreases as: 12.0, 7.8, 3.9, 3.2. For both plots the vertical axis shows count numbers on a logaritmic scale. $\bar{n}$ designates the averaged density.[]{data-label="fig:pdf"}](icpp04_rasmussen_fig3.eps){width=".75\textwidth"} We have also considered the coarse-grained [[PDF]{}]{} which is obtained by averaging the signal over time intervals of lengths $\tau $ and constructing new time records with a time resolution of $\tau $: $n_{\tau }(t) = (1/\tau )\int_{t - \tau/2}^{t + \tau/2} n(t^{\prime}) \, dt^{\prime } $. The coarse grained [[PDF]{}]{}’s ([[PDF]{}]{}$_{\tau } $) for the signal at $P_3 $ are also plotted in Fig. \[fig:pdf\] for increasing values of $\tau $. We observe that [[PDF]{}]{}$_{\tau } $ approaches a Gaussian distribution when $\tau $ is exceeding the averaged time interval between bursts, which is roughly $10^4 $. This shows the absence of self-similarity, which is characteristic for an intermittent signal (see, e.g., [@carboneetal00]). The conditionally averaged temporal wave forms of the density calculated from the same signals and the radial velocity field $v_x $, using the trigger condition $n - \bar{n} > 4n_\text{rms}$ at each individual point, are presented in Fig. \[fig:conditional\]. For the density signal an asymmetric wave form with a sharp rise and a relatively slow decay is clearly seen, as also observed in experimental measurements  [@ct:antar; @ct:boedo; @ct:terry]. The maximum density excursions significantly exceed the background level, and decay as the structures propagate through the [[SOL]{}]{}. By using a negative amplitude for the conditional averaging very few realizations results, confirming the presence of blob-like structures. For the velocity signal we observe that the radial velocity is positive (directed radially outwards) in the blob. In the edge region it takes weak negative values both before and after the blob. Also this result agree with experimental observations  [@ct:boedo]. We note that the maximum value of $v_x $ decreases on passing the [[LCFS]{}]{} and then increases to a maximum value of 0.046 at $P_3$, after which it slowly decays. From two-dimensional animations we clearly observe the radial propagation of blob-like structures for the density and temperature fields, while the vorticity displays a dipolar structure as expected from theory and experiment (cf.Ref.  [@garciaetal04]). From such animations and radial correlations we find that the radial propagation velocity of the blob structures corresponds to around $0.05 c_s $ consistent with Fig. \[fig:conditional\], but with a large statistical variance in agreement with experimental measurements [@ct:antar; @ct:boedo; @ct:terry]. ![Conditionally averaged wave forms of the particle density (left panel) and the radial velocity $v_x $ measured at seven different radial positions $P_i$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:geometry\], using the condition $n(x_{P_i}) - \bar{n}(x_{P_i}) > 4n_\text{rms}(x_{P_i} )$.[]{data-label="fig:conditional"}](icpp04_rasmussen_fig4.eps){width=".75\textwidth"} By combining the conditional evolution of $n $ and $v_x $ in Fig. \[fig:conditional\] we deduce that the blobs are carrying a large particle flux. We have examined the [[PDF]{}]{} of the particle flux averaged over the periodic $y$-direction (the flux surface) at different radial positions. The [[PDF]{}]{}’s are quite similar and strongly skewed with a flat exponential tail towards positive flux events, showing that the flux is dominated by strong bursts. The tail of the [[PDF]{}]{} was found to be well fitted by an extreme value distribution  [@naulinetal04]. By coarse graining the [[PDF]{}]{} as described above we observe a similar behavior as for the local density fluctuations: the distribution approaches a Gaussian for large time scales. We have demonstrated that a two-dimensional model for interchange turbulence provide results in good agreement with that reported from experimental investigations of [[SOL]{}]{} turbulence and transient transport events [@ct:antar; @ct:boedo; @ct:terry]. An important feature of the model is the spatial separation between forcing and damping regions. Our results are in quantitative agreement with experimental measurements of field-aligned blob-like structures propagating far into the scrape-off layer. The associated intermittent transport may have severe consequences for magnetic confinement experiments by producing large heat bursts on plasma facing components.\ \ This work was supported by the Danish Center for Scientific Computing through grants no. CPU-1101-08 and CPU-1002-17. O. E. Garcia has been supported by financial subvention from the Research Council of Norway. [99]{} T. Huld [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Fluids B [**3**]{}, 1609 (1991). G. Y. Antar [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**10**]{}, 419 (2003); [*ibid*.]{}, 1612 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 065001 (2001). M. Endler [*et al*.]{}, Nucl. Fusion [**35**]{}, 1307 (1995). V. Antoni [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 045001 (2001). J. A. Boedo [*et al*.]{}, J. Nucl. Mater. [**313–316**]{}, 813 (2003); Phys. Plasmas [**10**]{}, 1670 (2003); [*ibid*.]{} [**8**]{}, 4826 (2001) D. L. Rudakov [*et al*.]{}, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion [**44**]{}, 717 (2002). J. L. Terry [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**10**]{}, 1739 (2003); S. J. Zweben [*et al*.]{}, [*ibid*.]{} [**9**]{}, 1981 (2002); R. J. Maqueda [*et al*.]{}, [*ibid*.]{} [**8**]{}, 931 (2001). S. I. Krasheninnikov, Phys. Lett. A [**283**]{}, 368 (2001); D. A. D’Ippolito [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**9**]{}, 222 (2002); N. Bian [*et al*.]{}, [*ibid*.]{} [**10**]{}, 671 (2003). O. E. Garcia [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 165003 (2004). O. E. Garcia [*et al*.]{}, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion [**45**]{}, 919 (2003). O. E. Garcia and N. H. Bian, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 047301 (2003). V. Naulin [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**10**]{}, 1075 (2003). V. Carbone [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**7**]{}, 445 (2000); R. Trasarti-Battistoni [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**9**]{}, 3369 (2002). V. Naulin [*et al*.]{}, Phys. Lett. A [**321**]{}, 355 (2004).

--- abstract: 'We study the complexity of the problem of searching for a set of patterns that separate two given sets of strings. This problem has applications in a wide variety of areas, most notably in data mining, computational biology, and in understanding the complexity of genetic algorithms. We show that the basic problem of finding a small set of patterns that match one set of strings but do not match any string in a second set is difficult (-complete, -hard when parameterized by the size of the pattern set, and -hard). We then perform a detailed parameterized analysis of the problem, separating tractable and intractable variants. In particular we show that parameterizing by the size of pattern set and the number of strings, and the size of the alphabet and the number of strings give results, amongst others.' address: - 'Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy' - 'School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia' - 'School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia' author: - Giuseppe Lancia - Luke Mathieson - Pablo Moscato bibliography: - 'patterns.bib' title: Separating Sets of Strings by Finding Matching Patterns is Almost Always Hard --- pattern identification ,parameterized complexity ,computational complexity Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Finding patterns in a collection of data is one of the fundamental problems in data mining, data science, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics and many other areas of both theoretical and applied computer science. Accordingly there are a large number of formulations of this problem. In this paper we develop a particular formulation, drawn from two central motivations: 1. multiparent recombination in genetic and evolutionary algorithms, and 2. the construction of explanatory patterns in single-nucleotide polymorphisms related to disease. It should not be construed however that these motivations are limitations on the applicability of the problem we develop and study. As will be seen, the underlying computational problem is a general one that occurs as a fundamental component of many other computational problems. The Central Problem {#sec:central_problem} ------------------- Before expanding upon the motivations, we briefly introduce the core computational problem to provide a semi-formal context and some unifying vocabulary. For full definitions we refer the reader to Section \[sec:prelims\]. Central to the problem is the notion of *pattern*, a string over an alphabet $\Sigma$ which has been augmented with a special symbol $\ast$. A pattern matches a string over $\Sigma$ if the pattern and the string are the same length and each character of the pattern is the same as the character of the string at that position, or the pattern has an $\ast$ at that position, [*i.e.*]{} $\ast$ ‘matches’ any symbol from the alphabet. The fundamental problem is then, given two sets, $G$ and $B$, of strings over $\Sigma$, can we find a set of patterns of size at most $k$ such that every string in $G$ matches one of our patterns, and none of the strings in $B$ match any of our patterns. Separating Healthy Patterns from Diseased {#sec:motivation_SNP} ----------------------------------------- A significant portion of bioinformatics and computational medicine efforts are focused on developing diagnostic tools. The identification of explanatory genes, uncovering of biomarkers, metabolic network analysis and protein interaction analysis all have as a key (but not sole) motivation the identification of differential markers of disease and consequently routes to treatment. Consider the following problem as a motivating archetypal example: we have two sets of individuals, healthy and diseased and for each example we are given a string that encodes the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) states across the two copies of each genome, giving us two sets of strings $G$ and $B$[^1]. A SNP has several alleles of which an individual has two. The individual may thus be homozygous in any of the alleles, or heterozygous with any choice of pairs of alleles, giving the underlying alphabet $\Sigma$. It is easy to see that if we can identify patterns of SNPs that separate the healthy from the diseased individuals, we have a source of genetic information that may assist in explaining and treating the disease. This problem is even more apparent in its computational form when considering a biologically motivated form of computation, *i.e.*, evolutionary algorithms. Patterns in Multiparent Recombination {#sec:motivation_GA} ------------------------------------- The central mechanism for optimization in Genetic Algorithms (GAs) is the recombination of parent solutions to produce a new child solution which ideally retains the positive aspects of the parents. The mechanism derives from an analogy with sexual reproduction in biological evolution and hence typically combines two existing solutions to produce the offspring. In the optimization setting however, there’s no conceptual reason for this restriction. Given that recombination can be viewed as a local move in the search space from one individual solution to another as mediated by a third individual solution, a natural generalization of this is to employ multiple parents in the hope of further refining the components of the solution that promote quality, while producing new solutions that effectively cover the search space. The central theoretical formalization for describing this process is that of *schemata*[^2]. An individual solution in a (simple) GA is described by an array, which we can represent as a string, of length $n$ over a given alphabet $\Sigma$. A *schema* is a string of length $n$ over the same alphabet augmented with the special “wild card” character $\ast$, [*i.e.*]{}, a pattern. A schema can then be thought of as representing a portion of the search space. The preservation of desirable shared characteristics of two or more parent individuals can then be viewed as the problem of defining a suitable schema. We can define a set $G$ using the individuals selected as parents for a recombination operation, and, if desired, a set $B$ from any individuals whose characteristics we may wish to avoid. The child individual(s) can then be generated from this schema with the wild cards replaced in whichever manner is chosen. Thus we can use schemata to model the basic operation of genetic recombination operators. This idea not only models multiparent recombination but also multi-child recombination. When considering simply a set of parents from which we wish to generate a set of children, constructing schemata that are compatible with the parents is straightforward. A single schema that is a string of $n$ many $\ast$ symbols would suffice as a trivial solution and the natural solution where for each position, if all the parents agree on the same symbol, the schema has that symbol and $\ast$ otherwise also provides a simple solution. However in these cases it is reasonably easy to see that the schemata generated can easily be under-specified, leading to a loss of useful information, rendering the recombination operation ineffective. One solution to this problem is to ask for a small set of schemata that are compatible with the parents, but are incompatible with a set of forbidden strings – akin to the list of forbidden elements in Tabu search. In this paper, we elaborate upon and examine this idea. Some further complexity issues surrounding multiparent recombination have been examined in [@CottaMoscato2005]. Our Contribution {#sec:ccc} ---------------- In this paper we formalize the problem of finding a small set of patterns that match a set of strings, without matching a set of forbidden strings, as discussed in the introduction and examine its complexity. We call the general form of the problem and introduce some useful variants. In most cases this problems turn out to be hard. We naturally then consider the problem from a Parameterized Complexity perspective. The problem has a rich parameter ecology and also provides an interesting example of a non-graph theoretic problem. Unfortunately for many parameterizations the problem turns out to be hard in this setting as well. The natural parameterization by the number of desired schemata is -hard. Even if we take the length of the strings as the parameter, the problem is -complete. Table \[tab:Results\] gives a summary of the parameterized results, and some key open problems. It is also inapproximable and for some cases we obtain parameterized inapproximability results as well. The only case for which we are able to obtain fixed-parameter tractability relies on a small number of input strings which have a limited number of symbols which are different from a given “base” symbol. Parameter Complexity Theorem --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------------------------- $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ -hard \[thm:PI\_W\[2\]-c\] $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + s + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ -complete \[cor:PIp\_W\[2\]-complete\] $n + d + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ -complete \[cor:PIS\_paraNP-c\_short\_strings\] ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d + r + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ -complete \[cor:PIP\_PIPS\_paraNP-c\] ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d + s + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ -complete \[cor:PIP\_PIPS\_paraNP-c\] $d + {\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ \[PI\_FPT\_few\_small\_strings\] ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + n$ \[thm:PI\_FPT\_k\_Sigma\_n\] $k + n$ \[thm:PI\_FPT\_k\_n\] ${\left\vert G \right\vert} + n$ \[thm:PI\_FPT\_G\_n\] $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d + r + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ \[thm:PIP\_FPT\_k\_r\_Sigma\_B\] $k + {\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ Open ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + {\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ Open $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d$ Open : Summary of the parameterized results of the paper. ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$ is the size of the alphabet, $n$ is the length of the strings and patterns, ${\left\vert G \right\vert}$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert}$ are the sizes of the two input string sets, $k$ is the number of patterns, $r$ is the maximum number of $\ast$ symbols in a pattern, $s$ is the maximum number of non-$\ast$ symbols in a pattern and $d$ is the number of ‘non-base’ elements in each string. Of course the usual inferences apply: tractable cases remain tractable when expanding the parameter and intractable cases remain intractable when restricting the parameter. We note that a number of cases remain open, of which we include some of the more pertinent here, however given the number of parameters under consideration, we refer the reader to Sections \[sec:discussion\_parameters\] and \[sec:conclusion\] for a proper discussion of the open cases.[]{data-label="tab:Results"} Related Work {#sec:related} ------------ The identification of patterns describing a set of strings forms a well studied family of problems with a wide series of applications. Although, as best as we can determine, the precise problems we studied here have not yet been considered, a number of interesting related problems are explored in the literature. We present here a selection of some of the more relevant and interesting results, however these can at best form a basis for further exploration by the interested reader. One of most immediately similar variants is that where pattern variables are allowed. In contrast to the work here, these variables can act as substrings of arbitrary length. Keans and Pitt [@KearnsPitt1991] give a family of polynomial time algorithms for learning the language generated by a single such pattern with a given number $k$ of pattern variables. Angluin [@Angluin1980] studies the inverse problem of generating a pattern, with a polynomial time algorithm for the case where the pattern contains a single pattern variable being the central result. We note that a central difference here is the repeated use of variables, allowing the same undefined substring to be repeated. The properties of these pattern languages have since been studied in some detail, far beyond the scope of this paper. Bredereck, Nichterlein and Niedermeier [@BredereckNichterleinNiedermeier2013] employ a similar, but not identical, formalism to that employed here, but study the problem of taking a set of strings and a set of patterns and determining whether the set of strings can be altered to match the set of patterns. In their formalism patterns are strings over the set $\{\Box,\star\}$. We note in particular though that their definition of matching differs from our definition of compatibility in that a string matches a pattern if and only if the string has the special symbol $\star$ exactly where the pattern does. They show this problem to be -hard, but in when parameterized by the combined parameter of the number of patterns and the number of strings. They also present an ILP based implementation and computational results. Bredereck *et al.* [@Brederecketal2015] examine forming teams, *i.e.*, mapping the set of strings to the set of patterns in a consistent manner. They use a similar basis, excepting that the special $\star$ symbol in a pattern now matches any symbol in a string and that the $\Box$ symbol requires homogeneity of the matched strings (*i.e.* the symbol it matches is not specified, but all matching strings must have the same symbol at that point). They give a series of classification results, with the problem mostly being intractable, but in for the number of input strings, the number of *different* input strings and the combined parameter of alphabet size with the length of the strings. Gramm, Guo and Niedermeier [@Gramm2006] study another similar problem, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Distinguishing Substring Selection</span>, where the input is two sets of strings (“good” and “bad”), and two integers $d_{g}$ and $d_{b}$ with the goal of finding a single string of length $L$ whose Hamming distance from all length $L$ substrings of every “good” string is at least $d_{g}$ and from at least one length $L$ substring for each “bad” string is at most $d_{b}$. An extension of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String</span> [@GrammNR03; @Li2002] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest Substring</span> [@FellowsGN2002] problems, the problem has a ptas [@Deng2002] but they show that it is -hard when parameterized by any combination of the parameters $d_{g}$, $d_{b}$ and the number of “good” or “bad” strings. Under sufficient restriction they demonstrate an result, requiring a binary alphabet, a ‘dual’ parameter $d'_{g} = L - d_{g}$ and that $d'_{g}$ is optimal in the sense that it is the minimum possible value. We note that, in relation to the problems studied here, although the number of $\ast$ symbols in the patterns provides an upper-bound for the Hamming distance, the Hamming distance for a set of strings may be much lower; consider a set of strings with one position set to $1$ and all others to $0$ such that for every possible position there is a string with a $1$ at that point, then the string (or indeed substring) of all $0$ has Hamming distance at most one from each input string, but a single pattern would need to be entirely $\ast$ symbols to match the entire set. Hermelin and Rozenberg introduce a further variant of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String</span> problem [@HermelinR15], the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String with Wildcards</span> problem. The input is a set of strings $\{s_{i}\}$, which may include wildcard characters, and an integer $d$. The goal is to find a string with hamming distance at most $d$ to each $s_{i}$. The solution is required to have no wildcard characters. The examine a number of parameters: the length $n$ of the input strings, the number $m$ of input strings, $d$, the number ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$ of characters in the alphabet, and the minimum number $k$ of wildcard characters in any input string. They show that the problem is in (with varying explicit running times) when parameterized by $m$, $m+n$, ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + k + d$ and $k+d$. They also show that the special case where $d=1$ can be solved in polynomial time, whereas the problem is -hard for every $d \geq 2$. Bulteau *et al.* [@BulteauHKN2014] also give a survey of the parameterized complexity of a variety of more distantly related string problems, with similar multivariate parameterizations as in other work in this area. They cover, amongst others, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest Substring</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Longest Common Subsequence</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shortest Common Supersequence</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shortest Common Superstring</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Multiple Sequence Alignment</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Minimum Common String</span>. Introduced by Cannon and Cowen [@CannonC04], the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Class Cover</span> problem is a geometric relative of where the input is two sets of points colored red and blue, with the goal of selecting a minimum set of blue points (centers) that “cover” the full set of blue points, in the sense that any blue point is closer to its nearest center than any red point. It is -hard with an $O(\log n + 1)$-factor approximation algorithm, bearing a close similarity to . Preliminaries and Definitions {#sec:prelims} ============================= We now give the relevant definitions for the complexity analysis that follows. In the reductions we use the well known and problems. The graphs taken as input for these problems are simple, undirected and unweighted. To assist with notation and indexing, we take the vertex set $V(\mathfrak{G})$ of a graph $\mathfrak{G}$ to be the set $\{1,\ldots ,n\}$. The edge set $E(\mathfrak{G})$ is then a set of pairs drawn from $V(\mathfrak{G})$ and we denote the edge between vertices $i$ and $j$ by $ij$ ($=ji$). The and problems are also employed. The problems are defined as follows: > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* A graph $\mathfrak{G}$ and an integer $k$. > *Question:* Is there a set $V' \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ with ${\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq k$ such that for every $u \in V(\mathfrak{G})$ there exists a $v \in V'$ with $u \in N(v)$? > ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Instance:* A graph $\mathfrak{G}$ and an integer $k$. > *Question:* Is there a set $V' \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ with ${\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq k$ such that for every $uv \in E(\mathfrak{G})$ we have $u \in V'$ or $v \in V'$? > ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* A base set $U$, a set $S \subseteq \mathcal{P}(U)$ and an integer $k$. > *Question:* Is there a set $S' \subseteq S$ with $|S'| \leq k$ such that $\bigcup S' = U$? > ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* An $n\times m$ $0\text{-}1$ matrix $M$, an $n\times 1$ $0\text{-}1$ vector $f$ and an integer $k$. > *Question:* Is there a set of indices $I \subseteq \{1,\ldots, m\}$ with ${\left\vert I \right\vert} \leq k$ such that for all $a,b$ where $f_{a} \neq f_{b}$ there exist $i \in I$ such that $M_{a,i} \neq M_{b,i}$? > ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > We note the following key classification results: - is -complete, $O(\log n)\text{-}\APX{}$-hard[^3] and -complete when parameterized by $k$, the size of the dominating set. - is -complete and -hard, and remains -complete when the input is a planar graph [@GareyJohnson79]. - is -complete when parameterized by the size of the set cover. - is -complete when parameterized by the size of the feature set [@CottaMoscato2002]. We also employ a parameterized version of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Model Checking</span> problem, which takes as input a finite structure and a logical formula and asks the question of whether the structure is a model of the formula, *i.e.* whether there is a suitable assignment of elements of the universe of the structure to variables of the formula such that the formula evaluates to true under that assignment. The parameter is the length of the logic formula. While we informally introduce the finite structural elements as needed, we briefly describe here the fragments of first-order logic we employ. Let $\Sigma_{0} = \Pi_{0}$ be the set of unquantified Boolean formulae. The classes $\Sigma_{t}$ and $\Pi_{t}$ for $t > 0$ can be defined recursively as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \Sigma_{t} &= \{\exists x_{1}\ldots \exists x_{k}\varphi \mid \varphi \in \Pi_{t-1}\}\\ \Pi_{t} &= \{\forall x_{1} \ldots \forall x_{k} \varphi \mid \varphi \in \Sigma_{t-1}\}\end{aligned}$$ The class $\Sigma_{t,u}$ is the subclass of $\Sigma_{t}$ where each quantifier block after the first existential block has length at most $u$. We note that trivially $\Pi_{t-1} \subset \Sigma_{t}$. We note that these classes are specified in prenex normal form, and are, in general, not robust against Boolean combinations of formulae. In general, the process of converting a formula to prenex normal form (where all quantifiers are “out the front”) increases the number of quantifier alternations. An analog of the $\Sigma$ classes is $\Sigma^{\ast}_{t,u}$. Let $\Theta_{0,u}$ be the set of quantifier free formulae, and $\Theta_{t,u}$ for $t > 0$ be the set of Boolean combinations of formulae where each leading quantifier block is existential and quantifies over a formula in $\Theta_{t-1,u}$, where the length of each quantifier block is at most $u$. That is, the formulae in $\Theta_{t,u}$ are not required to be in prenex normal form, and Boolean connectives may precede some quantifiers. We can deal with leading universal quantification by the normal expedient of the introduction of a trivial existential block. Then $\Sigma^{\ast}_{t,u}$ is the class of formulae of the form $\exists x_{1} \ldots \exists x_{k} \varphi$ where $\varphi \in \Theta_{t-1,u}$ and where $k$ may be greater than $u$. Thus we refer to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Model Checking</span> problem as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MC</span>($\Phi$) where $\Phi$ is the first-order fragment employed. In the parameterized setting, is -complete for every $u \geq 1$, and is -complete for every $u \geq 1$. The $\mathsf{W}^{\ast}$-hierarchy is the hierarchy analogous to the $\mathsf{W}$-hierarchy obtained from using as the complete problem instead of . While it is known that $\Wone{} = \Wstarone{}$ and $\Wtwo{} = \Wstartwo{}$; for $t \geq 3$, the best known containment relationship is $\Wt \subseteq \Wstart{} \subseteq \Wtwotminustwo{}$. For more detail on these results and the full definitions relating to first-order logic and structures we refer the reader to [@FlumGrohe2006]. The $\mathsf{W}^{\ast}$-hierarchy, introduced by Downey, Fellows and Taylor [@DowneyFT96] but more fully explored later [@ChenFlumGrohe2007; @FlumGrohe2006] is a parameterized hierarchy which takes into account the Boolean combinations of quantified first-order formulae, but is otherwise similar to the more usual $\mathsf{W}$-hierarchy. In several of our intractability results we make use of the class , and a useful corollary due to Flum and Grohe with a detailed explanation in [@FlumGrohe2006] (presented as Corollary 2.16). The class is the direct parameterized complexity translation of , where we replace “polynomial-time” with “fixed-parameter tractable time” (or fpt-time in short) in the definition. Flum and Grohe’s result states that if, given a parameterized problem $(\Pi,\kappa)$, the classical version of the problem $\Pi$ is -complete for at least one fixed value of $\kappa$, then $(\Pi, \kappa)$ is -complete. As may be expected, $\FPT{} = \paraNP{}$ if and only if $\P{} = \NP{}$, thus -completeness is strong evidence of intractability. We also make reference to parameterized approximation. A parameterized approximation algorithm is, in essence, a standard approximation algorithm, but where we relax the running time to fpt-time, rather than polynomial-time. We refer to [@Marx2008] for a full introduction to this area. The other parameterized complexity theory employed is more standard, thus for general definitions we refer the reader to standard texts [@DowneyFellows2013; @FlumGrohe2006]. We write $A \leq_{FPT} B$ to denote that there exists a parameterized reduction from problem $A$ to problem $B$, and similarly $A \leq_{P} B$ to denote the existence of a polynomial-time many-one reduction from problem $A$ to problem $B$. We also use *strict polynomial-time reductions* to obtain some approximation results. A strict reduction is one that, given two problems $A$ and $B$, guarantees that the approximation ratio for $A$ is at least as good as that of $B$. In the cases we present, we employ them for approximation hardness results, so the precise ratio is not discussed. For a full definition of strict reductions (and other approximation preserving reductions) we refer to [@Crescenzi1997]. \[def:pattern\] A *pattern* is a string over an alphabet $\Sigma$ and a special symbol $\ast$. Given a string $s \in \Sigma^{\ast}$ and an integer $i$, we denote the $i$th symbol of $s$ by $s[i]$. \[def:compatible\] A pattern $p$ is compatible with a string $g$, denoted $p \to g$, if for all $i$ such that $p[i] \neq \ast$ we have $g[i] = p[i]$. If a pattern and string are not compatible, we write $p \not\to g$. We extend this notation to sets of strings, writing $p \to G$ to denote $\forall g \in G, p \to g$ and $P \to G$ for $\forall g \in G \exists p \in P, p \to g$. \[def:separated\_sets\] A set $P$ of patterns *$G$-$B$-separates* an ordered pair $(G,B)$ of sets of strings, written $P \to (G,B)$ if - $P \to G$, and - for every $b \in B$ and $p \in P$ we have $p \not\to b$. Thus we can state the central problem for this paper: > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* A finite alphabet $\Sigma$, two disjoint sets $G, B \subseteq \Sigma^{n}$ of strings and an integer $k$. > *Question:* Is there a set $P$ of patterns such that ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ and $P \to (G,B)$? > ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The complexity analysis of the problem in the parameterized setting leads to the definition of a second, subsidiary problem which allows a convenient examination of sets of strings which are very similar. \[def:small\_string\] A string $s$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$ is $d$-*small* if, given an identified symbol $\sigma \in \Sigma$, for exactly $d$ values of $i$, $p[i] \neq \sigma$. We call $\sigma$ the *base* symbol. A set of strings $S$ is $d$-small if, given a fixed base symbol all strings in $S$ are $d$-small. This restriction on the structure of the input gives further insight into the complexity of and is key to some of the tractability results in Section \[sec:easy\]. For convenience we phrase a restricted version of the problem: > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* An alphabet $\Sigma$, two disjoint $d$-small sets $G, B \subseteq \Sigma^{n}$, an integer $k$. > *Question:* Is there a set $P$ of patterns with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ such that $P \to (G,B)$? > ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From the perspective of multiparent recombination, minimizing the number of wildcard symbols in each pattern is also an interesting objective: > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* An alphabet $\Sigma$, two disjoint sets $G, B \subseteq \Sigma^{n}$, integers $k$ and $r$. > *Question:* Is there a set $P$ of patterns with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ such that $P \to (G,B)$ and for each $p \in P$ the number of $\ast$ symbols in $p$ is at most $r$? > ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > We implicitly define the obvious intersection of the two restricted problems, . From a combinatorial perspective, the inverse problem is also interesting: > <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>:\ > > ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Instance:* An alphabet $\Sigma$, two disjoint sets $G, B \subseteq \Sigma^{n}$, integers $k$ and $s$. > *Question:* Is there a set $P$ of patterns with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ such that $P \to (G,B)$ and for each $p \in P$ the number of non-$\ast$ symbols in $p$ is at most $s$? > ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hard Cases of the Pattern Identification Problem {#sec:hard} ================================================ We first examine the intractable cases of the problem. This narrows down the source of the combinatorial complexity of the problem. \[thm:PI\_W\[2\]-c\] is -hard when parameterized by $k$, even if ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} = 2$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert} = 1$. \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\] $\DS{} \leq_{FPT} \PI{}$. $\rightarrow$\ Let $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ be an instance of . Let $n = {\left\vert V(\mathfrak{G}) \right\vert}$ and assume $V(\mathfrak{G}) = \{1,\ldots, n\}$. We construct an instance $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ as follows: 1. $\Sigma = \{1, 0\}$, 2. $G = \{g_{1},\ldots, g_{n}\}$ where for each $i$, $g_{i} \in \Sigma^{n}$ where for every $j$, $g_{i}[j] = 1$ if $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$ or $i = j$ and $g_{i}[j] = 0$ otherwise, 3. $B = \{0^{n} \}$. An example of the reduction is given in Figure \[fig:DS\_red\_example\]. If $(G,k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of then $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . Let $D \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ with ${\left\vert D \right\vert} \leq k$ be a dominating set witnessing that $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance. We can construct a witness set of patterns $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} = {\left\vert D \right\vert}$ such that $P \to (G,B)$. For each $i \in D$, we create a pattern $p_{i}$ where $p_{i}[i] = 1$ and $p_{i}[j] = \ast$ for all $j \neq i$. As $D$ is a dominating set, for every vertex $j \in V(\mathfrak{G})$ there is a vertex $i \in D$ such that $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$. Then for string $g_{j} \in G$, pattern $p_{i}$ is compatible with $g_{j}$ as by construction $g_{j}[i] = 1$. Therefore for every string $g \in G$ there exists $p \in P$ such that $p \to g$. Moreover there is no $p \in P$ such that $p \to b$ where $b \in B$. As $B$ consists of the single string $b = 0^{n}$ and for each $p \in P$ exactly one element is neither $0$ nor $\ast$ there is one position where the pattern does not match $b$. Thus $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance. If $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of then $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of Let $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ be the witness set of patterns that $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance. Inductively, we may assume that every $p \in P$ is compatible with at least one element of $G$, if not, $P \setminus \{p\}$ constitutes an alternate witness. First we note that no $p \in P$ can consist of only $\ast$ and $0$ symbols, as this would be compatible with the single element of $B$. Therefore each $p \in P$ has at least one $i$ such that $p[i] = 1$. Consider a $p \in P$, and the corresponding set of vertices $V_{p}$ (i.e. each position $i$ where $p[i] = 1$). Let $g_{j} \in G$ be a string such that $p \to g_{j}$. By construction for every $i \in V_{p}$, $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$. Let $V_{p\to g}$ be the set of vertices corresponding to the set $G_{p} \subseteq G$ where $p \to G_{p}$. Each vertex $j \in V_{p \to g}$ is adjacent (or identical) to every vertex in $V_{p}$. Thus we may select arbitrarily a single vertex from $V_{p}$ to be in the dominating set $D$. Thus we have $D$ with ${\left\vert D \right\vert} \leq {\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$, where every vertex in $V(\mathfrak{G})$ is adjacent (or identical) to some vertex in $D$. Therefore $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance. The construction can be clearly performed in fpt time (in fact, polynomial time), and the lemma follows. The theorem follows immediately from Lemma \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\]. The structure of the reduction then gives the following: \[cor:PIp\_W\[2\]-complete\] is -complete when parameterized by $k$ and -complete even when $s = 1$, ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} = 2$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert} = 1$. The -hardness is apparent from the proof of Lemma \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\] (in fact the restriction would make the proof simpler). To show containment in , we reduce to . The first-order structure is equipped with four unary relations $N$, $\Sigma$, $G$ and $B$ and a binary function symbol $C$. Each string is represented by an integer, according to an arbitrary fixed ordering. $Gi$ is true if string $i$ is in $G$, $Bi$ is true if string $i$ is in $B$. $\Sigma\sigma$ is true if $\sigma \in \Sigma$ and $Ni$ is true if $i \in \mathbb{N}$. The function $C:\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \to \Sigma$ is defined $Cij = \sigma$ if $\sigma$ is the $j$th symbol of string $i$. We now provide the first-order formula expressing : $$\begin{aligned} \exists i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{k,s},c_{1,1},\ldots,c_{k,s}\forall j ((\bigwedge_{l\in[k],b\in[s]} Ni_{l,b}) \wedge\\ (\bigwedge_{l\in[k],b\in[s]}\Sigma c_{l,b}) \wedge\\ (Gj \to (\bigvee_{l\in[k]}(\bigwedge_{b\in[s]}Cji_{l,b} = c_{l,b}))) \wedge\\ (Bj \to (\bigwedge_{l\in[k]}(\bigvee_{b\in[s]}Cji_{l,b} \neq c_{l,b}))))\end{aligned}$$ The formula states that a solution to consists of $k$ sets of $s$ symbols along with positions such that for each string in $G$, for at least one set of symbols, the string is compatible and for each string in $B$ no set of symbols is compatible. Containment in can be demonstrated by the usual polynomial verification approach (indeed in much the same format as the above formula). \[cor:no\_fpt\_approx\] has no constant factor fpt-approximation algorithm unless $\FPT{} = \Wtwo{}$ and there exists a $c \geq 0$ such that has no $c\cdot\log n$ polynomial time approximation algorithm unless $\P{} = \NP{}$, even when ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} = 2$ and the optimization goal is $\min k$. As has no constant factor fpt-approximation [@ChenLin2015] unless $\FPT{} = \Wtwo{}$ and no $c\cdot\log n$ polynomial time approximation [@RazSafra1997] for some $c > 0$ unless $\P{} = \NP{}$ and the reduction of Lemma \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\] is a strict polynomial-time reduction, the corollary follows. Given the construction in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\], we can deduce that one source of complexity might be the freedom (unboundedness) in the alphabet and the structure of the strings. We demonstrate that restricting these parameters is fruitless from a computational complexity perspective. \[cor:PI\_NPc\_small\_strings\_small\_alphabet\] is complete even when ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} = 2$, $d = 4$, $s = 1$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert} = 1$. As is -complete on planar graphs of maximum degree 3 [@GareyJohnson79], the number of $1$s in each string in the construction of the proof of Lemma \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\] is at most 4, where we take the base symbol to be $0$. This result also demonstrates the following: \[lemma:PIP\_PIPS\_NPc\] and\ are both -complete even when ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} = 2$, $d = 4$, $r = 9$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert} = 1$. Following Corollary \[cor:PI\_NPc\_small\_strings\_small\_alphabet\], we can see from the construction given in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:DS&lt;=PI\] that for each $p \in P$, instead of setting $p[i] = \ast$ for each $i$ not in the dominating set, we can choose $r$ to be nine, and set $p[i] := 1$ if $i$ is in the dominating set, $p[j] = \ast$ for the at most three values of $j$ such that $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$ and the at most six additional values of $j$ at distance two[^4] from $i$, and $p[l] = 0$ for all other $l \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$. For the reverse argument, we have similar conditions as before, at least one symbol of each pattern must be a $1$ and at most four can be $1$s. With at most nine $\ast$ symbols, the pattern is compatible with all the strings that the corresponding vertex dominates, and all other symbols in these strings are $0$. \[cor:PIP\_PIPS\_paraNP-c\] The following are true: 1. is -complete when parameterized by ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d + r + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$. 2. is -complete when parameterized by ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + r + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$. 3. is -complete when parameterized by ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d + s + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$. 4. is -complete when parameterized by ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + s + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$. The result are obtained as follows: 1. Lemma \[lemma:PIP\_PIPS\_NPc\] gives -completeness with fixed ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$, $d$, $r$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert}$. With Corollary 2.16 from [@FlumGrohe2006], the result follows. 2. The preservation of hardness when taking subsets of a set of parameters gives the result from $1$. 3. Corollary \[cor:PI\_NPc\_small\_strings\_small\_alphabet\] shows -completeness with fixed ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$, $d$, $s$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert}$. Corollary 2.16 from [@FlumGrohe2006] completes the result. 4. The result follows immediately from $3$. We note that is in for graphs of bounded degree, so we do not obtain a -hardness result. However we can tighten this result a little further: \[thm:PI\_NP-c\_small\_strings\] is -complete and -hard even when $\Sigma = \{0,1\}$ and all strings have at most two symbols as $1$ (equiv. at most two symbols as $0$) and ${\left\vert B \right\vert} = 1$. \[lem:VC&lt;=PI\] $\VC{} \leq_{P} \PI{}$. $\rightarrow$\ Given an instance $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ of with $V(\mathfrak{G}) = \{1,\ldots, n\}$, we construct an instance $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ of as follows: 1. $\Sigma = \{0,1\}$. 2. $G = \{g_{ij} \mid ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})\}$ with $g_{ij} \in \Sigma^{n}$ where $g_{ij}[i] = g_{ij}[j] = 1$ and $g_{ij}[u] = 0$ for $u \neq i,j$. 3. $B = \{0^{n}\}$. Clearly this construction can be performed in polynomial time. The construction is illustrated in Figure \[fig:VC\_red\_example\]. If $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of then $(\Sigma,G,B,k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . Let $V' \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ where ${\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq k$ be a vertex cover witnessing that $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . We construct a set of patterns $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} = {\left\vert V' \right\vert}$ that is a solution for $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ where for each $i \in V'$ there is a pattern $p_{i} \in P$ with $p_{i}[i] = 1$ and $p_{i}[j] = \ast$ for $j \neq i$. For each edge $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$, either $i \in V'$ or $j \in V'$ (or both). Therefore for the string $g_{ij}$ corresponding to $ij$, we have either $p_{i} \in P$ or $p_{j} \in P$ such that $p_{i} \to g_{ij}$ or $p_{j} \to g_{ij}$. Hence $P \to G$. Moreover there is no $p_{i} \in P$ such that $p_{i} \to b$ where $b$ is the single element of $B$ as each $p_{i}$, by construction, contains a $1$, whereas $b$ consists of only $0$s. Therefore $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . If $(\Sigma,G,B,k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of then $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . Let $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ be the set of patterns witnessing the fact that $(\Sigma,G,B,k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . We may assume without loss of generality that for every $p \in P$, there exists some $g \in G$ such that $p \to g$. Each $p \in P$ must contain at least one $1$, otherwise $p \to b$ where $b$ is the single element of $B$. No $p \in P$ can contain more than two $1$s, as there exists $g \in G$ such that $p \to g$, and every such $g$ has exactly two $1$s. We note that if a pattern $p$ has two $1$s, then there is exactly one $g \in G$ such that $p \to g$. Let $P_{1} \subseteq P$ be the set of patterns with exactly one $1$ and $P_{2} \subseteq P$ be the set of patterns with exactly two $1$s. We have $P_{1} \cup P_{2} = P$. We construct a vertex cover $V' \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ with ${\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq {\left\vert P \right\vert}$ as follows: 1. for each $p \in P_{1}$ add $i$ to $V'$ where $p[i] = 1$, 2. for each $p \in P_{2}$ where $p[i] = p[j] = 1$, arbitrarily add one of $i$ or $j$ to $V'$. Consider every edge $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$, then for the corresponding $g_{ij} \in G$ there exists a $p \in P$ such that $p \to g_{ij}$. As each $p$ has at least one $1$, this $1$ must be at position $i$ or $j$ (or both). Therefore $i$ or $j$ is in $V'$ (or perhaps both), therefore $V'$ forms a valid vertex cover for $\mathfrak{G}$. The -hardness follows from Lemma \[lem:VC&lt;=PI\]. The containment in follows from the usual verification algorithm. The -hardness follows as the reduction of Lemma \[lem:VC&lt;=PI\] is strict and is -hard [@Hastad1997]. Finally, as restricting the alphabet did not reduce the complexity, we consider the case where the strings themselves are short. Again the problem is hard, but we note that to achieve this reduction we relax the bound on $\Sigma$ (or in Parameterized Complexity terms, ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$ is no longer a parameter – if ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$ is a parameter, the problem is in ). \[thm:PIS\_NP-c\_short\_strings\] is -complete even when $n = 4$, $d = 4$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert} = 1$. \[lem:VC&lt;=PIS\_short\_strings\] $\PVC{} \leq_{P} \PIS{}$ even when the length of strings is restricted to $4$. $\rightarrow$\ Let $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ be an instance of . We assume without loss of generality that $V(\mathfrak{G}) = \{1,\ldots, n\}$. As $\mathfrak{G}$ is planar, we can compute a proper 4-coloring in polynomial time [@AppelHaken1989]. Let $C : V(\mathfrak{G}) \rightarrow \{1,2,3,4\}$ be such a coloring. We construct an instance $(\Sigma, G, B, k', d)$ of as follows: 1. $\Sigma = \{\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{n+1}\}$. 2. $G = \{g_{ij} \mid ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})\}$ where for $k \in \{1,\ldots, 4\}$ we set $$g_{ij}[k] := \begin{cases} \sigma_{i} & \text{if } C(i) = k\\ \sigma_{j} & \text{if } C(j) = k\\ \sigma_{n+1} & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ 3. $B = \{\sigma_{n+1}^{4}\}$. 4. $d = 4$. We note that as $C$ is a proper coloring, $C(i) \neq C(j)$ for any $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$. Moreover for $i \in V(\mathfrak{G})$, $\sigma_{i}$ only appears as the $C(i)$th symbol in any string. The construction can clearly be performed in polynomial time. The construction is illustrated in Figure \[fig:planar\_VC\_red\_example\]. If $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of then $(\Sigma, G, B, k, d)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . Let $V' \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ with ${\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq k$ be a vertex cover witnessing that $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . We construct a set $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} = {\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq k$ of patterns that forms a solution for $(\Sigma, G, B, k, d)$ in the following manner: for each $i \in V'$, we add the pattern $p_{i}$ to $P$ where $p_{i}[C(i)] = \sigma_{i}$ and all other symbols in $p_{i}$ are $\ast$. No pattern in $P$ is compatible with the singleton element of $B$, as each has a symbol $\sigma_{i}$ with $1 \leq i \leq n$. For every edge $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$, at least one of $i$ and $j$ is in $V'$. Without loss of generality assume that $i \in V'$. By construction the string $g_{ij}$ is compatible with the pattern $p_{i} \in P$, therefore every string in $G$ is compatible with some pattern in $P$. If $(\Sigma, G, B, k, d)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of then $(\mathfrak{G},k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance of . Let $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ be a set of patterns such that $P \to (G,B)$. As before we may assume that $P$ is minimal in the sense that each pattern is compatible with some string in $G$. Each $p \in P$ must have at least one symbol drawn from the set $\{\sigma_{1}, \ldots, \sigma_{n}\}$, otherwise $p\to B$. No pattern $p \in P$ can have more than two symbols from $\{\sigma_{1}, \ldots, \sigma_{n}\}$, otherwise $p \not\to G$. As before, we partition $P$ into $P_{1}$, the subset of patterns with one symbol from $\{\sigma_{1}, \ldots, \sigma_{n}\}$, and $P_{2}$, the subset of patterns with two symbols from $\{\sigma_{1}, \ldots, \sigma_{n}\}$. We construct a vertex cover $V' \subseteq V(\mathfrak{G})$ for $\mathfrak{G}$ with ${\left\vert V' \right\vert} \leq {\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ as follows: - for each $p \in P_{1}$ add $i$ to $V'$ if $p[C(i)] = \sigma_{i}$, - for each $p \in P_{2}$ where $p[C(j)] = \sigma_{j}$ and $p[C(i)] = \sigma_{i}$, arbitrarily add either $i$ or $j$ to $V'$. Consider every edge $ij \in E(\mathfrak{G})$. The string $g_{ij}$ is compatible with some pattern $p \in P$, therefore at least one of $i$ and $j$ is in $V'$, thus $V'$ forms a proper vertex cover for $\mathfrak{G}$. The construction used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:VC&lt;=PIS\_short\_strings\] has the required structural properties. Again containment in is apparent from the usual verification algorithm techniques. \[cor:PIS\_paraNP-c\_short\_strings\] is -complete when parameterized by $n + d + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$. The corollary follows from Theorem \[thm:PI\_NP-c\_small\_strings\] and Corollary 2.16 from [@FlumGrohe2006]. Containment {#sec:containment} ----------- Although the -hardness reduction is quite direct, containment of when parameterized by $k$ is not apparent. In fact it is not clear that the problem lies in or even . As the non-parameterized version of the problem is -complete, it is at least contained in . For we have shown containment in . In contrast, for we can show containment in . \[thm:PIP\_in\_W\*\[5\]\] $\PIP{} \in \Wstarfive$ when parameterized by $k+r$. We reduce the problem to , which is complete for  [@ChenFlumGrohe2007; @FlumGrohe2006]. We use the same first-order structure as in the proof of Corollary \[cor:PIp\_W\[2\]-complete\], and give a suitable first-order formula: $$\begin{aligned} &\exists s_{1},\ldots,s_{k},i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{k,r}\forall j\\ &(Gj \rightarrow (\exists l (\bigvee_{c \in [k]} l = s_{c} \wedge \forall b (Cjb = Clb \vee \bigvee_{d \in [r]} b = i_{c,d})))) \wedge\\ &(Bj \rightarrow (\forall l (\bigwedge_{c \in [k]} l = s_{c} \wedge \exists b (Cjb \neq Clb \wedge \bigwedge_{d \in [r]} b \neq i_{c,d})))) \wedge\\ &(\bigwedge_{c \in [k]} (Ns_{c} \wedge \bigwedge_{d \in [r]} Ni_{c,d}))\\ \end{aligned}$$ The formula picks out $k$ indices of strings (implicitly in $G$, as a choice of a string from $B$ will fail) and for each of these, $r$ indices which will be the location of the $\ast$ symbols in the patterns. For each index, if the index selects a string in $G$, then one of the patterns is compatible with the string, if it selects a string in $B$, no pattern is compatible with the string. We note that the $B$ clause is in $\Pi_{2,1}$, and hence $\Sigma_{3,1}$, giving the final bound of $\Sigma^{\ast}_{5,1}$. This also places somewhere between and  [@ChenFlumGrohe2007]. We note that the above formula could be converted into prenex form, giving a tighter containment, however the central observation is that it will be greater than , in contrast to the hardness result and the containment of . Tractable Cases of Pattern Identification Problem {#sec:easy} ================================================= Guided by the results of Section \[sec:hard\], we identify the following cases where the problem is tractable. \[thm:PI\_FPT\_k\_Sigma\_n\] is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + n$. Taking the alphabet size and the string length as a combined parameter gives an immediate kernelization. The total number of strings of length $n$ over alphabet $\Sigma$ is ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}^{n}$. Thus ${\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert} \leq {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}^{n}$. \[PI\_FPT\_few\_small\_strings\] is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by $d + {\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$, with a kernel of size $O(d\cdot({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert})^{2})$ in both the total number of symbols across all strings and the size of the alphabet. As $G$ and $B$ are $d$-small, there can be at most $d\cdot({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert})$ positions where any pair of strings in $G \cup B$ differ, that is, every other position must be the base symbol uniformly across all strings. The positions where every string is identical cannot be of use in generating patterns, thus we may ignore these positions. This gives restricted sets $G'$ and $B'$ of size ${\left\vert G' \right\vert} + {\left\vert B' \right\vert} \leq {\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$ containing strings of length at most $d\cdot({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert})$. Furthermore this restricts the number of symbols used from $\Sigma$ to at most $d\cdot({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert})^{2}$. Thus we can restrict our alphabet to these symbols alone, denote this new alphabet by $\Sigma'$. This gives our required kernel size. The initial determination of which positions to ignore can be computed in $O(n \cdot({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}))$ time, thus the kernelization can be performed in polynomial time. \[thm:PI\_FPT\_k\_n\] is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by $k + n$. Let $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ be an instance of . If $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ is a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} instance, by definition, there exists a $P$ with ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ such that every string $g \in G$ must be compatible with at least one $p \in P$. Therefore given $g$, the compatible $p$ must consist of, at each position, either the $\ast$ symbol, or the symbol at the same position in $g$. This gives a direct bounded search tree algorithm for $\PI{}$. At each node in the tree we select an arbitrary $g$ from $G$. We then branch on all possible patterns $p$ that are compatible with $g$, with a new set $G := G \setminus \{h \in G \mid p \to h\}$ (note that this removes $g$ from further consideration). If there is a $b \in B$ such that $p \to b$, then we terminate the branch. If we reach depth $k$ and $G \neq \emptyset$, we terminate the branch. Otherwise if at any point we have $G = \emptyset$, we answer [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{}. Obviously the depth of the search tree is explicitly bounded by $k$. The branching factor is equal to the number of patterns compatible with a string of length $n$, which is $2^{n}$. The adjustment of $G$ and checks against $B$ at each node individually take $O(n)$ time, giving $O(({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert})\cdot n)$ time at each node. Combined the algorithm takes $O(2^{kn}\cdot({\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert})\cdot n)$ time, and the theorem follows. \[thm:PI\_FPT\_G\_n\] is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by ${\left\vert G \right\vert} + n$. The search tree approach used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:PI\_FPT\_k\_n\] can also be adapted to the combined parameter ${\left\vert G \right\vert} + n$. Again we select an arbitrary $g$ from $G$. We branch on all possible patterns $p$ that are compatible with $g$, of which there are at most $2^{n}$, with the new set $G := G \setminus \{h \in G \mid p \to h\}$. If $p \to b$ for any $b \in B$, the branch is terminated. When we have $G = \emptyset$, we check whether the collected set $P$ of patterns in that branch. If ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq k$ we answer [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{}, otherwise the branch is terminated. If all branches terminate with no [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yes</span>]{} answer, we answer [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No</span>]{}. \[thm:PIP\_FPT\_k\_r\_Sigma\_B\] is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d + r + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$. As each pattern can have at most $r$ many $\ast$ symbols, every other symbol in each pattern is fixed. Thus each pattern is compatible with ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}^{r}$ strings. This limits the number of strings in $G$ to $k\cdot{\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}^{r}$. The tractability then follows from Theorem \[PI\_FPT\_few\_small\_strings\]. Discussion {#sec:discussion} ========== Complementing the classification results given above, we now discuss some related issues. Firstly (in Section \[sec:discussion\_parameters\]), given the complex parameter landscape introduced, what problems remain unsolved, and which are the interesting parameterizations for future work? Secondly, we related to some similar problems that give some small intuition as to sources of complexity in (Section \[sec:other\_problems\]). The Mire of Multivariate Analysis: Untangling the Parameters {#sec:discussion_parameters} ------------------------------------------------------------ The complexity analysis in this work involves a considerable number of parameters and unsurprisingly, there are some relationships between them that can be identified, allowing a better perspective on the sources of complexity in the problem, and what cases remain open. The immediately obvious relationships, for non-trivial parameter values[^5], are $r \leq n$, $s \leq n$ and $d \leq n$. We also note that $k \leq {\left\vert G \right\vert}$ and $k \leq ({\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}+1)^{n}$, again for non-trivial values of $k$. This helps to unravel some of the relationships present in the results of this work. We also note that, of course, expanding a list of parameters preserves tractability, while reducing a list of parameters preserves intractability ![Simplified representation of the parameter space and the complexity results. We note in particular that $n$ or at least one of its related parameters $s$, $r$ or $d$ seems essential for tractability (though never sufficient). Given the nature of the input as a set of strings, it is perhaps unsurprising that at least two parameters are (apparently) needed for tractability. The obvious open cases are dominated by the parameter ${\left\vert G \right\vert}$.[]{data-label="fig:patterns-venn"}](patterns-venn) A visual summary of the tractable, intractable and open cases for a simplified parameter space is given in Figure \[fig:patterns-venn\]. Given the relationships between $s$, $r$, $d$ and $n$, we reduce the parameter space to $k$, ${\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert}$, $n$, ${\left\vert G \right\vert}$ and ${\left\vert B \right\vert}$. Although this reduces the accuracy of the space, the broad complexity landscape of the problem becomes more comprehensible. Speculatively, we may observe that the problem seems to require at least two parameters for tractability. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the nature of the input – we need some parametric “handle” on the length of the strings and another on the number of strings. From Figure \[fig:patterns-venn\] it is clear that the central parameter in the open cases is ${\left\vert G \right\vert}$, though we note that in the full parameter space, there are combinations of $s$, $r$ and $d$ with other parameters for which the complexity remains open[^6]. Ties to Other Problems {#sec:other_problems} ---------------------- The problem, as would be expected, has ties to other problems that (can) model the general search for patterns that separate two sets of data. These ties also illustrate some features of the computational complexity of the problem. ### Set Covering {#sec:set_covering} When the length $n$ of the strings is small, can be easily reduced to . Given an instance $(\Sigma, G, B, k)$ of , we can generate the set $P$ of all patterns that are compatible with some string in $G$. We know that ${\left\vert P \right\vert} \leq {\left\vert G \right\vert}\cdot 2^{n}$. From $P$ we remove any pattern that is compatible with a string in $B$. Let $P'$ be the set thus obtained. For each $p \in P'$, let $s_{p} = \{g \in G \mid p \to g\}$, and let $S = \{s_{p} \mid p \in P'\}$. Taking $G$ as the base set, $(G,S,k)$ forms an instance of (parameterized by $k$). This reduction can be performed in $O(({\left\vert B \right\vert}+{\left\vert G \right\vert})\cdot{\left\vert G \right\vert}\cdot 2^{n}n)$ time. This leads to the following theorem: \[thm:PI\_in\_W\[2\]\_sometimes\] $\PI{} \in \Wtwo{}$ when $n \leq f(k)\cdot\log{\left\vert I \right\vert}$ where ${\left\vert I \right\vert}$ is the overall size of the instance and $f(k)$ is a computable function of the parameter $k$. The reduction above is a parameterized reduction if $2^{n} \in O(g(k)\cdot{\left\vert I \right\vert}^{c})$ for some computable function $g$. It is not clear that we retain -hardness in this case however, so we unfortunately do not obtain a -completeness result. This does give us an immediate approximation algorithm for this case however. As has a $1 + \log({\left\vert S \right\vert})$-factor linear time approximation algorithm [@Johnson1974], we obtain a $1 + \log({\left\vert G \right\vert}^{2}\cdot\log({\left\vert I \right\vert})\cdot 2^{f(k)})$-factor fpt-time approximation algorithm. ### Feature Set {#sec:feature_set} The problem bears a strong resemblance to the problem[^7], except in the case, the problem asks for a set of features that separate the “good” examples from the “bad” rather than a set of patterns. In fact, given a feasible solution for one problem, we can construct a feasible (but not necessarily optimal) solution to the other. Given a set $I = \{i_{1}, \ldots, i_{k}\}$ of indices of columns forming a feature set, we can construct a set of patterns that separates $G$ and $B$ as follows: for each $g \in G$, let $p_{g}$ be the pattern where $p_{g}[i] = g[i]$ if $i \in I$ and $p_{g}[i] = \ast$ otherwise. We note that this gives a set of small patterns (*i.e.*, $s = k$), however the number of patterns may be as large as ${\left\vert G \right\vert}$. Conversely, given a set of patterns $P$ with at most $s$ non-$\ast$ symbols in each pattern, the set $I = \{i \in [n] \mid \exists p \in P(p[i] \neq \ast)\}$ forms a feature set. Again we note that the size of the feature set may be as large as ${\left\vert G \right\vert}\cdot s$. If we consider a variant of $\PIp$ where we relax the constraint on the number of patterns in the solution, it is easy to see that this problem is in . This suggests that the solution size plays a significant role in raising the complexity of the problem from a parameterized perspective. Conclusion and Future Directions {#sec:conclusion} ================================ There are a number of open complexity questions prompted by this paper, three of which we think are particularly interesting. The central question is of course the precise classification of . Although is -complete, the general problem is only -hard, and the containment of simply gives a loose upper bound, although does suggest that the problem is harder than . The problem, intuitively, also shares some similarities with $p$-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hypergraph-(Non)-Dominating-Set</span> which is -complete [@ChenFlumGrohe2007]. $p$-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Colored-Hypergraph-(Non)-Dominating-Set</span> however is $\mathsf{W}^{\ast}[\mathsf{3}]$-complete [@ChenFlumGrohe2007] and appears “harder” than , hence we conjecture: \[conj:PI\_in\_W\[2\]\] $\PI{}$ is $\Wthree{}$-complete when parameterized by $k$. There are also some interesting parameterizations for which the complexity remains open: - parameterized by $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + d$, and - parameterized by $k + d + r$. Turning to the parameter ${\left\vert G \right\vert}$, results for the following combinations of parameters would also close some of the significant open cases: - parameterized by $k + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + {\left\vert G \right\vert}$, - parameterized by ${\left\vert G \right\vert} + {\left\vert \Sigma \right\vert} + {\left\vert B \right\vert}$, and - parameterized by $k + {\left\vert B \right\vert} + {\left\vert G \right\vert}$. As a matter of prognostication, we would guess that the first of these is in , and the latter two are hard for some level of the -hierarchy, but as yet have no strong evidence for these claims. Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements} ================ PM acknowledges funding of his research by the Australian Research Council (ARC, http://www.arc.gov.au/) grants Future Fellowship FT120100060 and Discovery Project DP140104183. References {#sec:references} ========== [^1]: Whether healthy is $G$ and diseased is $B$ or vice versa depends on what information we wish the set of patterns to extract. [^2]: We use the third declension neuter form of *schema*, as it matches better the Greek roots of the word. [^3]: That is there exists some $c > 0$ such that has no $c\cdot\log n$-factor approximation algorithm unless $\P{} = \NP{}$. [^4]: As $\mathfrak{G}$ has maximum degree three, each neighbor of $i$ has at most two other neighbors, so the patterns representing each of these neighbors has a $1$ in the $i$th position, a $1$ for its own position and two other $1$s. Therefore we need only three $\ast$ symbols for the neighbors themselves, and two more per neighbor for the distance two neighborhood. [^5]: By non-trivial we mean values which differentiate the parameters – for example, if $s > n$, $s$ becomes meaningless as any number of $\ast$ symbols would be allowed, within the limitation of length $n$ strings. [^6]: At last hand-count, 72 cases out of the 256 possible parameterizations with these parameters remain open, compared to 8 with the reduced parameter space. [^7]: Indeed, variants of have also been considered for use in similar applications as  [@CottaMoscato2005].

--- abstract: 'Nearly half a century has passed since the initial indications that stellar rotation slows while chromospheric activity weakens with a power-law dependence on age, the so-called Skumanich relations. Subsequent characterization of the mass-dependence of this behavior up to the age of the Sun led to the advent of gyrochronology, which uses the rotation rate of a star to infer its age from an empirical calibration. The efficacy of the method relies on predictable angular momentum loss from a stellar wind entrained in the large-scale magnetic field produced by global dynamo action. Recent observational evidence suggests that the global dynamo begins to shut down near the middle of a star’s main-sequence lifetime, leading to a disruption in the production of large-scale magnetic field, a dramatic reduction in angular momentum loss, and a breakdown of gyrochronology relations. For solar-type stars this transition appears to occur near the age of the Sun, when rotation becomes too slow to imprint Coriolis forces on the global convective patterns, reducing the shear induced by differential rotation, and disrupting the large-scale dynamo. We use data from [@Barnes2007] to reveal the signature of this transition in the observations that were originally used to validate gyrochronology. We propose that chromospheric activity may ultimately provide a more reliable age indicator for older stars, and we suggest that asteroseismology can be used to help calibrate activity-age relations for field stars beyond the middle of their main-sequence lifetimes.' author: - 'Travis S. Metcalfe' - Ricky Egeland title: UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITATIONS OF GYROCHRONOLOGY FOR OLD FIELD STARS --- Background {#sec1} ========== Stars are born with a range of initial rotation rates and magnetic field strengths, and beyond the saturated regime the two properties are intricately linked for as long as a global dynamo continues to operate. The large-scale magnetic field gradually slows the rotation over time [e.g., see @Reville2015; @Garraffo2016]. Through a process known as magnetic braking, charged particles in the stellar wind follow the magnetic field lines out to the Alvén radius, shedding angular momentum in the process. In turn, non-uniform rotation modifies the morphology of the magnetic field [e.g., see @Brown2010]. Solar-like differential rotation, with a faster equator and slower poles, is a natural consequence of convection in the presence of substantial Coriolis forces [@Miesch2005]. The resulting shear wraps up the large-scale poloidal field into a toroidal configuration that ultimately leads to the emergence of active regions on the surface. Through these basic physical processes, stellar rotation and magnetism diminish together over time, each feeding off the other. The mutual feedback can continue as long as rotation and magnetism are coupled through a global dynamo[^1]. Nearly half a century ago, [@Skumanich1972] planted the observational seeds of this consensus view of magnetic stellar evolution. Both the theoretical foundations and the constraints from young clusters improved steadily over the intervening decades [e.g., see @Soderblom1993 and references therein]. But the Sun remained the oldest calibrator, so the empirical relations were largely untested beyond stellar middle-age. [@Barnes2007] put forward a more quantitative formulation of the rotation-age relation (so-called [*gyrochronology*]{}), establishing the mass-dependence of stellar spin-down from observations of young clusters and using the Sun to determine the age-dependence. Given only the B$-$V color and rotation period ($P_{\rm rot}$) of a star, gyrochronology yielded an empirical stellar age with a precision of 15–20%. [@Barnes2010] revised this formulation to account for varying initial conditions ($P_0$, important in young clusters), and to map the mass-dependence onto a convective turnover time ($\tau_c$) derived from the stellar models of [@BarnesKim2010]. This approach more faithfully reproduced the distribution of rotation periods in young clusters, while yielding ages compatible with [@Barnes2007] for more evolved stars. Observations from the [*Kepler*]{} mission provided the first tests of gyrochronology for older clusters and for field stars beyond the age of the Sun. [@Meibom2011] found good agreement with expectations for the 1Gyr cluster NGC6811, and [@Meibom2015] extended this success to 2.5Gyr with observations of the cluster NGC6819. The first indications of unexpected behavior were uncovered by [@Angus2015], who found that no single gyrochronology relation could simultaneously explain the cluster data and the asteroseismic ages for old [*Kepler*]{} field stars with measured rotation periods. [@vanSaders2016] confirmed anomalously fast rotation among the best characterized [ *Kepler*]{} asteroseismic targets, and proposed a model that could explain the observations with significantly weakened magnetic braking beyond the middle of a star’s main-sequence lifetime. [@Metcalfe2016] found the magnetic counterpart of this rotational transition in chromospheric activity measurements of the [*Kepler*]{} targets, showing empirically that the activity level continues to decrease while the rotation rate remains almost constant. They suggested that the transition might be triggered by a change in the character of differential rotation that was expected from global convection simulations [@Gastine2014; @Brun2017]. [@Metcalfe2017] identified a coincident shift in stellar cycle properties, with the cycle period growing longer and the amplitude becoming weaker at nearly constant rotation. These developments suggest a revised picture of the late stages of magnetic stellar evolution, in which the disruption of differential rotation in the absence of substantial Coriolis forces leads to a gradual decrease in the production of large-scale magnetic fields by the global dynamo. The consequence of this transition is a decoupling of rotation and magnetism near middle-age, such that magnetic braking can no longer shed angular momentum efficiently and rotation remains almost constant until the subgiant phase. This scenario would also explain the long-period edge found by [@McQuillan2014] in the distribution of rotation periods with B$-$V color for 34,000 stars in the [*Kepler*]{} field, where significantly longer rotation periods are expected from gyrochronology but not observed for solar-type stars [@vanSaders2018]. In an effort to address any skepticism about the existence of this transition, we identify its manifestation among the most evolved dwarfs in the Mount Wilson sample that were originally used to validate gyrochronology (Section \[sec2\]). We then search within the [*Kepler*]{} asteroseismic sample to identify analogs of the Mount Wilson stars that show the largest inconsistencies between gyrochronology and chromospheric ages (Section \[sec3\]), allowing us to characterize more precisely the decoupling of rotation and magnetism. In Section \[sec4\], we discuss future observations of these Mount Wilson stars with the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), and we predict that their asteroseismic ages will significantly exceed those expected from gyrochronology. We conclude in Section \[sec5\] with a discussion of the potential for reliable chromospheric ages of older stars, using asteroseismology to recalibrate the activity-age relation. Gyrochronology Sample {#sec2} ===================== After calibrating gyrochronology with young clusters and the Sun, @Barnes2007 [hereafter B07] attempted to validate the method using a sample of bright field stars observed for decades by the Mount Wilson HK project [@Wilson1968]. For the subset of 71 stars that were not known to be significantly evolved, B07 compiled B$-$V colors, rotation periods $P_{\rm rot}$, and mean chromospheric activity levels $\log \left<R'_{\rm HK}\right>$ from the literature [@Noyes1984; @Donahue1996; @Baliunas1996]. B07 then used the mean activity levels to calculate chromospheric ages from the activity-age relation of [@Donahue1998], which could be compared to the ages and uncertainties from gyrochronology (see Table 3 of B07). Although [@Donahue1998] did not provide a method for assessing uncertainties on the calculated ages, B07 noted that discrepancies in the age estimates for members of wide binaries and triple systems suggested a mean fractional error of 46%, about 3 times the typical age uncertainties from gyrochronology. In summarizing the comparison between the two age estimates, B07 noted in the abstract: [ *“Gyro ages for the Mount Wilson stars are shown to be in good agreement with chromospheric ages for all but the bluest stars”*]{}. Below, we use the data from Table 3 of B07 to reassess this comparison. {width="5.0in"} In Figure \[fig1\], we show the difference between the chromospheric and gyro ages, in units of the age uncertainty, plotted against the mean chromospheric activity level for 70 of the Mount Wilson stars tabulated in B07 (we omit only the M dwarf HD95735, which has a spurious chromospheric age of 20Gyr). On the left axis the inconsistency between the age estimates is shown in units of the tabulated uncertainty on the gyro age, $\sigma_{\rm gyro}$. On the right axis, the values are scaled to reflect the larger uncertainty on the chromospheric age, $\sigma_{\rm chromo}$. Colored symbols separate the sample into hotter stars with B$-$V$<$0.6 (blue triangles), solar-type stars with 0.6$<$B$-$V$\,<\,$0.8 (yellow circles), and cooler stars with B$-$V$>$0.8 (red squares). The solar values from B07 are indicated with the $\odot$ symbol. As noted by B07: [*“apart from a slight tendency toward shorter gyro ages... there is general agreement between the chromospheric and gyro ages for this sample”*]{}. With few exceptions[^2], the two age estimates tend to agree between activity levels of $-$4.3 and $-$5.0, in a band of uncertainty that stretches from $-$1 to $+$3 $\sigma_{\rm chromo}$ ($-$3 to $+$9 $\sigma_{\rm gyro}$). [lccccc]{} B$-$V & 0.56 & 0.54 & 0.50 & 0.55 & 0.52\ $P_{\rm rot}$ \[d\] & 8 & 9 & 9 & 10 & 12\ $\log \left<R'_{\rm HK}\right>$ & $-$5.094 & $-$5.120 & $-$5.103 & $-$5.026 & $-$5.073\ $t_{\rm gyro}$ \[Gyr\] & $0.76\pm0.12$ & $1.11\pm0.19$ & $1.63\pm0.33$ & $1.25\pm0.21$ & $2.30\pm0.44$\ $t_{\rm chromo}$ \[Gyr\] & 7.733 & 8.421 & 7.966 & 6.128 & 7.207\ $T_{\rm eff}$ \[K\] & 5973 & 6149 & 6249 & 6059 & 6210\ $\log g$ & 3.88 & 3.94 & 4.13 & 4.06 & 3.88\  & $-$0.19 & $+$0.08 & $+$0.16 & $+$0.04 & $-$0.05\ $L/L_\odot$ & $4.18\pm0.02$ & $6.38\pm0.02$ & $5.31\pm0.02$ & $2.95\pm0.01$ & $6.72\pm0.05$\ MWO $P_{\rm cyc}$ \[yr\] & Flat & Flat & Long & 5.4 (Fair) & Long\ Given the relative precision of the two methods, we can assume that most of the scatter is due to the chromospheric age uncertainties. Although the median age inconsistency is indeed slightly higher for the blue stars (B$-$V$<$0.6), the most significant outliers[^3] are found at the lowest activity levels ($\log R'_{\rm HK}$$<$$-$5). These stars are labeled with their HD numbers in Figure \[fig1\], and their properties are listed in Table \[tab1\]. There is reason to be skeptical of the chromospheric ages for these Mount Wilson stars. As pointed out by B07, the chromospheric ages for these stars exceed the main-sequence lifetime of a typical F-type star. This argument was used by B07 as justification for giving preference to the gyro ages. However, even if the chromospheric ages are substantially overestimated, the gyro ages are not necessarily correct. Setting aside questions about the absolute reliability of chromospheric ages, the activity levels certainly suggest that these stars might be significantly evolved [e.g., see @Wright2004]. In the bottom half of Table \[tab1\], we provide three additional lines of evidence that support this general conclusion. First, we list spectroscopic parameters ($T_{\rm eff}, \log g$, \[Fe/H\]) from [@Boeche2016]. [@Barnes2016] argue that gyrochronology has only been calibrated for dwarf stars near solar-metallicity. They classify as subgiants any star with $\log g<4.2$, and remove from consideration metal-poor stars. By these definitions, all of these Mount Wilson stars would be considered subgiants, and one of them (HD45067) should be discarded by virtue of its low metallicity. Second, the luminosities shown in Table \[tab1\] [@Gaia2018] are substantially above the main-sequence luminosity for F-type stars (which is typically less than 2 $L_\odot$). Third, after 25 years of monitoring their chromospheric activity, [@Baliunas1995] classified most of these stars as “Flat” (i.e. showing constant activity with fractional variations less than 1.5%) or “Long” (i.e. showing potential variability on a timescale longer than 25 years), suggesting that their global dynamos may have already started to shut down [@Metcalfe2017]. The one exception is a possible 5.4 year cycle in HD187691, which was assigned a false-alarm probability (FAP) grade of “Fair” by [@Baliunas1995]. Note that the two solar-type stars near HD212754 in Figure \[fig1\] (HD178428 and HD143761) are also classified as “Flat” and “Long”. Although there may be substantial problems with chromospheric ages at these low activity levels [e.g., see @Mamajek2008], the corroborating evidence in Table \[tab1\] of significant evolution suggests that gyro ages may also suffer from systematic errors in this regime. In the context of our revised picture of magnetic stellar evolution (Section \[sec1\]), how can we understand this inconsistency between the chromospheric and gyro ages for the Mount Wilson stars in Table \[tab1\]? As discussed by [@vanSaders2016], the shutdown of magnetic braking appears to occur at a critical value of the Rossby number (Ro$\equiv P_{\rm rot}/\tau_c$), the ratio of the rotation period to the convective turnover time. Hotter stars have shallower convection zones with shorter turnover times, so they reach the critical Rossby number at earlier absolute ages while their rotation periods are still relatively short. The result of this transition is a decoupling of rotation and magnetism, with the rotation period remaining almost constant while the chromospheric activity continues to decrease[^4] with age [@Metcalfe2016]. As suggested by [@Metcalfe2017], stellar cycles appear to grow longer and decrease their amplitude during this transition before disappearing entirely or becoming undetectable, leading to classifications of “Long” or “Flat” in stellar cycle surveys. With the rotation period essentially fixed, the gyro age is a lower limit that actually reflects the age when the star stopped spinning down in the middle of its main-sequence lifetime. [lccc|c]{} B$-$V & 0.520 & 0.556 & 0.509 & 0.540\ $P_{\rm rot}$ \[d\] & $10.96\pm2.22$ & $9.39\pm0.68$ & $12.58\pm1.70$ & $12.37\pm1.22$\ $\log R'_{\rm HK}$ & $-$4.954 & $-$4.977 & $-$5.054 & $\cdots$\ $t_{\rm gyro}$ \[Gyr\] & $1.93\pm0.37$ & $1.06\pm0.18$ & $2.82\pm0.57$ & $2.04\pm0.37$\ $t_{\rm astero}$ \[Gyr\] & $1.94\pm0.31$ & $3.44\pm0.44$ & $4.33\pm0.30$ & $4.69\pm0.56$\ $t_{\rm chromo}$ \[Gyr\] & 4.73 & 5.15 & 6.75 & $\cdots$\ $T_{\rm eff}$ \[K\] & 6302 & 6179 & 6140 & 6265\ $\log g$ & 4.38 & 4.21 & 4.29 & 3.90\  & $+$0.10 & $-$0.08 & $-$0.19 & $-$0.12\ $L/L_\odot$ & $1.71\pm0.01$ & $2.71\pm0.01$ & $1.93\pm0.01$ & $6.59\pm0.11$\ Analogs Observed by [*Kepler*]{} {#sec3} ================================ Although asteroseismic observations do not yet exist for the Mount Wilson stars in Table \[tab1\] (see Section \[sec4\]), we can search for analogs of these stars within the sample of [*Kepler*]{} asteroseismic targets. There are currently 18 [*Kepler*]{} targets with detailed asteroseismic modeling (for precise ages) that also have known rotation periods and measured chromospheric activity [see @Metcalfe2016 their Table 1]. Among these stars, only three fall within the same range of rotation periods and B$-$V colors as the Mount Wilson stars in Table \[tab1\]. We list the properties of these analogs in the first three columns of Table \[tab2\], ordered by activity level. The chromospheric activity levels for these analogs span the range where the magnetic transition summarized in Section \[sec1\] is expected to occur. The critical Rossby number found by [@vanSaders2016] can also be understood as a critical activity level, because the two properties are strongly correlated [@Mamajek2008]. The critical activity level is around $-$4.95 [@Brandenburg2017], so the gap between gyrochronology and other age estimates is expected to grow wider as stars continue to evolve to lower activity levels. We use the B$-$V color and $P_{\rm rot}$ to calculate gyro ages and uncertainties using the B07 formulation[^5], and we use $\log R'_{\rm HK}$ to calculate chromospheric ages following [@Donahue1998]. For KIC9139151, which is just reaching the critical activity level where rotation and magnetism are expected to decouple, the gyro age agrees with the asteroseismic age. For the more evolved dwarfs KIC12009504 and KIC10963065, the gap between the gyro age and the asteroseismic age is significant. The gyro age for these stars appears to indicate the point at which magnetic braking became inefficient and rotation stopped evolving substantially. The available data from [*Kepler*]{} suggests that gyrochronology is an unreliable age indicator for hotter stars beyond $\sim$2–3 Gyr [@vanSaders2016]. The chromospheric ages for the analogs appear to be substantially overestimated at these low activity levels, just as with the Mount Wilson stars in Table \[tab1\]. The other indicators of evolutionary status that are listed in the first three columns of Table \[tab2\] generally fall within the range where gyrochronology has been calibrated. The surface gravities are all above the cut ($\log g>4.2$) suggested by [@Barnes2016], only one of the stars (KIC10963065) is significantly metal-poor, and the Gaia luminosities are well below those of the Mount Wilson stars. Most significantly, there is no apparent reason to expect gyrochronology to fail for KIC12009504, but both the B07 (1.06 Gyr) and B10 (1.10 Gyr) ages are wildly inconsistent with the asteroseismic age [modeling results vary between 3.10–4.12 Gyr, @SilvaAguirre2017]. If this star is actually too evolved for gyrochronology to be reliable, the rotation period should have [*slowed*]{} as it expanded into a subgiant, biasing the gyro age [*older*]{} and reducing the inconsistency with asteroseismology. {width="5.0in"} Predictions for TESS {#sec4} ==================== The TESS mission launched successfully in April 2018, and it is expected to gather short-cadence photometry (2-minute sampling) for all of the Mount Wilson stars listed in Table \[tab1\]. Detections of solar-like oscillations comparable to what was achieved by [*Kepler*]{} are expected in TESS targets that are $\sim$5 magnitudes brighter [@Campante2016]. The minimum dwell time on each TESS sector is 27 days, comparable to the 30-day time series obtained for [*Kepler*]{} targets during the asteroseismic survey that was conducted in the first year [@Chaplin2011]. The amplitude of solar-like oscillations scales with the ratio of luminosity to mass [@Houdek1999], and detections are more likely in magnetically inactive stars [@Chaplin2011b], so the F-type stars in Table \[tab1\] should yield asteroseismic data comparable to [ *Kepler*]{} targets in the magnitude range Kp$\sim$10–11. The 27-day time series should also allow an independent check of the rotation periods determined from the Mount Wilson data. We searched the [@Garcia2014] rotation catalog for the fainter [*Kepler*]{} asteroseismic targets that can be considered analogs of the Mount Wilson stars in terms of both stellar properties and the expected data quality from TESS. The properties of KIC10909629, the best [*Kepler*]{} analog of HD212754, are listed in the fourth column of Table \[tab2\]. KIC10909629 has a B$-$V color and rotation period that are both similar to HD212754, but it is 5.25 magnitudes fainter in the V band. The chromospheric activity level of KIC10909629 is not known, but the photospheric activity proxy[^6] [$S_{\rm ph}$, @Mathur2014] is comparable to that of KIC10963065 which has $\log R'_{\rm HK}<-5$. The gyro age from B07 (2.04 Gyr) and B10 (2.24 Gyr) are both significantly younger than the asteroseismic age [4.69 Gyr, @Serenelli2017]. The spectroscopic parameters and Gaia luminosity are similar to those of HD212754, and support the conclusion that KIC10909629 is substantially evolved despite its young gyro age. Again, this can be understood if the rotation period of KIC10909629 stopped evolving after $\sim$2 Gyr. Based on these results, we predict that asteroseismic ages from TESS for the Mount Wilson stars in Table \[tab1\] will be significantly older than expected from gyrochronology. The anticipated quality of the TESS observations for the Mount Wilson stars is illustrated in Figure \[fig2\]. In the top panel, a 27-day segment of the long-cadence [*Kepler*]{} observations of KIC10909629 clearly shows rotational modulation with a period near 12 days and a peak-to-peak amplitude of a few milli-magnitudes. In the bottom panel, we show the power spectrum from 390 days of short-cadence data for KIC10909629 (gray) and for the observations spanning 30 days (blue) that were originally used to detect solar-like oscillations in this star [@Chaplin2011]. In both cases, the signatures of activity, granulation, and shot noise have been modeled and removed using the A2Z pipeline [@Mathur2010]. While the longer data set clearly shows the series of evenly spaced frequencies that are characteristic of solar-like oscillations, the shorter time series still reveals a significant power excess $\sim$900 $\mu$Hz and a signature of the regular spacing. When combined with spectroscopic parameters, these global properties of the oscillations are sufficient to constrain the stellar age with $\sim$10–20% precision [@Chaplin2014; @Serenelli2017]. Summary and Discussion {#sec5} ====================== After [@Skumanich1972] presented observational evidence that stellar rotation rates and magnetic activity levels diminish together over time, the idea of using one or both properties to determine the ages of stars has gradually taken hold. [@Barnes2007; @Barnes2010] made the idea more quantitative by establishing the mass-dependence and calibrating a gyrochronology relation using young clusters and the Sun. In the absence of additional observations, it was natural to extrapolate these relations to stars beyond the middle of their main-sequence lifetimes. However, over the past few years evidence has emerged that something unexpected occurs in the evolution of stellar rotation and magnetism around middle-age, limiting the utility of gyrochronology relations. When the rotation period of a star becomes comparable to the global convective turnover time, Coriolis forces can no longer sustain the solar-like pattern of differential rotation. The resulting loss of shear disrupts the production of large-scale magnetic field by the global dynamo [@Metcalfe2016]. The elimination of large-scale field leads to a dramatic reduction in the efficiency of magnetic braking, so the stellar rotation remains almost constant until the subgiant phase [@vanSaders2016; @vanSaders2018]. At the same time the global dynamo gradually shuts down, with the activity cycle period growing longer while the cycle amplitude decreases before disappearing or becoming undetectable [@Metcalfe2017]. We have identified the signature of this transition in the observations that were originally used to validate gyrochronology. Using data directly from @Barnes2007 [his Table 3], we demonstrate that the most significant differences between chromospheric ages and gyrochronology occur for the most evolved F-type dwarfs (Figure \[fig1\]). We present several independent lines of evidence to corroborate this interpretation, including surface gravities, Gaia luminosities, and the predominant absence of activity cycles (Table \[tab1\]). We identify analogs of these F-type stars among the sample of asteroseismic targets observed by [*Kepler*]{}, and we show that the asteroseismic ages agree with gyrochronology until a critical activity level ($\log R'_{\rm HK}=-4.95$) beyond which the two estimates diverge (Table \[tab2\]). Finally, we use observations of a fainter analog from the [*Kepler*]{} sample to predict the quality of observations anticipated for these targets from the TESS mission, showing that rotation periods and solar-like oscillations should both be detectable (Figure \[fig2\]). Considering our revised picture of the late stages of magnetic stellar evolution, we predict that these future observations will demonstrate that gyrochronology is unreliable for stars beyond the middle of their main-sequence lifetimes. There are two key updates to the scenario for magnetic evolution outlined in this paper compared to that proposed by [@Metcalfe2016]. First, it is now clear that the Rossby number from global convection simulations and that obtained from asteroseismic models that use a mixing-length prescription are not directly comparable [@Brun2017]. Based on solar determinations of the Rossby number from both methods, we now believe that the transition near Ro$\sim$2 identified by [@vanSaders2016] corresponds to a change in the character of differential rotation seen near Ro$\sim$1 in convection simulations. In the context of [@Metcalfe2016], this implies that stellar evolution across the Vaughan-Preston gap entirely precedes the magnetic transition, which occurs at a substantially lower activity level. Second, there is now observational evidence of possible anti-solar differential rotation in some stars that show higher than expected activity for their rotation rates [@Brandenburg2018]. This suggests that when stars reach the critical Rossby number, the differential rotation might flip from solar-like to anti-solar (slow equator, fast poles). Conservation of angular momentum would require the shear to increase, leading to an enhancement of activity in the slowly rotating regime [@Karak2015]. Future observations will determine whether this phenomenon represents a temporary phase, or an alternate pathway that coexists with the shutdown of the global dynamo. While it may be disappointing that rotation is less useful as a diagnostic of age beyond the middle of stellar main-sequence lifetimes, the other Skumanich relation (activity-age) may not be similarly disrupted. Observations of chromospheric activity in a large sample of solar analogs suggest that, unlike rotation, the evolution of activity appears to be continuous across the magnetic transition [@LorenzoOliveira2018]. Although the ages adopted for their analysis were derived from isochrones, the TESS mission is poised to provide reliable asteroseismic ages for bright stars down to V$\sim$7 all around the sky. When combined with existing archives of chromospheric activity, it is possible that asteroseismic ages can be used to recalibrate the activity-age relation for older solar-type stars. Given the difficulty of obtaining time series measurements of the diminishing rotational modulation in such stars, and considering that minimal chromospheric variability makes one spectroscopic measurement more likely to be representative of the mean activity level, chromospheric activity might ultimately provide a more reliable age indicator for stars beyond middle-age. Angus, R., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & McQuillan, A. 2015, , 450, 1787 Baliunas, S. L., Donahue, R. A., Soon, W. H., et al. 1995, , 438, 269 Baliunas, S., Sokoloff, D., & Soon, W.  1996, , 457, L99 Barnes, S. A. 2007, , 669, 1167 \[B07\] Barnes, S. A. 2010, , 722, 222 \[B10\] Barnes, S. A., & Kim, Y.-C. 2010, , 721, 675 Barnes, S. A., Spada, F., & Weingrill, J.  2016, AN, 337, 810 B[ö]{}hm-Vitense, E. 2007, , 657, 486 Boeche, C., & Grebel, E. K. 2016, , 587, A2 Brandenburg, A., Mathur, S., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2017, , 845, 79 Brandenburg, A., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, , 855, L22 Brown, B. P., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., Miesch, M. S., & Toomre, J. 2010, , 711, 424 Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Varela, J., et al.  2017, , 836, 192 Buchhave, L. A., & Latham, D. W. 2015, , 808, 187 Campante, T. L., Schofield, M., Kuszlewicz, J. S., et al. 2016, , 830, 138 Chaplin, W. J., Kjeldsen, H., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2011a, Science, 332, 213 Chaplin, W. J., Bedding, T. R., Bonanno, A., et al. 2011b, , 732, L5 Chaplin, W. J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al.  2014, , 210, 1 Creevey, O. L., Metcalfe, T. S., Schultheis, M., et al. 2017, , 601, A67 Donahue, R. A., Saar, S. H., & Baliunas, S. L. 1996, , 466, 384 Donahue, R. A. 1998, ASP Conference Series, 154, 1235 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, , 616, 1 Garc[í]{}a, R. A., Ceillier, T., Salabert, D., et al. 2014, , 572, A34 Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O.  2016, , 595, A110 Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, , 862, 90 Gastine, T., Yadav, R. K., Morin, J., Reiners, A., & Wicht, J. 2014, , 438, L76 Houdek, G., Balmforth, N. J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Gough, D. O. 1999, , 351, 582 Karak, B. B., K[ä]{}pyl[ä]{}, P. J., K[ä]{}pyl[ä]{}, M. J., et al. 2015, , 576, A26 Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Kudo, T., et al.  2013, , 774, 11 Lorenzo-Oliveira, D., Freitas, F. C., Mel[é]{}ndez, J., et al. 2018, , 619, A73 Mamajek, E. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A.  2008, , 687, 1264 Mathur, S., Garc[í]{}a, R. A., R[é]{}gulo, C., et al. 2010, , 511, A46 Mathur, S., Garc[í]{}a, R. A., Ballot, J., et al. 2014, , 562, A124 McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S.  2014, , 211, 24 Meibom, S., Barnes, S. A., Latham, D. W., et al. 2011, , 733, L9 Meibom, S., Barnes, S. A., Platais, I., et al.  2015, , 517, 589 Metcalfe, T. S., Egeland, R., & van Saders, J. 2016, , 826, L2 Metcalfe, T. S., & van Saders, J.  2017, , 292, 126 Miesch, M. S. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 1 Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, , 279, 763 R[é]{}ville, V., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., & Pinto, R. F. 2015, , 798, 116 Serenelli, A., Johnson, J., Huber, D., et al. 2017, , 233, 23 Silva Aguirre, V., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, , 835, 173 Skumanich, A. 1972, , 171, 565 Soderblom, D. R., Stauffer, J. R., MacGregor, K. B., & Jones, B. F. 1993, , 409, 624 van Saders, J. L., Ceillier, T., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2016, , 529, 181 van Saders, J. L., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Barbieri, M. 2018, , submitted (arXiv:1803.04971) Walker, G. A. H., Croll, B., Matthews, J. M., et al. 2008, , 482, 691 Wilson, O. C. 1968, , 153, 221 Wright, J. T. 2004, , 128, 1273 [^1]: By “global dynamo” we mean the mechanism that generates large-scale magnetic field, as opposed to a “local dynamo” which may generate field on smaller scales. [^2]: Exceptions include the two Jovian exoplanet host stars GJ504 [@Kuzuhara2013] and $\tau$Boo [@Walker2008], where the stellar rotation, activity, or both could plausibly be affected by interactions with the planet. [^3]: Note that the identification of these stars as the largest outliers does not depend on the B07 formulation of gyrochronology. Updating all of the gyro ages to those produced by the @Barnes2010 [hereafter B10] formulation (and adopting the uncertainties from B07, since there is no prescription for calculating uncertainties in B10) yields the same conclusion. [^4]: If magnetic energy driven by rotation on large scales is replaced with mechanical energy driven by convection on small scales [@BohmVitense2007], then the change in magnetic morphology that dramatically reduces angular momentum loss need not change the chromospheric activity level abruptly. Recent simulations by [@Garraffo2018] support this interpretation. [^5]: Ages calculated with the B10 formulation agree with those from B07 within 2$\sigma_{\rm gyro}$. [^6]: The photospheric activity proxy can be artificially low for stars when the rotation is viewed nearly pole-on.

--- abstract: | In this article we discuss the maximum principle for the linear equation and the sign changing solutions of the semilinear equation with the Higgs potential. Numerical simulations indicate that the bubbles for the semilinear Klein-Gordon equation in the de Sitter space-time are created and apparently exist for all times.\ [**Key words:**]{} maximum principle; sign-changing solutions; semilinear Klein-Gordon equation; de Sitter space-time; global solutions; Higgs potential\ [**Mathematics Subject Classification:** ]{} [Primary 35A01, 35L71, 35Q75; Secondary 35B05, 35B40]{} author: - Andras Balogh and Karen Yagdjian title: The maximum principle and sign changing solutions of the hyperbolic equation with the Higgs potential --- 0.15cm -1.5cm 6.5in \[section\] \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Texas RGV, 1201 W. University Drive, Edinburg, TX 78539, USA Introduction {#S1} ============ In this article we discuss the maximum principle for the linear equation and the sign changing solutions of the semilinear equation with the Higgs potential. The Klein-Gordon equation with the Higgs potential (the Higgs boson equation) in the de Sitter space-time is the equation $$\label{HBE} \psi _{tt} - e^{-2t} \Delta \psi +n\psi_t = \mu^2 \psi - \lambda \psi ^3 ,$$ where $\Delta $ is the Laplace operator in $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$, $n=3$, $t >0$, $\lambda >0 $, and $\mu >0 $. We assume that $\psi =\psi (x,t) $ is a real-valued function. We focus on the zeros of the solutions to the linear and semilinear hyperbolic equation in the Minkowski and de Sitter space-times. One motivation for the study of the maximum principle, sign changing solutions and zeros of the solutions to the linear and semilinear hyperbolic equation comes from the cosmological contents and quantum field theory. It is of considerable interest for particle physics and inflationary cosmology to study the so-called bubbles [@Coleman], [@Linde], [@Voronov]. In [@Lee-Wick] bubble is defined as a simply connected domain surrounded by a wall such that the field approaches one of the vacuums outside of a bubble. The creation and growth of bubbles is an interesting mathematical problem [@Coleman Ch.7], [@Linde]. In this paper, for the continuous solution $\psi =\psi (x,t) $ to the Klein-Gordon equation, for every given positive time $t$ we define a bubble as a maximal connected set of points $ x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ at which solution changes sign. Another motivation to study all these closely related properties comes from the issue of the existence of a global in time solution to non-linear equation. Consider the Cauchy problem for the linear wave equation $$\begin{aligned} \cases{ \partial_{t }^2 u- \Delta u=0 \,, \cr u(x,0)= u_0(x)\,,\quad u_t(x,0)= u_1(x)\,,\qquad u_0,u_1 \in C^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)\,.}\end{aligned}$$ If one can prove that the solution $u=u(x,t) $ vanishes at some point $(x_b,t_b)$, then it opens the door to study the blowup phenomena for the equation $$\begin{aligned} \cases{ \partial_{t }^2 v- \Delta v + (\partial_{t } v)^2- |\nabla v|^2=0 \,, \cr v(x,0)= v_0(x)\,,\quad v_t(x,0)= v_1(x)\,,\qquad v_0,v_1 \in C ^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)\,,}\end{aligned}$$ which is the Nirenberg’s Example (see, e.g.[@Klainerman1980]) of the quasilinear equation. Indeed, the transformation $$u(x,t)=\exp(v(t,x))$$ shows that $u(x_b,t_b) =0$ at some $t_b>0$ and $x_b \in {\mathbb R}^n$ implies $v(x_b,t_b)=-\infty$. To avoid blowup phenomena one can restrict the initial data to be small in some norm. (For details, see, e.g., [@Yag2005].) Therefore to guarantee existence of the global solution to quasilinear equation, the solution $u=u(x,t)$ of the related linear equation must keep sign for all $t>0$ and all $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$. This link between sign preserving solutions and global in time solvability is especially easy to trace in the case of $n=3$. In fact, the explicit representation formulas for the solutions to the linear equation play key role. On the other hand for the equations with the variable coefficients and, in particular, for the linear hyperbolic equations in the curved space-time, the new global in time explicit representation formulas were obtained very recently (see, [@Yag_Galst_CMP; @MN]). For the results on the sign changing solutions of the quasilinear equations one can consult [@Speck]. The outline of the discussion in this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[S2\] we describe the maximum principle for the wave equation in the Minkowski space-time when the initial data are subharmonic or superharmonic. In Section \[S3\] we present the maximum principle for the linear Klein-Gordon equation in the de Sitter space-time. Theorem \[T2\] of that section guarantees that the solution does not changes sign, that is, it provides with some necessary conditions to have a sign-changing solution. Section \[S5\] is devoted to kernels of the integral transforms have been used in the proofs. Section \[S6\] is a bridge between Section \[S7\] and previous sections. It is aimed to give some theoretical background material about semilinear Klein-Gordon equation in the de Sitter space-time with the Higgs potential. Section \[S6\] also prepares the reader to Section \[S7\], which is about numerical simulations on the evolution of the bubbles in the de Sitter space-time. The maximum principle in the Minkowski space-time {#S2} ================================================= In [@Sather] the following maximum principle is established for the wave operator $$L:=\partial_{t }^2- \Delta\,,$$ where $\Delta $ is the Laplace operator in $x \in {\mathbb R}^n $. Denote $$\begin{aligned} N= \cases{ \frac{n-2}{2}\quad if \quad n \quad even \cr \frac{n-3}{2}\quad if \quad n \quad odd.}\end{aligned}$$ Let $ u$ satisfy the differential inequality $$\begin{aligned} \frac{ \partial ^N}{\partial t ^N} (L [ u] ) \leq 0 \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \quad t \in [0, T]\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the initial conditions $$\begin{aligned} & & \frac{ \partial ^k u}{\partial t ^k} (x,0)=0\,, \quad k=0,1,\ldots,N\,, \quad \frac{ \partial ^{N+1}u}{\partial t ^{N+1}} (x,0)\leq 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ for all $x$ in the domain $D_0\subseteq {\mathbb R}^n $. Then $$u (x,t) \leq 0\,$$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$, where $t\leq T $. We recall definition of the forward light cone $D_+ (x_0,t_0) $, and the backward light cone $D_- (x_0,t_0) $, in the Minkowski space-time for the point $(x_0, t_0) \in {\mathbb R}^{n+1} $: $$\begin{aligned} D_\pm (x_0,t_0) & := & \Big\{ (x,t) \in {\mathbb R}^{n+1} \, ; \, |x -x_0 | \leq \pm( t-t_0 ) \,\Big\} \,.\end{aligned}$$ For the domain $D_0\subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$ define a dependence domain of $D_0 $ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} D(D_0) & := & \displaystyle \bigcup_{x_0 \in {\mathbb R}^n,\,\, t_0 \in [0,\infty) } \left\{ D_- (x_0,t_0) \,;\, D_- (x_0,t_0) \cap \{t=0\} \subset D_0 \right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, according to Theorem 1 [@Sather], for $x \in {\mathbb R}^3 $ if $ u$ satisfy the differential inequality $$\begin{aligned} \label{2} L u \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \quad t \leq T\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the initial conditions $$u(x,0)=0\,, \quad u_t(x,0) \leq 0\,, \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \quad x \in D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3\,,$$ then $ u (x,t) \leq 0$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$, where $t\leq T $. The statement is a simple consequence of the Duhamel’s principle and the well-known Kirchhoff formula $$\begin{aligned} \label{6} u(x_1,x_2,x_3,t)= \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{S_t(x_1,x_2,x_3)} \frac{\varphi (\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)}{t} d S_t \,,\end{aligned}$$ for the solution of the Cauchy problem for the wave equation (see, e.g., [@Shatah]), where $$L[u]=0\,, \qquad u(x,0)= 0\,,\qquad u_t(x,0)= \varphi (x)\,,$$ and $ S_t(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ is a sphere of radius $t$ centered at $(x_1,x_2,x_3) $. The kernel $1/t$ of the integral operator (\[6\]) is positive. The next statement also can be proved by the Kirchhoff formula. \[T1.1b\] Assume that the $C^2$- functions $u=u(x,t)$, $ \varphi _0= \varphi _0(x)$, $\varphi _1 = \varphi _1(x) $ satisfy the differential inequality $$\begin{aligned} \label{5b} L [u ] + \Delta \varphi _0+ t\Delta \varphi _1 \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad t \leq T\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $u$ takes the initial values $$\label{IC} u(x,0)=\varphi _0(x)\,, \,\, u_t(x,0) =\varphi _1(x) \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad x \in D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3.$$ Then $ u (x,t) \leq \varphi _0(x)+t \varphi _1(x)\, $ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$, where $t\leq T $. [**Proof.**]{} For $w=u- \varphi _0-t \varphi _1(x)$ we have $$L [w] = L[u] -L[\varphi _0] - L[t\varphi _1]= L[u]+ \Delta \varphi _0+ t\Delta \varphi _1\leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \quad t \leq T\,,$$ and the initial conditions $$w(x,0)=0\,, \quad w_t(x,0) = 0 \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \quad x \in D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3\,.$$ Then we apply Theorem 1 [@Sather]. $\square$ Assume that the function $u\in C^2$ satisfies $$L [u ] + \Delta \varphi _0 \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad t \leq T\,,$$ and $u$ takes the initial values (\[IC\]), where $\varphi _1(x) \leq 0 $ in $D_0$. Then $ u (x,t) \leq \varphi _0(x) \, $ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$, where $t\leq T $. The definition of the superharmonic functions will be used in the next corollaries can be found in [@Weinstein]. We are not going to prove the next statements for the less smooth superharmonic functions or for superharmonic function of higher order. \[C1.3\] Assume that the function $u$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} L [u ] \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad t \leq T\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $u$ takes the initial values (\[IC\]), where $\varphi _1(x) \leq 0 $ in $D_0$. Suppose that $ \varphi _0 \in C^2$ is superharmonic in $D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$. Then $ u (x,t) \leq \varphi _0(x) \, $ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$, where $t\leq T $. \[C1.2\] Assume that the function $u$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} L [u ] \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad t \leq T\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $u$ takes the initial values (\[IC\]). Suppose that $ \varphi _0 , \varphi _1\in C^2$ are superharmonic in $D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$. Then $ u (x,t) \leq \varphi _0(x)+t \varphi _1(x)\, $ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$, where $t\leq T $. The analogous statements are valid with the subharmonic functions $\varphi _0 $, $\varphi _1 \in C^2$. We also note that the conditions on the first and second initial data of the solution to the partial differential inequalities (\[2\]) and (\[5b\]) are asymmetric. The asymmetry exists also in the Cauchy problem but it reveals itself only in the loss of regularity in one derivative in the Sobolev spaces. Thus, Theorem \[T1.1b\], in particular, gives sufficient conditions for the solution of the linear equation to be sign-preserving. If we turn to the linear Klein-Gordon equation in the Minkowski space $$u_{tt} - \Delta u +m^2 u = f ,$$ with $m>0$, then the functional $F(t):=\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} u(x,t)\, dx $ solves the differential equation $F'{}'+m^2 F=\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}f(x,t ) \,dx $. The solution $u=u(x,t)$ cannot preserve the sign, for instance, if $ u(x,0)=0$, $f=f(x)$, and $$2\left| \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}f(x,t ) \,dx \right| < \left| \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}u_t(x,0) \,dx \right|,$$ since $$F(t) = \frac{1}{m} \sin (mt) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}u_t(x,0) \,dx + \int_0^t \frac{1}{m} \sin (m(t- \tau )) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}f(x,\tau ) \,dx\,d \tau .$$ On the other hand, for the the linear Klein-Gordon operator with the imaginary mass $ L_{KGM}:=\partial_{t }^2 - \Delta -M^2$, if $$\label{6b} L_{KGM}[u] = f \,,$$ then for the functional $F$ with $F(0)=0$, we have $$F(t) = \frac{1}{M} \sinh (Mt) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}u_t(x,0) \,dx + \int_0^t \frac{1}{M} \sinh (M(t-\tau)) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}f(x,\tau ) \,dx\,d \tau .$$ Although the functional $F $ for $f \leq 0$ and $\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}u_t(x,0) \,dx \leq 0 $ is non-positive if $t$ is large, we cannot conclude that the solution $u$ is sign preserving. On the other hand, we can apply the integral transform approach (see [@MN] and references therein) and obtain the following result for the equation (\[6b\]). \[T1.2\] Assume that the function $u$ satisfies $$L_{KGM}[u] \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad t \leq T\,,$$ and $L_{KGM}[u] \in C^2$ is a superharmonic in $x$ function. Suppose that $ u(x,0)$ and $ u_t(x,0)$ are superharmonic non-positive functions in $D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{21bb} u(x,t) & \leq & \int_{ 0}^{t}L_{KGM}[u](x,b) \frac{1}{M} \sinh (M(t-b)) \, db \\ & & + \cosh(Mt) u (x,0 ) +\frac{1}{M}\sinh(Mt)u _t(x,0) \quad \mbox{for all} \quad t \leq T \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned} u (x,t) \leq 0 \qquad \mbox{for all} \quad t \leq T \end{aligned}$$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$. [**Proof.**]{} If we denote $f:= ( \partial_{t }^2 - \Delta -M^2)$, $\varphi _0:= u(x,0)$, and $ \varphi _1:= u_t(x,0)$, then according to the integral transform approach formulas [@MN] we can write $$\begin{aligned} u(x,t) & = & \int_{ 0}^{t} db \int_{ 0}^{t-b } I_0\left(M\sqrt{(t-b)^2-r^2}\right) v_f(x,r;b ) \, dr \\ & & + v_{\varphi _0}(x,t )+\int_{ 0}^{t} \frac{\partial }{\partial t} I_0\left(M\sqrt{t^2-r^2}\right) v_{\varphi _0}(x,r ) \, dr \\ & & +\int_{ 0}^{t} I_0\left(M\sqrt{t^2-r^2}\right) v_{\varphi _1}(x,r )\, dr, \,\, x \in {\mathbb R} , \,\, t> 0,\end{aligned}$$ where the function $v(x,t;b)$ is the solution to the Cauchy problem for the wave equation $$v_{tt} - \bigtriangleup v = 0 \,, \quad v(x,0;b)=f(x,b)\,, \quad v_t(x,0)= 0\,,$$ while $v_{\varphi } $ is the solution of the Cauchy problem $$v_{tt} - \bigtriangleup v = 0 \,, \quad v(x,0)=\varphi (x)\,, \quad v_t(x,0)= 0\,.$$ Here $I_0(z)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind. Then the statement of this theorem follows from Teorem \[T1.1b\] and the properties of the function $I_0\left(z\right) $. Indeed, due to Corollary \[C1.3\], we have $$v_f(x,r;b ) \leq f(x,b)\,, \quad v_{\varphi _0}(x,r )\leq \varphi _0 (x)\,, \quad v_{\varphi _1}(x,r )\leq \varphi _1 (x)$$ for all corresponding $x,r$, and $b$. The function $ I_0(z)$ is positive while $ I_0'(z)$ is non-negative for $z>0$. Thus, the inequality $$\begin{aligned} u(x,t) & \leq & \int_{ 0}^{t} db \, f(x,b) \int_{ 0}^{t-b } I_0\left(M\sqrt{(t-b)^2-r^2}\right) \, dr \\ & & + \varphi _0 (x )+\varphi _0 (x )\int_{ 0}^{t} \frac{\partial }{\partial t} I_0\left(M\sqrt{t^2-r^2}\right) \, dr \\ & & + \varphi _1 (x )\int_{ 0}^{t} I_0\left(M\sqrt{t^2-r^2}\right) \, dr, \,\, x \in {\mathbb R} , \,\, t> 0,\end{aligned}$$ and the result of the integrations prove theorem. $\square$ On the other hand, in order to prove a sign changing property of the solutions to the semilinear equations for those no explicit formulas are available, the $F$-functional method can be applied. For details see [@CPDE2012]. The maximum principle in the de Sitter space-time {#S3} ================================================= For the hyperbolic equation with variable coefficients the maximum principle is known only in the one dimensional case (see, e.g., [@Protter]) and for Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation [@Weinstein]. We consider the linear part of the equation $$\label{K_G_Higgs} u_{tt} - e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup u - M^2 u= - e^{\frac{n}{2}t}V'(e^{-\frac{n}{2}t}u ),$$ with $M\geq 0 $ and the potential function $V=V(\psi ) $. If we denote the non-covariant Klein-Gordon operator in the de Sitter space-time $$L_{KGdS}:= \partial_t^2 - e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup - M^2 ,$$ then (\[K\_G\_Higgs\]) can be written as follows: $$L_{KGdS}[u]= - e^{\frac{n}{2}t}V'(e^{-\frac{n}{2}t}u )\,.$$ The equation (\[K\_G\_Higgs\]) covers two important cases. The first one is the Higgs boson equation (\[HBE\]) that leads to (\[K\_G\_Higgs\]) if $\psi = e^{-\frac{n}{2}t} u$. Here $V'(\psi )=\lambda \psi ^3 $ and $M^2= \mu ^2+ n^2/4 $ with $\lambda >0 $ and $\mu >0 $, while $n=3$. The second case is the case of the covariant Klein-Gordon equation $$\psi _{tt} + n\psi _t- e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup \psi + m^2 \psi = - V'(\psi ),$$ with small physical mass, that is $0 \leq m \le {n }/{2}$. For the last case $ M^2= {n^2}/{4}-m^2$. It is evident that the last equation is related to the equation (\[K\_G\_Higgs\]) via transform $\psi =e^{-\frac{n}{2}t}u $. It is known that the Klein-Gordon quantum fields whose squared physical masses are negative (imaginary mass) represent tachyons. (See, e.g., [@B-F-K-L].) In [@B-F-K-L] the Klein-Gordon equation with imaginary mass is considered. It is shown that localized disturbances spread with at most the speed of light, but grow exponentially. The conclusion is made that free tachyons have to be rejected on stability grounds. The Klein-Gordon quantum fields on the de Sitter manifold with imaginary mass present scalar tachyonic quantum fields. Epstein and Moschella [@Epstein-Moschella] give an exhaustive study of scalar tachyonic quantum fields which are linear Klein-Gordon quantum fields on the de Sitter manifold whose masses take an infinite set of discrete values $m^2=-k(k+n)$, $k=0,1,2,\ldots$. The corresponding linear equation is $$\begin{aligned} & & \psi _{tt} + n \psi _t - e^{-2 t} \Delta \psi + m^2 \psi = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$ If $n$ is an odd number, then $m$ takes value at the knot points set [@JMP2013]. The nonexistence of a global in time solution of the semilinear Klein-Gordon massive tachyonic (self-interacting quantum fields) equation in the de Sitter space-time is proved in [@yagdjian_DCDS]. More precisely, consider the semilinear equation $$\begin{aligned} & & \psi _{tt} + n \psi _t - e^{-2 t} \Delta \psi - m^2 \psi = c|\psi|^{1+\alpha} \,, \end{aligned}$$ which is commonly used model for general nonlinear problems. Then, according to Theorem 1.1 [@yagdjian_DCDS], if $c\not= 0$, $\alpha >0 $, and $m \not= 0$, then for every positive numbers $\varepsilon $ and $s$ there exist functions $\psi _0 $, $\, \psi _1 \in C_0^\infty ( {\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $ \|\psi _0 \|_{H_{(s)}( {\mathbb R}^n)} + \|\psi _1 \|_{H_{(s)}( {\mathbb R}^n)} \leq \varepsilon $ but the solution $\psi =\psi (x,t) $ with the initial values $$\psi (x,0)= \psi _0 (x)\,, \quad \psi _t(x,0)= \psi _1 (x)\,,$$ blows up in finite time. This implies also blowup for the sign-preserving solutions of the equation $$\begin{aligned} & & \psi _{tt} + n \psi _t - e^{-2 t} \Delta \psi - m^2 \psi = c|\psi|^{ \alpha} \psi \,. \end{aligned}$$ The next theorem gives certain kind of maximum principle for the non-covariant Klein-Gordon equation in the de Sitter space-time. Define the “forward light cone” $D^{dS}_+ (x_0,t_0) $ and the “backward light cone” $D^{dS}_- (x_0,t_0) $, in the de Sitter space-time for the point $(x_0,t_0 ) \in {\mathbb R}^{n+1}$, as follows $$\begin{aligned} D^{dS}_\pm (x_0,t_0) & := & \Big\{ (x,t) \in {\mathbb R}^{n+1} \, ; \, |x -x_0 | \leq \pm( e^{-t_0} - e^{-t }) \,\Big\} \,.\end{aligned}$$ For the domain $D_0\subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$ define dependence domain of $D_0 $ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} D^{dS}(D_0) & := & \displaystyle \bigcup_{x_0 \in {\mathbb R}^n,\,\, t_0 \in [0,\infty) } \left\{ D^{dS}_- (x_0,t_0) \,;\, D^{dS}_- (x_0,t_0) \cap \{t=0\} \subset D_0 \right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ \[T2\] Assume that $M >1 $ and the function $u$ satisfies $$L_{KGdS}[u] \leq 0 \,, \quad \mbox{ for all} \quad t \leq T\,,$$ and $L_{KGdS}[u] \in C^2$ is a superharmonic in $x$ function. Suppose that $ u(x,0)$ and $ u_t(x,0)$ are superharmonic non-positive functions in $D_0 \subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{21bbc} u(x,t) & \leq & \int_{ 0}^{t} L_{KGdS}[u](x,b) \frac{1}{M} \sinh (M(t-b)) \, db + \cosh(Mt) u (x,0 ) +\frac{1}{M}\sinh(Mt)u _t(x,0) \end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in [\ln (M/(M-1)),T]$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned} \label{21b} u (x,t) \leq 0 \qquad \mbox{for all} \quad t\in [\ln (M/(M-1)),T] \end{aligned}$$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$. If $u(x,0) \equiv 0 $, then the statements (\[21bbc\]),(\[21b\]) hold also for all $t \in [0,T] $ and each $M\geq 0 $. [**Proof.**]{} We are going to apply the integral transform and the kernel functions $E(x,t;x_0,t_0;M) $, $K_0(z,t;M) $, and $K_1(z,t;M) $ from [@JMAA_2012]. First we introduce the function $$\begin{aligned} E(x,t;x_0,t_0;M) & = & 4 ^{-M} e^{ M(t_0+t) } \Big((e^{-t }+e^{-t_0})^2 - (x - x_0)^2\Big)^{-\frac{1}{2}+M } \\ & & \times F\Big(\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( e^{-t_0}-e^{-t })^2 -(x- x_0 )^2 }{( e^{-t_0}+e^{-t })^2 -(x- x_0 )^2 } \Big) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $F\big(a, b;c; \zeta \big) $ is the hypergeometric function. (See, e.g., [@B-E].) Next we define the kernels $K_0(z,t;M) $ and $K_1(z,t;M) $ by $$\begin{aligned} \label{K0} K_0(z,t;M) & := & - \left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial b} E(z,t;0,b;M) \right]_{b=0} \\ & = & 4 ^ {-M} e^{ t M}\big((1+e^{-t })^2 - z^2\big)^{ -\frac{1}{2}+ M } \frac{1}{ (1-e^{ -t} )^2 - z^2 } \nonumber \\ & & \times \Bigg[ \big( e^{-t} -1 +M(e^{ -2t} - 1 - z^2) \big) F \Big(\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -z^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -z^2 }\Big) \nonumber \\ & & + \big( 1-e^{-2 t}+ z^2 \big)\Big( \frac{1}{2}+M\Big) F \Big(-\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -z^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -z^2 }\Big) \Bigg] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $K_1(z,t;M) := E(z ,t;0,0;M) $, that is, $$\begin{aligned} K_1(z,t;M) & = & 4 ^{-M} e^{ Mt } \big((1+e^{-t })^2 - z ^2\big)^{-\frac{1}{2}+M } \\ & & \times F\left(\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -z^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -z^2 } \right), \, 0\leq z\leq 1-e^{-t}, \end{aligned}$$ respectively. These kernels have been introduced and used in [@Yag_Galst_CMP; @yagdjian_DCDS] in the representation of the solutions of the Cauchy problem. The positivity of the kernels $E $, $K_0 $, and $K_1 $ is proved in the next section. The solution $u= u(x,t)$ to the Cauchy problem $$u_{tt} - e^{-2t}\Delta u -M^2 u= f ,\quad u(x,0)= 0 , \quad u_t(x,0)=0,$$ with $ f \in C^\infty ({\mathbb R}^{n+1})$ and with vanishing initial data is given [@JMAA_2012] by the next expression $$\begin{aligned} \label{1.29small} u(x,t) & = & 2 \int_{ 0}^{t} db \int_{ 0}^{ e^{-b}- e^{-t}} dr \, v(x,r ;b) E(r,t; 0,b;M) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the function $v(x,t;b)$ is a solution to the Cauchy problem for the wave equation $$\label{1.6c} v_{tt} - \bigtriangleup v = 0 \,, \quad v(x,0;b)=f(x,b)\,, \quad v_t(x,0)= 0\,.$$ If the superharmonic function $f$ is also non-positive, $f(x,t) \leq 0 $, then due to Corollary \[C1.2\] we conclude $$\begin{aligned} v(x,r ;b) & \leq & f(x,b) \leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ in the domain of dependence of $D_0$. It follows $$\begin{aligned} \int_{ 0}^{t} db \int_{ 0}^{ e^{-b}- e^{-t}} dr \, v(x,r ;b) E(r,t; 0,b;M) & \leq & \int_{ 0}^{t} f(x,b) \, db \int_{ 0}^{ e^{-b}- e^{-t}} E(r,t; 0,b;M) \,dr \\ & \leq & \int_{ 0}^{t} f(x,b) \frac{1}{2M} \sinh (M(t-b)) \, db \leq 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ provided that $E(r,t; 0,b;M)\geq 0 $. The solution $u=u (x,t)$ to the Cauchy problem $$\label{CPu} u_{tt}- e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup u -M^2 u =0\,, \quad u(x,0)= u_0 (x)\, , \quad u_t(x,0)=u_1 (x)\,,$$ with $u_0 $, $ u_1 \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n) $, $n\geq 2$, can be represented [@JMAA_2012] as follows: $$\begin{aligned} u(x,t) & = & e ^{\frac{t}{2}} v_{u_0} (x, \phi (t)) + \, 2\int_{ 0}^{1} v_{u_0} (x, \phi (t)s) K_0(\phi (t)s,t;M)\phi (t)\, ds \nonumber \\ & & +\, 2\int_{0}^1 v_{u_1 } (x, \phi (t) s) K_1(\phi (t)s,t;M) \phi (t)\, ds , \quad x \in {\mathbb R}^n, \,\, t>0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi (t):= 1-e^{-t} $. Here, for $\varphi \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)$ and for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$, the function $v_\varphi (x, \phi (t) s)$ coincides with the value $v(x, \phi (t) s) $ of the solution $v(x,t)$ of the Cauchy problem $$v_{tt} - \bigtriangleup v = 0 \,, \quad v(x,0)=\varphi (x)\,, \quad v_t(x,0)= 0\,.$$ For the function $u _1 $, which is superharmonic, from Corollary \[C1.3\] we conclude $$v_{u _1} (x,r) \leq u _1(x) \,.$$ It follows $$\begin{aligned} 2\int_{0}^{\phi (t)} v_{u _1} (x, r) K_1(r,t;M) \, dr & \leq & 2 u _1(x) \int_{0}^{\phi (t)} K_1(r,t;M) \, dr \\ & = & \frac{1}{M}\sinh(Mt)u _1(x)\,.\end{aligned}$$ since $ K_1(r,t;M) \geq 0$. In particular, if $u _1(x) \leq 0$, then $$\begin{aligned} & & 2\int_{0}^{\phi (t)} v_{u _1 } (x, r) K_1(r,t;M) \, dr \leq 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Further, if $u_0 \in C^2$ is superharmonic, that is $\Delta u_0 \leq 0 $, then, according to Corollary \[C1.3\], $ (\partial_t^2-\Delta ) v_{u_0} = 0 $ implies $v_{u_0}(x,t) \leq u_0(x)$. Consequently, if $ M>1$, then $ K_0(r,t;M) \geq 0$ for all $t \in [\ln(M/(M-1)),T]$, and $$\begin{aligned} & & e ^{\frac{t}{2}} v_{u_0} (x, \phi (t)) + \, 2\int_{ 0}^{\phi (t)} v_{\varphi_0} (x, r) K_0(r,t;M) \, dr \\ & \leq & u_0 (x ) \left[ e ^{\frac{t}{2}} + \, 2\int_{ 0}^{\phi (t)} K_0(r,t;M) \, dr \right]= \cosh(Mt) u_0 (x )\,.\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[T2\] is proved. $\square$ We do not know if the condition of superharmonicity can be relaxed. The positivity of the kernel functions $E$, $K_0$ and $K_1$ {#S5} =========================================================== \[P1\] Assume that $M\geq 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned} & & E(r,t; 0,b;M) \geq 0 , \quad \mbox{ for all}\quad 0 \leq b \leq t,\quad r\leq e^{-b}-e^{-t}\,,\quad t \in [0,\infty)\,, \\ & & K_1(r,t;M) \geq 0\quad \mbox{ for all}\quad r\leq 1-e^{-t}, \quad t \in [0,\infty)\,.\end{aligned}$$ If we assume that $M>1$, then $$\begin{aligned} & & K_0(r,t;M) \geq 0 \quad \mbox{\rm for all}\,\, r\leq 1-e^{-t} \,\, \mbox{ and for all }\,\, t > \ln \frac{M}{M-1} \,.\end{aligned}$$ [**Proof.**]{} Indeed, for $ 0 \leq b \leq t$ and $r\leq e^{-b}-e^{-t}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} E(r,t;0,b;M) & = & 4 ^{-M} e^{ M(b+t) } \Big((e^{-t }+e^{-b})^2 - r^2\Big)^{-\frac{1}{2}+M } \\ & & \times F\Big(\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( e^{-b}-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( e^{-b}+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \Big) .\end{aligned}$$ For $M \geq 0$ the parameters $a=b= {1}/{2}-M$ and $c=1$ $ $ of the function $F(a,b;c;z)$ satisfy the relation $a+b\leq c$. Then, we denote $$z := \frac{ ( e^{-b}-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( e^{-b}+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \leq 1 , \quad 0 \leq b \leq t,\quad r\leq e^{-b}-e^{-t} \,.$$ Hence, it remains to check the sign of the function $F ( a ,a ;1; z ) $ with parameter $a \leq 1/2 $ and $ z \in(0,1)$. If $a$ is not a non-positive integer then the series $$\begin{aligned} & & F ( a ,a ;1; x )= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{[(a)_n]^2}{[n!]^2}x^n \,,\quad (a)_n:= a(a+1)\cdots(a+n-1) \,,\end{aligned}$$ is a convergent series for all $x \in [0,1)$. If $a$ is negative integer, $a=-k$, then $F (a,a ;1;x ) $ is polynomial with the positive coefficients: $$\begin{aligned} & & F ( a ,a ;1; x )= \sum_{n=0}^k \frac{[(a)_n]^2}{[n!]^2}x^n \,.\end{aligned}$$ Since $K_1(z,t;M) := E(z ,t;0,0;M) $, the first two statements of the proposition are proved. In order to verify the last statement it suffices to verify the inequality $K_0(r,t;M) >0 $, where $ r \in (0,1)$. Denote $M=(2k+1)/2$. Then $ {1}/{2}-M= -k <0$ and we can write (\[K0\]) in the equivalent form as follows $$\begin{aligned} K_0(z,t;M) & = & - \Bigg[ \frac{\partial }{\partial b} \Bigg\{ 4 ^{-M} e^{ M(b+t) } \Big((e^{-t }+e^{-b})^2 - r^2\Big)^{-\frac{1}{2}+M } \Bigg\}\Bigg]_{b=0} \nonumber \\ & & \times F\Big(\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( e^{-b}-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( e^{-b}+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \Big) \nonumber \\ & & - 4 ^{-M} e^{ M(b+t) } \Big((e^{-t }+e^{-b})^2 - r^2\Big)^{-\frac{1}{2}+M } \nonumber \\ & & \times \Bigg[ \frac{\partial }{\partial b} \Bigg\{ F\Big(\frac{1}{2}-M ,\frac{1}{2}-M ;1; \frac{ ( e^{-b}-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( e^{-b}+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \Big) \Bigg\}\Bigg]_{b=0} \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then we use the relation (20) [@B-E Sec.2.8]: $$\begin{aligned} K_0(z,t;M) & = & - 4^{-(k+\frac{1}{2})} e^{(k+\frac{1}{2}) t} \Big((e^{-t }+1)^2 - r^2\Big)^{k} \nonumber \\ & & \times \Bigg\{ \frac{\left(-e^{2 t} \left((k+\frac{1}{2}) r^2+(k+\frac{1}{2})-1\right)+(k+\frac{1}{2})+e^t\right)}{\left(r^2-1\right) e^{2 t}-2 e^t-1}\nonumber \\ & & \times F\Big(-k ,-k ;1; \frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \Big) \nonumber \\ & & - k^2 F\Big(1-k ,1-k ;2; \frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \Big) \Bigg\}\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned} & & K_0 \left(r,t;\frac{1}{2}+k \right) \\ & = & 4^{-k-1} e^{\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right) t} \big((1+e^{-t })^2 - r^2\big)^{ k -2 } \\ & & \times \Bigg[8 k^2 e^t \left(\left(r^2+1\right) e^{2 t}-1\right) F \left(1-k,1-k;2;\frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }\right)\\ & & + \left[(1+e^t)^2-r^2 \right] \left(e^{2 t} \left(2 k \left(r^2+1\right)+r^2-1\right)-2 k-2 e^t-1\right) \\ & & \times F \left(-k,-k;1;\frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }\right)\Bigg] \,.\end{aligned}$$ Consider the factor $$\begin{aligned} \label{20} & & \Bigg[8 k^2 e^t \left(\left(r^2+1\right) e^{2 t}-1\right) F \left(1-k,1-k;2;\frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }\right)\\ & & + \left[(1+e^t)^2-r^2 \right] \left(e^{2 t} \left(2 k \left(r^2+1\right)+r^2-1\right)-2 k-2 e^t-1\right) \nonumber \\ & & \times F \left(-k,-k;1;\frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }\right)\Bigg] \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The functions $F \left( -k, -k;1;z\right) $ and $F \left( 1-k,1-k;2;z\right) $ are defined as follows $$\begin{aligned} F \left( -k, -k;1;z\right) & = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{[ (-k)(-k+1)\cdots(-k+n-1)]^2}{[n!]^2}z^n \,,\\ F \left(1-k,1-k;2;z\right) & = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ [ (1-k)_n ]^2}{ [n!]^2 (n+1) }z^n \,. \end{aligned}$$ Here we have denoted $$z:= \frac{ ( 1-e^{-t })^2 -r^2 }{( 1+e^{-t })^2 -r^2 } \in [0,1] \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \,\,t \in [0,\infty), \,\, r \in (0,1-e^{-t })\,.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} F \left( -k, -k;1;z\right) & \geq & 1 \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \,\, z \in [0,1)\,,\\ F \left(1-k,1-k;2;z\right) & \geq & 1 \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \,\, z \in [0,1)\,. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned} & & 8 k^2 e^t \left(\left(r^2+1\right) e^{2 t}-1\right)>1 \quad \mbox{\rm for all} \,\, r \in [0,1] \quad \mbox{\rm and } \,\,t \geq \frac{M}{M-1} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Next we check the sign of the function $$\begin{aligned} & & \left[(1+e^t)^2-r^2 \right] \left(e^{2 t} \left(2 k \left(r^2+1\right)+r^2-1\right)-2 k-2 e^t-1\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \left[(1+e^t)^2-r^2 \right] \geq 3$, we consider the second factor only. We set $x:=e^t>1$ and $y:=r^2 \in [0,1]$; then we have the polynomial $$\begin{aligned} P(x,y) & = & x^{2} \left(2 k \left(y+1\right)+y-1\right)-2 k-2 x-1 \,.\end{aligned}$$ It follows $$\begin{aligned} \partial_y P(x,y) & = & 2x^2M>0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\label{32} P(x,0) = 2[ x^{2} ( M -1)- x - M] >0\,,$$ and for $M=1$ the last inequality false since $x>0$. For $M>1$ the inequality (\[32\]) holds whenever $x> M/(M-1)$. It follows $$\begin{aligned} P(e^t,r^2) & > & const >0\quad \forall \, r^2 \in [0,1] \quad \mbox{\rm and } \forall\,t \in (\ln (M/(M-1)),\infty)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since all terms of (\[20\]) are positive, the proposition is proved. $\square$ The graph of the $K_0(r,t; \frac{3}{4})$ shows that the $K_0$ changes a sign. \[Fig1\] {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\ The graph of the $K_0(r,t; \frac{1}{6})$ shows that the $K_0$ does not change a sign. \[Fig1b\] {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\ For $M=1/2$ the kernels are (see [@JMP2013]) $$E \left( r,t;0,b;\frac{1}{2} \right)= \frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}(b+t)},\quad K_0\left(r,t;\frac{1}{2}\right)= -\frac{1}{4}e^{\frac{1}{2} t } ,\quad K_1\left(r,t;\frac{1}{2}\right)= \frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{1}{2} t } \,$$ and the solution can be written as follows $$\begin{aligned} u(x,t) & = & \int_{ 0}^{t} db \int_{ 0}^{ e^{-b}- e^{-t}} dr \, e^{\frac{1}{2}(b+t)} v(x,r ;b) + e ^{\frac{1}{2}t} v_{u_0} (x, \phi (t)) \\ & & -\, \frac{1}{2} e^{\frac{1}{2} t }\int_{ 0}^{\phi (t)} v_{u_0} (x, r) \, dr +\, e^{\frac{1}{2} t }\int_{0}^{\phi (t)} v_{u_1 } (x, r) \, dr, \end{aligned}$$ where $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$, $t>0$. In particular, if $ f=0$ and $u_1=0 $, then $$u(x,t) = e ^{\frac{1}{2}t} v_{u_0} (x, \phi (t)) -\, \frac{1}{2} e^{\frac{1}{2} t }\int_{ 0}^{\phi (t)} v_{u_0} (x, r) \, dr, \quad x \in {\mathbb R}^n, \,\, t>0,$$ solves (\[CPu\]). The second term of the last expression is the so-called tail. The tail is of considerable interest in many aspects in physics, and, in particular, in the General Relativity [@Sonego]. If we assume that $ u(x,t) \leq 0$, then $$\begin{aligned} v_{u_0} (x, s) -\, \frac{1}{2}\int_{ 0}^{s} v_{u_0} (x, r) \, dr \leq 0\quad \mbox{ for all} \quad s \in[0,1]\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the Gronwall’s lemma implies $ v_{u_0} (x, s) \leq 0\,. $ The converse statement is not true in general. Indeed, according to the Figure 3, for $v(s) = -e^{-\frac{s^2}{1.2\, -s^3}} <0 $, the function $$\begin{aligned} v ( s) -\, \frac{1}{2}\int_{ 0}^{s} v ( r) \, dr \,,\end{aligned}$$ is positive when $s \geq 0.9 $: \[F3\] {width="35.00000%"} If $u_0=u_0(x) $ is harmonic function in ${\mathbb R}^n $, then $v_{u_0} (x, r) = u_0 (x )$ and $$\begin{aligned} u(x,t) & = & \cosh \left(\frac{1}{2}t \right)u_0(x) , \quad x \in {\mathbb R}^n, \,\, t>0\,.\end{aligned}$$ We do not know if the value $M=1$, that is $m=\sqrt{5}/2$, has some physical significance similar to one when $M=1/2$, that is $m=\sqrt{2} $, which is the end point of the Higuchi bound [@JMAA_2012]. Assume that $M \in[0, 1/2]$. Then $$\begin{aligned} & & K_0(r,t;M) \leq 0 \quad \mbox{\rm for all}\,\, r\leq 1-e^{-t} \quad \mbox{ and for all }\,\, t>0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The sign-changing solutions for the semilinear Klein-Gordon equation in the de Sitter space with Higgs potential {#S6} ================================================================================================================ We are interested in sign-changing solutions of the equation for the Higgs real-valued scalar field in the de Sitter space-time $$\label{1.1} \label{Higgs_eq} \psi_{tt} + 3 \psi_t - e^{-2 t} \Delta \psi = \mu^2 \psi -\lambda \psi^ 3 \,.$$ The constants $\psi = \pm {\mu }/{\sqrt{\lambda }} $ are non-trivial real-valued solutions of the equation (\[Higgs\_eq\]). The $x$-independent solution of (\[Higgs\_eq\]) solves the Duffing’s-type equation $$\ddot \psi +3 \dot \psi =\mu^2 \psi -\lambda \psi^ 3\,,$$ which describes the motion of a mechanical system in a twin-well potential field. Unlike the equation in the Minkowski space-time, that is, the equation $$\label{1.1_Min} \label{Higgs_eq_Min} \psi_{tt} - \Delta \psi = \mu^2 \psi -\lambda \psi ^3\,,$$ the equation (\[1.1\]) has no other time-independent solution. For the equation (\[1.1\_Min\]) the existence of a weak global solution in the energy space is known (see, e.g., [@G-V; @G-V1989]). The equation (\[1.1\_Min\]) for the Higgs scalar field in the Minkowski space-time has the time-independent flat solution $$\label{stadysol} \psi_M (x) = \frac{\mu }{\sqrt{\lambda} } \tanh \left( \frac{\mu^2 }{2 } N\cdot (x-x_0) \right), \qquad N, x_0, x \in {\mathbb R}^3,$$ where $N $ is the unit vector. The solution (\[stadysol\]), after Lorentz transformation, gives rise to a traveling solitary wave $$\psi_M (x,t) = \frac{\mu }{\sqrt{\lambda} } \tanh \left( \frac{\mu^2 }{2 } [ N \cdot (x-x_0) \pm v(t-t_0)]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}\right), \qquad$$ where $ N, x_0, x \in {\mathbb R}^3$, $t \geq t_0$, and $0<v<1$. The set of zeros of the solitary wave $\psi =\psi_M (x,t) $ is the moving boundary of the [*wall*]{}. A global in time solvability of the Cauchy problem for equation (\[1.1\]) is not known, and the only estimate for the lifespan is given by Theorem 0.1 [@ArXiv2017]. The local solution exists for every smooth initial data. (See, e.g., [@Rendall_book].) The $C^2$ solution of the equation (\[Higgs\_eq\]) is unique and obeys the finite speed of the propagation property. (See, e.g., [@Hormander_1997].) In order to make our discussion more transparent we appeal to the function $u = e^{\frac{3}{2}t}\psi$. For this new unknown function $u=u(x,t) $, the equation (\[1.1\]) takes the form of the semilinear Klein-Gordon equation $$\label{2.8b} \label{2.8} \label{2.2} u_{tt} - e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup u - M^2 u= - \lambda e^{-3t} u^3,$$ where a positive number $M $ is defined as follows: $$M^2:= \frac{9}{4} + \mu ^2> 0\,.$$ The equation (\[2.2\]) is the equation with imaginary mass. Next, we use the fundamental solution of the corresponding linear operator in order to reduce the Cauchy problem for the semilinear equation to the integral equation and to define a weak solution. We denote by $G$ the resolving operator of the problem $$u_{tt} - e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup u - M^2 u= f, \quad u (x,0) = 0 , \quad \partial_{t }u (x,0 ) =0\,.$$ Thus, $u=G[f]$. The operator $G$ is explicitly written in [@Yag_Galst_CMP] for the case of the real mass. The analytic continuation with respect to the parameter $M $ of this operator allows us also to use $G$ in the case of imaginary mass. More precisely, for $M \geq 0$ we define the operator $G$ acting on $f(x,t) \in C^\infty ({{\mathbb }R}^3\times [0,\infty)) $ by (\[1.29small\]), $$\begin{aligned} G[f](x,t) & = & 2 \int_{ 0}^{t} db \int_{ 0}^{ e^{-b}- e^{-t} } dr \, v(x,r ;b) E(r,t;0,b;M)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the function $v(x,t;b)$ is a solution to the Cauchy problem for the wave equation (\[1.6c\]). Let $u_0=u_0(x,t)$ be a solution of the Cauchy problem $$\label{3.5} \partial_{t }^2 u_0 - e^{-2t} \bigtriangleup u_0 - M^2 u_0 = 0, \quad u_0 (x,0) = \varphi _0(x), \quad \partial_{t }u_0 (x,0 ) = \varphi _1(x )\,.$$ Then any solution $u=u(x,t)$ of the equation (\[2.2\]), which takes initial value $ u (x,0) = \varphi _0(x), \quad \partial_{t }u (x,0) = \varphi _1(x)$, solves the integral equation $$\label{2.7} u(x,t) = u_0(x,t)- G[\lambda e^{-3\cdot } u^3](x,t) \,.$$ We use the last equation to define a weak solution of the problem for the partial differential equation. If $u_0$ is a solution of the Cauchy problem (\[3.5\]), then the solution $u=u (x,t)$ of (\[2.7\]) is said to be [*a weak solution*]{} of the Cauchy problem for the equation (\[2.8\]) with the initial conditions $ u (x,0) = \varphi _0 (x)$, $\partial_{t }u (x,0) = \varphi _1 (x) . $ It is suggested in [@CPDE2012] to measure a variation of the sign of the function $\psi $ by the deviation from the Hölder inequality $$\left| \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} u (x) \, dx \right|^{3} \leq C_{supp \, u} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |u (x )|^3 \, dx$$ of the inequality between the integral of the function and the self-interaction functional: $$\left| \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} u (x) \, dx \right|^{3} \leq \nu (u) \left| \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} u ^3 (x ) \, dx \right|$$ provided that $\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} u ^3 (x ) \, dx \not=0 $. For the solutions with the initial data with supports in some bounded ball of radius $R$ due to finite speed of propagation the constant $C_{supp \, u} $ depends of $R$ alone and is the same for all solutions. The constant $\nu (u)$ depends on function, but for the solution $u=u(x,t) $ of the equation (\[2.7\]) it is regulated by the equation, that is, $\nu (u)=\nu (t)$ is a function of time universal for all functions. For the sign preserving global in time solutions the rate of growth of the function $\nu (t)$ is restricted from below. The next definition is a particular case of Definition 1.2 [@CPDE2012]. Time $t$ is regarded as a parameter. \[D1.2\] The real valued-function $\psi \in C([0,\infty); L^1( {{\mathbb }R}^3 )\cap L^3( {{\mathbb }R}^3 ))$ is said to be asymptotically time-weighted $L^3$-non-positive (non-negative), if there exist number $C_\psi>0 $ and positive non-decreasing function $\nu_\psi \in C ([0,\infty)) $ such that with $\sigma =1$ ($\sigma =-1$) one has $$\left| \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \psi (x,t) \, dx \right|^{3} \leq -\sigma C_\psi \nu_\psi (t) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \psi ^3 (x,t) \, dx \quad \mbox{for all sufficiently large} \quad t .$$ It is evident that any sign preserving function $\psi \in L^3( {{\mathbb }R}^3 ) $ with a compact support satisfies the last inequality with $ \nu_\psi (t) \equiv 1 $ and either $\sigma =1 $ or $\sigma =-1$, while $C_\psi^{ 1/2} $ is a measure of the support. As a result of the finite speed of propagation property of the equation (\[1.1\_Min\]), any smooth global non-positive (non-negative) solution $\psi = \psi (x,t) $ of (\[1.1\_Min\]) with compactly supported initial data is also asymptotically time-weighted $L^3$-non-positive (non-negative) with the weight $\nu_\psi (t)= (1+t)^6 $. The following statement follows from Theorem 1.3 [@CPDE2012]. Let $u=u(x,t) \in C([0,\infty);L^q( {{\mathbb }R}^3 ))$, $2\leq q < \infty $, be a global solution of the equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{210} u(x,t) = u_0(x,t)- G\left[ \lambda u^3 (y,\cdot ) \right](x,t) \,.\end{aligned}$$ where $ u_0(x,t)$ solves initial value problem (\[3.5\]) with $ \varphi _0, \varphi _1 \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{21} \sigma \left( M \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \varphi _0(x ) \, dx + \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \varphi _1(x ) \, dx \right)>0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Assume also that the self-interaction functional satisfies $$\sigma \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} u^3(z, t)\, dz \leq 0$$ for all $t$ outside of the sufficiently small neighborhood of zero. Then, the global solution $u=u(x,t)$ cannot be an asymptotically time-weighted $L^3$-non-positive (-non-negative) with the weight $\nu_u =const>0$. Thus, the the last statement shows that the continuous global solution of the equation (\[210\]) cannot be negative sign preserving provided that it is generated by the function $u_0=u_0(x,t) $, which obeys (\[21\]). Thus, [*it takes positive value at some point, that is, it changes a sign.*]{} An application of the last theorem to the Higgs real-valued scalar field equation (\[1.1\]) with $\mu >0$ results in the following statement (see also Corollary 1.4 [@CPDE2012]). Let $\psi =\psi (x,t) \in C([0,\infty);L^q( {{\mathbb }R}^3 ))$, $2\leq q < \infty $, be a global weak solution of the equation (\[1.1\]). Assume also that the initial data of $\psi =\psi (x,t)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} \label{42} \sigma \left( \left(\sqrt{9 + 4\mu ^2} +3\right)\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\psi (x,0)\,dx+2\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\partial _t\psi (x,0)\,dx \right) >0\end{aligned}$$ with $\sigma =1$ ($\sigma =-1$), while $$\begin{aligned} \sigma \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \psi^3 (x,t)\, dx \leq 0\end{aligned}$$ is fulfilled for all $t$ outside of the sufficiently small neighborhood of zero. Then, the global solution $\psi =\psi (x,t)$ cannot be an asymptotically time-weighted $L^3$-non-positive (-non-negative) solution with the weight $\nu_\psi (t)=e^{a_\psi t }t^{b_\psi } $, where $ a_\psi < \sqrt{9+4\mu ^2}- 3$, $b_\psi \in{\mathbb R} $. For the solution $\psi =\psi (x,t) \in C^2( {{\mathbb }R}^3\times [0,\infty))$ with the compactly supported smooth initial data $ \psi (x,0), \psi_t (x,0) \in C^\infty_0( {{\mathbb }R}^3 )$, the finite propagation speed property for (\[1.1\]) with $\mu >0$ implies that the solution has a support in some cylinder $B_R \times [0,\infty) $, and consequently, if it is sign preserving, it is also asymptotically time-weighted $L^3$-non-positive (-non-negative) solution with the weight $\nu_\psi (t)\equiv 1 $. This contradicts to the previous statement. Hence, [*the global solution with data satisfying (\[42\]) and $\psi (x,0) \leq 0$ must take positive value at some point and, consequently, must take zero value inside of some section $t=const>0$.*]{} It gives rise to the creation of a bubble. Evolution of bubbles {#S7} ==================== Since an issue of the global solution for equation (\[1.1\]) is not resolved, we present some simulation that shows evolution of the bubbles in time. Our numerical approach uses a fourth order finite difference method in space [@finitediff] and an explicit fourth order Runge-Kutta method in time [@RKbook] for the discretization of the Higgs boson equation. The numerical code has been programmed using the Community Edition of PGI CUDA Fortran [@PGI] on NVIDIA Tesla K40c GPU Accelerators. The grid size in space was $n\times n\times n=501\times501\times501$, resulting in a uniform spatial grid spacing of $\delta x_1=\delta x_2=\delta x_3=2\times10^{-2}$. The time step $\delta t=10^{-3}$ ensured that the CourantFriedrichsLewy (CFL) condition [@Strang-Comp_Sci] for stability $\left({\displaystyle \left|\psi\right|<\frac{\delta x}{\sqrt{3}\delta t}\approx11.54}\right)$ was satisfied for all time. As first initial data $\psi_{0}$ we choose the combination of two bell-shaped, infinitely smooth exponential functions $$\psi_{0} (x )=B_{1} (x)+B_{2}(x) \qquad \forall x=(x_1,x_2,x_3) \in\Omega,\label{eq:B1B2},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} B_{i}\left( {x}\right)= \cases{ \exp\left(\frac{1}{R_{i}^{2}}-\frac{1}{R_{i}^{2}-\left| {x}-C_{i}\right|^{2}} \right) \quad if \quad \left| {x}-C_{i}\right|<R_{i}, \cr 0 \hspace{3.7cm} if \quad \left| {x}-C_{i} \right|\geq R_{i} }\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1,2$ with the center of the bell-shapes at $C_{1}=\left(0.4,0.4,0.4\right)$, $C_{2}=\left(0.6,0.6,0.6\right)$, and the radii of the bell-shapes $R_{1}=R_{2}=0.2$. Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-init\] shows the computational domain with a diagonal line segment and the line plot of the first initial data $\psi_{0}\left(\vec{x}\right)$ along that line segment. Note that the initial data is nonnegative with a compact support. The finite cone of influence [@Hormander_1997] enables us to use zero boundary conditions on the unit box $\Omega=\left(0,1\right)\times\left(0,1\right)\times\left(0,1\right)$ as computational domain, since the solution’s domain of support stayed inside the unit box. As second initial data $\psi_{1}$ we choose a constant multiple of the first initial data $$\psi_{1} (x ) =-5\phi_{0}(x ) \qquad\forall x=(x_1,x_2,x_3) \in \Omega.\label{eq:5phi0}$$ The parameter values are $\lambda=\mu^{2}=0.1$. Initially there is no bubble present. Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-2\] shows the formation and interactions of bubbles. After the two bubbles form around time $t=0.08$, their size grows continuously. Around time $t=0.69$ the two bubbles touch, and from that time on they are attached to each other. At time $t=0.8$ (shown on part (d) of Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-2\]) an additional tiny bubble forms inside each of the now merged bubbles. These additional bubbles grow (part (e) of Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-2\] at time $t=1$); then they flatten and become concave (part (f) of Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-2\] at time $t=2$). Later hole forms in them and they become toroidal (part (g) of Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-2\] at time $t=2.15$), and finally they disappear (part (h) of Figure \[fig:two-bubbles-2\] at time $t=3$). The growth of the larger outer bubble exponentially slows down and it does not seem to change shape after time $t=3$. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Computational domain Initial data along a diagonal line segment ![\[fig:two-bubbles-init\]Computational domain and first initial data](diagonalplot.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"} ![\[fig:two-bubbles-init\]Computational domain and first initial data](line-2bubbles-000.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \(a) 3D bubbles at $t=0.08$ \(b) 3D bubbles at $t=0.2$ ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles008.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles020.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} \(c) 3D bubbles at $t=0.69$ \(d) 3D bubbles at $t=0.8$ ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles069.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles080.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} \(e) 3D bubbles at $t=1$ \(f) 3D bubbles at $t=2$ ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles100.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles200.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} \(g) 3D bubbles at $t=2.15$ \(h) 3D bubbles at $t=3$ ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles215.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} ![\[fig:two-bubbles-2\]Formation and interaction of two bubbles](3dtwobubbles300.eps "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin for providing high performance computing and visualization resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper. URL: [http://www.tacc.utexas.edu]{}. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the Tesla K40 GPU used for this research. K.Y. was supported by University of Texas Rio Grande Valley College of Sciences 2016-17 Research Enhancement Seed Grant. [00]{} H. Bateman,  A. Erdelyi,  [Higher Transcendental Functions]{}. [vol. 1,2]{}, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953. A. Bers, R. Fox, C. G Kuper, S. G. Lipson, The impossibility of free tachyons, in Relativity and Gravitation, eds. C. G. Kuper and Asher Peres, New York, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1971, 41–46. S. Coleman,  [Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures]{}. Cambridge University Press, 1985. K. Dekker, J.G. Verwer,  [Stability of Runge-Kutta methods for Stiff Nonlinear Differential Equations.]{}, North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd., 1984. H. Epstein, U. Moschella, de Sitter tachyons and related topics. Comm. Math. Phys. [ 336]{} (1)  (2015) 381–430 A. Galstian, K. Yagdjian, Global in time existence of self-interacting scalar field in de Sitter space-times. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications [ 34]{} (2017) 110–139. J. Ginibre,, G. Velo,  The global Cauchy problem for the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation. [Math. Z.]{} 189, no. 4: (1985) 487–505. J. Ginibre, G. Velo,  The global Cauchy problem for the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation. II. *Ann. Inst. H. Poincar[é]{} Anal. Non Lin[é]{}aire*. 6, no. 1 (1989) 15–35. S. W. Hawking, G. F. R. Ellis, [The large scale structure of space-time]{}. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, No. 1. London-New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973. P.W. Higgs, Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons.  [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 13, no. 16 (1964) 508–509. L. Hörmander,   [Lectures on nonlinear hyperbolic differential equations]{}. Berlin:  Springer-Verlag, 1997. H.B. Keller, V. Pereyra, Symbolic generation of finite difference formulas. Math. Comp. [ 32]{} (144) (1978) 955–971. S. Klainerman, Global existence for nonlinear wave equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 33 , no. 1 (1980) 43–101. T.D. Lee,  G.C. Wick,  Vacuum stability and Vacuum Excitation in Spin-0 Field.   [Phys. Rev. D]{} 9 (8) (1974) 2291–2316. A. Linde,  [Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology]{}. Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990. C. M[ø]{}ller,  [The theory of relativity]{}. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. M.H. Protter, H.F. Weinberger,  [Maximum Principles in Differential Equations]{}. by Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1984 NVIDIA Corporation: PGI CUDA Fortran Compiler.  (2017) A. Rendall,   [Partial differential equations in general relativity]{}. Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 16, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. D. Sather, A maximum property of Cauchy’s problem for the wave operator. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 21 (1966) 303–309. J. Shatah, M. Struwe, [Geometric wave equations]{}. Courant Lect. Notes Math., 2. New York Univ., New York: Courant Inst. Math. Sci., 1998. S. Sonego, V. Faraoni, Huygens’ principle and characteristic propagation property for waves in curved space-times. J. Math. Phys. 33 , no. 2 (1992) 625–632. G. Strang,   [Computational science and engineering]{}. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley-Cambridge Press, 2007. J. Speck, Finite-time degeneration of hyperbolicity without blowup for quasilinear wave equations, Analysis[&]{}PDE, 10, no. 8 (2017) 2001–2030. A. Vasy, The wave equation on asymptotically de Sitter-like spaces.   [Adv. Math.]{} 223, no. 1 (2010) 49–97. N.A. Voronov, A.L. Dyshko, , N.B. Konyukhova, On the Stability of a Self-Similar Spherical Bubble of a Scalar Higgs Field in de Sitter Space.   [Physics of Atomic Nuclei]{} 68, no. 7: (2005) 1218–1226. A. Weinstein,   On a Cauchy problem with subharmonic initial values. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 43 (1957) 325–340. K. Yagdjian, Global existence in the Cauchy problem for nonlinear wave equations with variable speed of propagation, New trends in the theory of hyperbolic equations, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 159, Birkhäuser, Basel, (2005) 301–385. K. Yagdjian, A. Galstian,  Fundamental Solutions for the Klein-Gordon Equation in de Sitter space-time,  *Comm. Math. Phys.* 285 (2009) 293–344. K. Yagdjian, The semilinear Klein-Gordon equation in de Sitter space-time, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S [ 2]{} (3) (2009) 679–696. K. Yagdjian,  [On the global solutions of the Higgs boson equation,]{} [Comm. Partial Differential Equations]{}  [**37**]{} (3)  (2012) 447–478. K. Yagdjian,  Global existence of the scalar field in de Sitter space-time, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [ 396]{} (1) (2012) 323–344. K. Yagdjian,  [Huygens’ Principle for the Klein-Gordon equation in the de Sitter space-time,]{} [J. Math. Phys.]{}  [ 54]{}, no. 9 (2013) 091503. K. Yagdjian, Integral transform approach to solving Klein-Gordon equation with variable coefficients, Mathematische Nachrichten, [**288**]{} (17-18) (2015) 2129-2152. K. Yagdjian, Global existence of the self-interacting scalar field in the de Sitter universe, arXiv:1706.07703

--- author: - 'A.P.Meilakhs' title: Phonon transmission across an interface between two crystals --- Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered} ======== The new model of phonon transmission across the interface between two crystals is proposed featured by taking into account the mismatch of crystal lattices. It has been found that the mismatch of lattices results in phonon scattering at the interface even in the absence of defects. As it has been shown, at the normal incidence, longitudinally polarized phonons have much larger transmission coefficient than that of transversely polarized phonons, excluding the special resonance cases. For the quasi one-dimensional case the exact solution has been obtained. Introduction ============ When the heat flows through the boundary between two crystals, temperature at the interface experiences a sharp jump. The proportionality coefficient between the heat flux and the temperature jump is known as the thermal boundary resistance or the Kapitza resistance. The theory of a Kapitza resistance attracts recently serious attention of researchers due to its significance for practical use [@ShK; @ZhW; @Ter; @Wang]. The study of thermal transmission across the crystal interface, in its own turn, attracts the attention to the problem of phonon transmission across the crystal interface since, in the majority of cases, the phonons are responsible for the energy transfer across the interface. Various approximations are used in the theory of thermal boundary resistance to describe the dynamics of the crystal lattice in the boundary region near the interface between two crystals. Two basic approaches are so called Acoustic Mismatch Model (AMM) and Diffusive Mismatch Model (DMM). In the first approach [@Kh; @Can] it is suggested that the dynamics of a lattice and, particularly, the interfacial coefficients of the phonon transmission and reflection could be calculated using the elasticity theory. However, firstly, this approximation is suitable only for a calculation of the Kapitza resistance at low temperatures since in this case only low frequency crystal oscillations are excited, which are properly well described by the elasticity theory. Secondly, this approximation doesn’t take into account the phonon scattering at the crystal interface. The values of the Kapitza resistance calculated within AMM occurred significantly higher than the experimentally determined values [@St]. Second approach [@Swar] suggests, vice versa, that the interfacial scattering is very strong, and phonons incident at the interface “forget” their initial direction and uniformly scatter in all directions. The Kapitza resistance calculated within this approach is higher than the value calculated within the AMM, but still doesn’t give the good agreement with the experimental data [@St]. Besides, the authors of [@St] have studied experimentally the dependence of the Kapitza resistance on surface roughness. It turned out that the better the surface is polished and, hence, the lower the scattering at it, the higher the thermal transport through the surface. But this conclusion contradicts the results of the DMM calculations. Thus, the DMM approximation could be regarded as refuted. Thus, it is necessary to develop more accurate model of the phonon transmission across the interface, which takes into account the atomic structure of actual crystals. The simplest model of this kind is the one-dimensional chain with the interface. Such a model has been detailed in papers [@Zh; @Me]. Though, since an actual crystal is the three-dimensional structure, the one-dimensional chain permits to elucidate only some qualitative properties of the lattice dynamics connected with the atomic structure. The paper [@Young] describes the three-dimensional model of the lattice dynamics near the interface. However, this model does not take into consideration the lattice mismatch of two crystals. More complicated models are studied by computer simulation. Thus, in paper [@Hu] it was found that both the AMM and DMM do not give the proper description of the phonon transmission across the interface. It has been also found that the longitudinal phonons have the significantly higher interfacial transmittance coefficient than the transverse phonons. The phonon transmission across the interface is studied with a Green’s function method in [@Chen]. It is also suggested that atoms located at the interface are randomly displaced from the position that they would occupy if they were in volume of the crystal. The role of anharmonicity of oscillations in the phonon transmission across the interface is considered in the paper [@Anh]. In the most recent study [@Nuo], dealing with the numerical simulation of the lattice dynamics at the crystal interface, it has been found that atoms at the interface oscillate with frequency exceeding the maximum possible frequency in a given crystal. The presented paper proposes the analytical description of dynamics of the crystal lattice near the interface, which takes into account the mutual mismatch of the lattices. The main assumption is that displacements of atoms at the interface are not random, but determined by forces affecting them from the side of atoms of the adjacent crystal. Generally the exact solution in such a model is not possible. At the same time, the essential qualitative effects related to the lattice mismatch can be found. In particular, it is possible to explain why the transverse phonons have much lower transmission coefficients compared to the longitudinal ones. It turns out that the lattice mismatch, even in the absence of defects, results in phonon scattering at the interface. This scattering is not random, but has a certain structure. The model ========= We consider the interface between two crystals having the structure of a simple cubic lattice and contacting by crystal surfaces\ $(1, 0, 0)$ (Fig. 1). The axis $x$ is normal to the interface. In each of the crystals we take into account the interaction with the atoms of the first and second coordination groups. Such a model of a three-dimensional crystal lattice is the most simple and well-studied [@Ans]. The lattice constant for the crystal on the left ($x$ is less than zero) and on the right ($x$ is larger than zero) is $a^L , a^R$, consequently. The constant of the quasi elastic coupling with the atoms of the first and second coordination groups for the atoms of the left crystal and for the atoms of the right crystal is $\beta^L_1, \beta^L_2$, consequently. We neglect the changes of the quasi elastic coupling constants and lattice constants near the interface. It is suggested that the crystals are infinite, the left crystal occupies a half space $x<0$ while the right crystal a half space $x>0$. It is also assumed that interaction between the atoms is due to short-range forces, and that with the atoms of the opposite crystal interact only the atoms lying at the interface. We introduce the following numbering: $n_x$ is the numbering of atoms along the axis $x$. For the left crystal the numbering goes from minus infinity to zero. Atoms in the interface plane are numbered as zeroes. For the right crystal the numbering goes from zero to plus infinity, number zero is for atoms in the interface plane. $n_y, n_z$ is the numbering of atoms in the interface plane, it goes from the minus to plus infinity. The bold marking denotes a set of indexes $\mathbf{n} = (n_x, n_y, n_z)$. {width="60.00000%"} Atoms located near the interface are influenced by an external potential produced by atoms from the opposite side of the interface. Due to this influence, the crystal is deformed, and the equilibrium position of an atom changes relative to its positions in an ideal crystal. Following the theory of an ideal crystal lattice without interface, we could expand the potential energy in the Tailor series in displacements of atoms from equilibrium positions and take into account only the minor terms. The Hamiltonian thus obtained would not possess the symmetry, and the analytical solution would be impossible. Instead, we perform the expansion in displacements of atoms from the positions which the nearest-to-interface atoms would occupy if they would not interact with atoms of an adjacent crystal. At this approach, the terms of the Tailor series containing the first derivative are not equal to zero as it would be the case when the expansion is produced in the neighborhood of the true minimum of the potential energy. The derivatives of higher than third order, i.e. anharmonic terms, are not taken into consideration. The following expressions are valid for atoms on both sides therefore the index denoted the side is omitted. Thus we obtain: $$U(.., \vec r_\mathbf{n}, ...) = \sum_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \frac{\partial U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}} r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \sum_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial r_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} r_{\mathbf{l}, \beta},$$ where $r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}$– is the displacement of $\mathbf{n}$-th atom along the axis $\alpha$, $\alpha = x,y,z$; $U(.., \vec r_\mathbf{n}, ...)$ is the potential energy as a function of displacement. In the equilibrium position the condition $\forall \mathbf{n}, \frac{\partial U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}} = 0$ is fulfilled. We substitute the introduced expression for the potential energy into Eq. (1), and obtain $$\frac{\partial U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}} + \sum_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial r_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} r^0_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}=0.$$ This system of $3N$ equations ($N$, number of atoms) determines the displacements $ r^0_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}$ at zero temperature in the absence of atomic oscillations, or 0-displacements, that are displacements of atoms from the position about which the potential energy is expanded into the Tailor series, to the equilibrium position. Now, let temperature is not equal to zero and atoms oscillate about the equilibrium position. Then the total displacement of an atom consists of the 0-displacement and its displacement due to thermal oscillations: $r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} = r^0_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} + u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}$. The expression for the potential energy can be rewritten as $$U(.., \vec r_\mathbf{n}, ...) = \sum_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \frac{\partial U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}} ( r^0_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} + u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \sum_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial r_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} ( r^0_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} + u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}) ( r^0_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} + u_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}).$$ According to the Newton second law: $$m \ddot u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} = - \frac{\partial U}{\partial u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}} = - \frac{\partial U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}} - \sum_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial r_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} ( r^0_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} + u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}).$$ By using the definition of the 0-displacement (2), we have $$m \ddot u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} = - \sum_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial r_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial r_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} u_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}.$$ Thus, with taking into account only the terms of the Tailor series containing derivatives of not higher than the second order, the 0-displacements are completely excluded from the equations of lattice vibrations. This result is the generalization of the known property of harmonic oscillator: the constant external field does not change its frequency. Let us define the interface, at which the average 0-displacements are much less than the lattice constant, as ideal. Interaction of 0-displacements with lattice vibrations is revealed only if the terms of Tailor series with third and higher derivatives are taken into account. Thus, for an ideal interface the interaction of 0-displacements with lattice vibrations has the same order of magnitude as the interaction of phonons with each other and is revealed with taking into account the anharmonicity of vibrations. Hence, we can consider this interaction by means of perturbation theory. Obviously, if the model of an ideal interface could describe properly the real interface, the latter should be sufficiently smooth, and the interaction between atoms on opposite sides of the interface essentially weaker than interaction between atoms of the same crystal. Atoms on opposite sides of the interface should not, in any case, form chemical bonds. We continue to consider lattice vibrations in the interfacial region using the ideal interface approximation and with no regard for anharmonicity. Ignoring the terms with derivatives higher than the third, we obtain the Hamiltonian function which is invariant with respect to displacements of the atoms of the left crystal by an amount equal to the lattice constant $a^L$, and also, of the atoms of the right crystal by the amount equal to the lattice constant $a^R$, along the axis $y$ or $z$. So, it is also invariant relative to any linear combinations of these displacements $n a^L + m a^R$ of each crystal. The symmetry group of this kind determines the specific properties of the lattice dynamics at the interface between two crystals. Equation for the quasi one-dimensional case =========================================== Let’s consider first the more simple case where the phonon falls normally at the interface, that is, the wave vector components parallel to the interface $q_y, q_z = 0$. We define $u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha}$ to be the displacement of the $\mathbf{n}$-th atom lying on the left side of the interface along the axis $\alpha$, and $u^R_{\mathbf{n'},\beta}$ the displacement of the $\mathbf{n'}$-th atom on the right side of the interface along the axis $\beta$. The Newton second law for the $\mathbf{l}$-th atom of the left crystal lying at the interface is then given by $$m \ddot u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} = - \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq \mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} - \sum_{\beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta} - \sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} .$$ In the right part of Eq. (6) we separate out the term describing the interaction with the atoms of the same crystal as the atom under consideration, and the term describing the interaction with the atoms locating on the other side of the interface. To do this, we take into account that $$\frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} = - \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq \mathbf{l}} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} - \sum_{\mathbf{n'}} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}},$$ as follows from the fact that the energy does not change if the atoms of both crystals are displaced by an equal distance in the same direction. Substitution of Eq. (7) in Eq. (6) gives $$m \ddot u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} = - \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq \mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} (u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}-u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}) - \sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} (u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}-u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}) .$$ The first term in the right part of Eq. (8) describes the interaction of an atom with atoms of the same crystal, the second one relates to the interaction with atoms lying on the other side of the interface. We seek a solution in the form of superposition of the incident, reflected and transmitted waves. We do not take into consideration the wave scattering at the interface so that the wave vector components of the reflected and transmitted waves, parallel to the interface, equal zero. In this case, there are only three reflected and three transmitted waves with different polarization. Let us assume that from the left, at the interface falls the wave of unit amplitude and polarization $1$. Then, for an atom on the left side (not necessary at the interface itself) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} u^L_{\mathbf{n},\alpha} = \exp{(i \omega t)} \bigl( \exp{(- i q^L_1 a^L n_x)} \, e^L_{1\alpha} + A_1 \exp{(i q^L_1 a^L n_x)} \, e^L_{1\alpha} + \nonumber \\ + A_2 \exp{(i q^L_2 a^L n_x)} \, e^L_{2\alpha} + A_3 \exp{(i q^L_3 a^L n_x)} \, e^L_{3 \alpha} \bigr). \end{aligned}$$ Here indexes $1,2,3$ denote polarization, $A_{1,2,3}$ amplitudes of the reflected waves with different polarization, $q_{1,2,3}$ are $x$-components of the wave vectors. $\vec e^L_{1, 2, 3}$ stand for the polarization vectors, $e_{\alpha}$ for the component of the polarization vector in direction of the axis $\alpha$. At the interface $n_x = 0$, so for interfacial atoms each exponent in Eq. (9) becomes unity. The wave vector values $q_{1,2,3}$ are assumed to be known for the given frequency $\omega$, because the disperse relations for the waves in a simple cubic lattice are known [@Ans]. Near the interface, it also may be that the values $q^L_{2,3}$ are imaginary, that is, the oscillation is gradually damping inward the crystal. It happens when the frequency of the incident wave is larger than the maximum frequency of oscillations in the reflected wave with the corresponding polarization [@Me]. Further on, we assume that the phonon falls at the interface from the left, and so the crystal from the side of which the phonon falls, will be called as “left” for brevity. Similarly, for crystal atoms to the right of the interface we have $$\begin{aligned} u^R_{\mathbf{n'},\alpha} = \exp{(i \omega t)} \bigl(B_1 \exp{(-i q^R_1 a^R n'_x)} \, e^R_{1 \alpha} + B_2 \exp{-i q^R_2 a^R n'_x)} \, e^R_{2 \alpha} + \nonumber \\ B_3 \exp{(-i q^R_3 a^R n'_x)} \, e^R_{3 \alpha} \bigr), \end{aligned}$$ where $B_{1,2,3}$ are the amplitudes of the transmitted waves. The values $q^R_{1,2,3}$ can be imaginary (see the paper [@Me] and discussion in section $\mathbf{7}$). Equations (9) and (10) are the solutions of the Newton equations for the atoms lying off the interface, since $q_{1,2,3}$ and $\omega$ satisfy the dispersion relations for lattice vibrations, derived without regard for the boundary. The problem thus reduces to finding the $A_{1,2,3}, B_{1,2,3}$ which would satisfy the Newton equations for the interfacial atoms. For this purpose we substitute Eqs.(9) and (10) in Eq.(8) and try to simplify the expression obtained. For the term describing the interaction of an atom with atoms of the same crystal, we can proceed in a way similar to that in the paper of [@Young]. We divide both parts of Eq.(8) by $\exp{(i \omega t)}$, and then for the first term in the right part we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq \mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} (u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}-u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}) = \nonumber \\ = \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq \mathbf{n}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} \Bigl( (1 -\exp{(- i q^L_1 a^L n_x)}) e^L_{1 \beta} + \sum_{j} A_j (1-\exp{(i q^L_j a^L n_x)}) e^L_{j \beta} \Bigr) = \nonumber \\ = \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq l, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} (1-\exp{(- i q^L_1 a^L n_x)}) e^L_{1 \beta} + \nonumber \\ + \sum_{j} A_j \sum_{\mathbf{n} \neq \mathbf{l}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}} (1-\exp{(- i q^L_j a^L n_x)}) e^L_{j \beta}. \end{aligned}$$ We take into account that the frequency and the polarization vector can be expressed in terms of the dynamic matrix [@Ans] $$\omega^2 e_{j \alpha} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{\mathbf{l} \neq \mathbf{n}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{l} , \beta}} (1-\exp{(- i q_j a^L (n_x-l_x)}) e_{j \beta} = \sum_{\beta} D_{\alpha \beta} e_{j \beta} (q_j).$$ In Eq.(11) the summation is over the atoms of the same crystal only. To the right of the interfacial atom of the left crystal, $n_x = 0$, there are no more atoms of that crystal, $n_x \leq 0$, that can be formally taken into consideration in the form of the condition $l_x \leq n_x$. We introduce the notation (see Fig. 2) $$\begin{aligned} D^{\times}_{\alpha \beta}(q_j) = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{l} \neq \mathbf{n}, \beta \\ l_x \leq n_x}} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} (1-\exp{(- i q^L_j a^L l)}) . \end{aligned}$$ which is for the dynamic matrix describing the atom lying at the interface. Here we can ignore the fact that $n_x \leq 0$, since for an interfacial atom it was taken into account in the expression $l_x \leq n_x$. So we can operate with Eq.(13) formally. Denote the difference of the two dynamic matrices (one for an atom in the depth of the crystal and the other for an atom at the interface) as $$^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(q_j) = D_{\alpha \beta}(q_j) - D^{\times}_{\alpha \beta}(q_j) = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{l} \neq \mathbf{n}, \beta \\ l_x > n_x}} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^L_{\mathbf{l}, \beta}} (1-\exp{(- i q^L_j a^L l_x)}) .$$ We substitute Eqs.(12), (13) in Eq.(8) and transfer the first term of the right part of Eq.(8) to the left. The expression thus obtained can be written in new notations in the form $$\sum_{j} A_j \sum_{\beta} \, ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(- q_j) e^L_{j \beta} + \, ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(q_1) e^L_{1 \beta} = - \sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} (u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}-u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}).$$ Now we rearrange the right part of Eq.(15) by using the relation $$K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta} = \sum_{\mathbf{n'}} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}}$$ which is the matrix of the interfacial interaction, describing the interaction of an atom with atoms lying on the opposite side of the interface, where $n_x = 0$ is supposed. Unlike the conventional dynamic matrix, the matrix of this kind depends on the number of the interfacial atom, because each atom at the interface is differently located relative to atoms on the opposite side of the interface. {width="60.00000%"} Substituting Eqs.(10), (16) into Eq.(15), we come to $$\sum_{j} A_j \sum_{\beta} \, ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(q_j) e^L_{j \beta} + \, ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(-q_1) e^L_{1 \beta} = - \sum_{\beta} K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta} ( e^L_{1 \beta} + \sum_{j} (A_j e^L_{j \beta} - B_j e^R_{j \beta}).$$ Then we sum over all $n$ in Eq.(17) and divide the result by a total number of atoms $N$ at the interface on the left. The left part of the expression is unchanged for it is independent of the number $n$ of the atom. In the right part of the expression we obtain $$K_{\alpha \beta}^{L} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{n}} K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta}.$$ This is the averaged matrix describing the interaction of atoms across the interface. By performing such an averaging, we do not take into account that the atoms nearest to the interface differ in their position relative to atoms on the opposite side of the interface, and, hence, interact differently with them. Taking account of this difference involves the appearance of scattering, which calls for mathematical technique presented below in Sec. $\mathbf{5}$. In this section we proceed ignoring the scattering. With the simplifications made above ($q_{y,z} = 0$ for all reflected and transmitted waves), all atoms with the same coordinate along the axis $x$ are oscillating in phase. In fact, performing such an averaging, we do not consider oscillations of an individual atom, but oscillations of the whole of the plane near the interface of the crystal. The matrix $K_{\alpha \beta}^{L}$ describes forces acting on the crystal plane on the left of the interface from the side of the crystal plane lying on the right of the interface. The problem in this case becomes quasi-one-dimensional. Let the relation $$M_{\alpha j}^{L, \pm} = \sum_{\beta} \bigl(\, ^{\otimes} D_{\alpha \beta}(\pm q_j) + K_{\alpha \beta} \bigr) e^L_{j \beta}$$ be the second dynamical matrix. It expresses the forces acting on atoms near the interface in terms of amplitudes of waves differing in polarization on the left side of the interface. That to write the analogous expression for the forces acting on atoms on the other side of the interface, we introduce $$I_{\alpha j}^{L} = \sum_{\beta} K_{\alpha \beta} e^R_{j \beta}.$$ With new notations, Eq.(17) can be rewritten in the form $$M_{\alpha j}^{L, +} A_j + I_{\alpha j}^L B_j =M_{\alpha j}^{L, -}.$$ where the summation is supposed to be performed over the repetitive index $j$ standing for the wave polarization. By writing the Newton second law for atoms on the right of the interface, one can rearrange the obtained expression in a similar way. A distinction is in the fact that the averaged matrix of the interfacial interaction is defined as $$K_{\beta \alpha}^{R} = \frac{1}{N'} \sum_{\mathbf{n'}} \sum_{\mathbf{n}} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} = \frac{N}{N'} K_{\alpha \beta}^{L},$$ where $N'$ is a number of atoms nearest to the interface in the crystal on the right. The amounts of atoms near the interface are related as inverse squares of the lattice constants. Thus we obtain $$K_{\beta \alpha}^{R} = \Bigl(\frac{a^L}{a^R} \Bigr)^2 K_{\alpha \beta}^{L},$$ which represents the fact that the force acting on the right crystal from the side of the left one is equal, in magnitude, to the force acting on the left crystal from the side of the right one. Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned} M_{\alpha j}^{L, +} A_j + I_{\alpha j}^L B_j &= M_{\alpha 1}^{L, -} \nonumber \\ M_{\alpha j}^{R, -} B_j + I_{\alpha j}^R A_j &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ This is the sought-for system of equations. Theorem on the interfacial interaction and the exact solution in the quasi-one-dimensional case =============================================================================================== Let us study the matrix of interfacial interaction, $K_{\alpha, \beta}$, using the fact that the interaction energy of two crystals is invariant in respect to displacements by any linear combination of the lattice vectors. We consider first the general case when the lattice parameters are incommensurate, that is, their ratio is irrational, $a^L/a^R \notin \mathbb{Q}$. In this case, linear combinations of the lattice vectors and, hence, a set of rearrangements converting the system into itself, is dense on the plane. It is reasonable to require that the energy be continuous as the function of the relative displacement of the crystals. Since the energy is constant on the dense set and, besides, is continuous, it is constant. To be specific, we will demonstrate that $K_{y, y} = 0$. We displace the first crystal by a small distance $Y$ along the axis $y$. The energy in a new state will, on the one hand, be equal to the initial one, and on the other, be different an amount of the work done by the force of interaction between crystals: $$E = E +\int_0^Y K_{y y} y dy \Rightarrow K_{y y} Y^2/2 = 0 \Rightarrow K_{y,y} = 0.$$ For the other seven components of the matrix $K_{\alpha \beta}$ (except for $K_{x x}$), the proof can be performed in a similar way. Thus, we conclude that, with initial assumptions, the only nonzero component of the matrix of interfacial interaction is $K_{x, x}$. We consider now a case of resonance where $a^L/a^R \in \mathbb{Q}$. It is obvious that the above reasoning is inapplicable. Let $a^L/a^R = p/q$ and $p/q<1$. The interaction energy of two crystals will be described by a periodical function of their relative displacement with a period $q a^L$. We expand it and $K_{\alpha \beta}$ into the Fourier series and substitute the result in Eq.(21). The first, largest term of the series turns out to be $$K_{\alpha \beta 1}^{R} = \frac{1}{q^2 (a^L)^2} U_1$$ We drop the other terms and obtain the following assessment for the case of equal potentials of the interatomic interaction: $$\begin{aligned} K_{\alpha \beta } \sim 1/q^2,& \ a^L/a^R = p/q \nonumber \\ K_{\alpha \beta } = 0,& \ a^L/a^R \notin \mathbb{Q}.\end{aligned}$$ Such a function experiences a discontinuity in all rational points, which is impossible from the physical point of view. The paradox can be resolved from considerations that this function was obtained ignoring the interaction with 0-displacements which are large near the resonance. Accounting for the anharmonic coupling with 0-displacements leads to smearing of spikes in rational points. As a result, the actual matrix of the interfacial interaction will be given by a smooth envelope of the function (26). Hence, we come to the following qualitative result: the atomic oscillations perpendicular to the plane of the interface interact intensively with the atomic oscillations on the opposite side of the interface only in the case when a ratio of the lattice constants is close to a rational number with a small denominator. Otherwise, this interaction is weak. This result can be illustrated by an interesting analogy in the nebular mechanics, where the close commensurability of revolution periods of planets, i.e., the proximity of a ratio of periods to a rational number with a small denominator, leads to the strong long-period perturbation [@Arn]. Using the predetermined theorem on the matrix of the interfacial interaction, one can obtain the exact solution in the quasi-one-dimensional nonresonance case. We write explicitly the expressions for the elements of the matrix $ ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(q_j)$: $$\begin{aligned} ^{\otimes}D_{x x}(q_j) = \frac{\beta^L_1 + 2 \beta^L_2}{m}(1 - e^{iq_x a^L}) \nonumber \\ ^{\otimes}D_{y y}(q_j) = \, ^{\otimes}D_{z z}(q_j) = \frac{ \beta^L_2}{m}(1 - e^{iq_x a^L}) \nonumber \\ ^{\otimes}D_{x y}(q_j) = \, ^{\otimes}D_{x z}(q_j) = \, ^{\otimes}D_{y z}(q_j) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The remaining three components are also equal zero since the matrix is symmetrical. For the case of the normal incidence of the wave at the interface, we have $$\begin{aligned} e^L_1 = (1,0,0)^T \nonumber \\ e^L_2 = (0,1,0)^T \nonumber \\ e^L_3 = (0,0,1)^T\end{aligned}$$ Notations: $K^L_{x x} = \beta^L$. Let a longitudinally polarized wave is incident at the interface. Substituting Eqs.(27), (28) in Eq.(18), we get $$M_{x, 1}^{L, \pm} =\frac{\beta^L_1 + 2 \beta^L_2}{m}(1 - e^{\pm iq_x a^L}) +\frac{\beta^L}{m}$$ In addition, one can easily see that all nondiagonal components of the matrix $M$ equal zero. Hence, when the incident wave is longitudinally polarized, the reflected and transmitted waves have also the longitudinal polarization. The system of six linear equations (23) transforms into the simple system of two linear equations: $$\begin{aligned} M_{x, 1}^{L, +} A_1 - \beta^L B_1 = - M_{x, 1}^{L, -} \nonumber \\ M_{x, 1}^{R, +} B_1 - \beta^R (1+A_1) = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Whence it follows $$\begin{aligned} A_1 = \frac {\beta^L \beta^R - M_{x, 1}^{L, -} M_{x, 1}^{R, +}}{M_{x, 1}^{L, +}M_{x, 1}^{R, +} - \beta^L \beta^R} \nonumber \\ B_1 = \frac{\beta^R}{M_{x, 1}^{R, +}} \frac{M_{x, 1}^{L, +} - M_{x, 1}^{L, 1} } {M_{x, 1}^{L, +} - \beta^L \beta^R} .\end{aligned}$$ This solution coincides with the result obtained in the paper [@Zh] for a one-dimensional chain if one rewrite it in the above notations. In the one-dimensional case, the 3- by-3 matrices are changed by a single number, and $\beta^L = \beta^R$. Hence, the results obtained for a one-dimensional chain would be applicable in the three-dimensional case. Further on we consider the case where the wave with transverse polarization is incident at the interface. For the sake of definiteness, we assume that the oscillations occur along the axis $y$. Since according to the theorem on the matrix of interfacial interaction we have $K_{y y} = 0$, the corresponding equations for the transmission coefficient have the form $$\begin{aligned} M_{y, 2}^{L, +} A_2 = - M_{y, 1}^{L, -} \nonumber \\ M_{y, 2}^{R, +} B_2 = 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ whence $B = 0$, $|A| = 1$. Actually, however, $K_{y y}$ is small but not equals zero identically, because the 0-displacements, though being small, are nonzero. It was shown in the paper [@Zh] that at small frequency of the incident wave, $\omega \rightarrow 0$, the transmission coefficient is independent of the interaction force of atoms at the interface, but determined by acoustic impedances of media on opposite sides of the interface, in other words, the transmission coefficient can be found from the elasticity theory. However, when the interaction force of interfacial atoms is weak, the transmission coefficient of phonons decreases fast with growing frequency. Since the heat transport is carried out by phonons of all frequencies, we can neglect the contribution to the energy transport across the interface from atomic oscillations parallel to the interface. Fourier transform of the matrix of interfacial interaction ========================================================== In order to study the phonon transmission across the interface between two crystals in more general case when a phonon is incident at arbitrary angle, and therewith take into consideration the scattering, the special mathematical apparatus is required which is presented below. For simplicity we consider a one-dimensional case, becouse the generalization to more dimensions is trivial. Let we have an infinite one-dimensional chain of atoms spaced $a^L$ apart. The atoms of the chain are numbered from minus infinity to plus infinity, and the axis $x$ is located so that the zero-th atom has the coordinate $x=0$. We place the chain into the external potential $\Phi(x)$ with a period $a^R$, $\Phi(x+a^R) = \Phi(x)$. Let’s expand the $\Phi(x)$ into the Fourier series: $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_k =& \frac{1}{2 \pi a^R} \int \limits_0^{a^R} \Phi(x) e^{-2 \pi ikx/ a^R}\, dx \nonumber \\ \Phi(x) =& \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_k\, e^{2 \pi ikx/ a^R}\end{aligned}$$ Then the potential energy of $n$-th atom, $\Phi_n$, will equal $\Phi(n a^L)$, or $$\Phi_n = \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_k\, e^{2 \pi ikn (a^L/ a^R)}$$ One can demonstrate that the inverse rearrangement is also valid: $$\Phi_k = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2N} \sum_{n=-N}^{N} \Phi_n\, e^{-2 \pi ikn (a^L/ a^R)}$$ Actually, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2N} \sum_{n=-N}^{N} \Phi_n\, e^{-2 \pi ikn (a^L/ a^R)} = \nonumber \\ = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2N} \sum_{n=-N}^{N} \Bigl( \sum_{k'=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_{k'}\, e^{2 \pi ik'n (a^L/ a^R)} \Bigr)\, e^{-2 \pi ikn (a^L/ a^R)} = \nonumber \\ = \sum_{k'=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_{k'} \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2N} \sum_{n=-N}^{N} e^{2 \pi i(k'-k)n (a^L/ a^R)} = \sum_{k'=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_{k'} \delta_{k' k} = \Phi_k\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can “forget” the initial function $\Phi(x)$ and consider only the discrete sets of values $\Phi_n$ and $\Phi_k$ which are expressed in terms of each other. For what follows, Eq.(35) can be conveniently rewritten so that it would correspond to the expansion in exponents with the wave vectors $q_k$ lying in the first Brillouin zone, i.e., $q_k \in (-\pi/a^L, \pi/a^L)$. To do so, we introduce $$q'_k = \frac{2 \pi}{a^L} \left\{ k \frac{a^L}{a^R} \right\},$$ where the curly brackets $\{ ... \}$ denote the fractional part. Then we have $$\Phi_n = \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_k\, e^{ i q'_k a^L n},$$ Evidently, this expression is equivalent to Eq.(35), but $q'_k \in (0, 2 \pi/a^L)$. That to obtain the desired range of values of the wave vector, we have to take $$q_k = \frac{2 \pi}{a^L} \left( \left\{ k \frac{a^L}{a^R} + \frac{1}{2}\right\} - \frac{1}{2} \right),$$ and, finally, we obtain $$\Phi_n = \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_k\, e^{ i q_k a^L n}.$$ Eq.(35) can be applied to the matrix $K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta}$ and that to use it for description of the phonon transmission across the interface of two crystal we have to rearrange it. Really, $$K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta} = \frac{\partial}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} } \sum_{\mathbf{n'}} \frac{\partial U}{ \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}}.$$ The function $$\Phi = \sum_{\mathbf{n'}} \frac{\partial U}{ \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}},$$ is periodical (the period $a^R$), since the potential produced by atoms of the right crystal for atoms of the left crystal is periodical. Hence, we can introduce $$\begin{aligned} K_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta} = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{n}} K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta}\, e^{2 \pi i \mathbf{k}\mathbf{n} (a^L/ a^R)} \nonumber \\ K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta} = \sum_{\mathbf{k}=-\infty}^{+\infty} K_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta}\, e^{2 \pi i \mathbf{k}\mathbf{n} (a^L/ a^R)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{k} = (0, k_y, k_z)$. Equation and the theorem on the interfacial interaction in the general case =========================================================================== Let the wave of the unit amplitude, polarization $1$ and wave vector $\mathbf{q}_1$ falls at the interface. Notations: $\mathbf{q}_{||} = (0, q_y, q_z)$ are the wave vector components parallel to the interface, and $\mathbf{n}_{||} = (0, n_y, n_z)$ is the atom number along the axes $y, z$ parallel to the plane of the interface. We seek the solution for the left side in the form of superposition of the incident and reflected waves: $$\begin{aligned} u^L_{\mathbf{n},\alpha} = \exp{(i \omega t)} \Bigl( \exp{(- i q_{1,x}^L n_x a^L + i \mathbf{q}_{||}^L \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L)} e^L_{1 \alpha} + \nonumber \\ + \sum_{j, \mathbf{k}} A_{\mathbf{k}, j} \exp{( i q_{j,x}^L n_x a^L + i (\mathbf{q}_{||} + 2 \pi i \mathbf{k}/a^R) \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )} \, e^L_{\mathbf{k}, j \alpha} \Bigr), \end{aligned}$$ And for the right side in the form of superposition of the transmitted waves:$$\begin{aligned} u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \alpha} = \exp{(i \omega t)} \sum_{j, \mathbf{k'}} B_{\mathbf{k'}, j } \exp{( i q_{j,x}^L n'_x a^R + i (\mathbf{q}_{||}+ 2 \pi i \mathbf{k'}/a^L) \mathbf{n'}_{||} a^R )} \, e^L_{\mathbf{k}, j \alpha} . \end{aligned}$$ We substitute Eqs.(45), (46) into Eq.(8). On rearrangement of the left part and of the first term in the right part we have $$\begin{aligned} \exp{ i (\mathbf{q}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )} \sum_{\mathbf{k},j} \exp{ ( 2 \pi i \mathbf{k} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L / a^R)} A_{\mathbf{k},j} \sum_{\beta} \, ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(-\mathbf{q}_{j,x}^L +\mathbf{q}_{||} + 2 \pi i \mathbf{k}/a^R) e^L_{j, \beta} + \nonumber \\ + \exp{ i (\mathbf{q}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )} \, ^{\otimes}D_{\alpha \beta}(\mathbf{q}) e^L_{1, \beta} = - \sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} (u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}-u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}). \end{aligned}$$ The first term of the right part of Eq.(47) can be written as $$\sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta} = \sum_{ \beta} K^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta} u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta},$$ since $ u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \beta}$ is independent of $\mathbf{n'}$ and could be taken out of the sum over $\mathbf{n'}$. In the second term of the right part of Eq.(47) we make the following rearrangement:$$\sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} = \exp{( i \mathbf{q}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L)} \sum_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} \exp{( - i \mathbf{q}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L)} u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}.$$ Let’s divide Eq.(47) by $\exp{ i (\mathbf{q}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )}$ and multiply by $\exp{(2 \pi i \mathbf{l}/a^R) \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )}$. Then we sum over $\mathbf{n}$ so that the total number of additives would equal $N$, and divide by $N$. The left part acquires the form $$\sum_{\mathbf{k},j} A_{\mathbf{l - k}, j} \sum_{\beta } K_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta} e^L_{\mathbf{k}, j \beta} +\delta_{\mathbf{l} \mathbf{0}} \sum_{\beta } K_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha \beta} e^L_{\mathbf{0}, 1 \beta} .$$ For the second term we introduce $$K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta} (\mathbf{q}_{||}) = \sum_{\mathbf{n'}_{||}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} e^{ i \mathbf{q}_{||} ( \mathbf{n'}_{||} a^R - \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )},$$ $$K^L_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k'}, \alpha \beta} (\mathbf{q}_{||}) = \sum_{\mathbf{n'}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||}, \beta} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial u^L_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha} \partial u^R_{\mathbf{n'}, \beta}} e^{ i \mathbf{q}_{||} ( \mathbf{n'}_{||} a^R - \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L )} e^{ 2 \pi i (\mathbf{k}_{||} \mathbf{n}_{||} a^L/a^R + \mathbf{k'}_{||} \mathbf{n'}_{||} a^R/a^L ) }$$ In these notations the second term of the right part of Eq.(47), after the rearrangement, can be written as $$\sum_{j, \mathbf{k'}} B_{\mathbf{k'}, j} \sum_{\beta } K^L_{\mathbf{l} \mathbf{k'}, \alpha \beta} (\mathbf{q}_{||}) e^R_{\mathbf{k'}, j \beta}.$$ Similarly, as it has been made in section $\mathbf{3}$, we introduce the second dynamic matrices: the matrix describing the interaction of the waves with the same $\mathbf{q}_{||}$: $$M_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha j}^{L, \pm} = \sum_{\beta} \bigl(\, ^{\otimes} D_{\alpha \beta}(\pm \mathbf{q}_{j,x}^L +\mathbf{q}_{||} + 2 \pi i \mathbf{k}/a^R) + K_{0, \alpha \beta} \bigr) e^L_{\mathbf{k}, j \beta} ,$$ the matrix describing the interaction with the oscillations on the opposite side of the interface:$$I_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha j}^{L} (\mathbf{q}_{||}) = \sum_{\beta } K^L_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k'}, \alpha \beta} (\mathbf{q}_{||}) e^R_{\mathbf{k'}, j \beta}.$$ and the matrix describing the interaction with the oscillations of the same crystal, but with another $\mathbf{q}_{||}$: $$S_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha j}^{L, \pm} = \sum_{\beta } K_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta} e^L_{\mathbf{k}, j \beta}.$$ In these notations Eq.(47) will be rewritten as $$M_{\mathbf{l}, \alpha j }^{L, +} A_{\mathbf{l}, j } + \sum_{\mathbf{k}} S_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha j}^L A_{\mathbf{l-k}, j } + \sum_{\mathbf{k'} } I_{\mathbf{k'}, \alpha j}^L (\mathbf{q}_{||}) B_{\mathbf{k'}, j } = M_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha 1}^{L, -} \delta_{\mathbf{l} \mathbf{0}}$$ For the right crystal a similar approach gives:$$M_{\mathbf{l'}, \alpha j }^{R, -} B_{\mathbf{l}, j } + \sum_{\mathbf{k'}} S^R_{\mathbf{k'}, \alpha j} B_{ j \mathbf{l'-k'}} + \sum_{\mathbf{k}} I^R_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha j} A_{\mathbf{k}, j } = 0$$ Eqs.(59) and (60) taken together form the complete system of equations describing the transmission, reflection and scattering of phonons at the interface between two crystals. Thus, it is seen that, on the one hand, even in the model of an ideal interface without defects and roughness, there appears the scattering due to the mismatch of the crystal lattices. On the other hand, the assumption in DMM that a phonon incident on the interface “forgets” its initial direction is, generally saying, incorrect. The scattering reveals quite determined structure: the wave vector of the transmitted wave, parallel to the interface, differs from the wave vector of the incident wave by an integer number of the vectors of the reciprocal lattice of the left crystal, while the wave vector, parallel to the interface, of the reflected wave differs from the wave vector of the incident wave by an integer number of the vectors of the reciprocal lattice of the right crystal. That the vectors of the scattered phonons lie in the first Brillouin zone it is remained to rearrange them using Eq.(40). It is impossible to solve the infinite system of Eqs.(59) and (60) analytically. However, if the function $\Phi$, in terms of which the matrix $K_{\mathbf{n}, \alpha \beta}$ is determined in Eq.(42), is rather smooth, the coefficients of its expansion into the Fourier series fast decreases and along with them the matrices $K_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta}$ describing the scattering also do. In this case one can choose the definite number of the terms from the system (59, 60) and solve it numerically. In the case when the matrices $K_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta}$ are large even at large values of $\mathbf{k}$, one can consider the assumption of the DMM as being valid. In the case when the scattering is small, one can alternatively use the perturbation theory, by taking the solution of the system of six equations describing the phonon transmission without scattering as the unperturbed one: $$\begin{aligned} M_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha j }^{L, +} A_{\mathbf{0}, j } + I_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha j}^L (\mathbf{q}_{||}) B_{\mathbf{0}, j } = M_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha 1}^{L, -} \nonumber \\ M_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha j }^{R, -} B_{\mathbf{0}, j } + I^R_{\mathbf{0}, \alpha j} (\mathbf{q}_{||}) A_{\mathbf{0}, j } = 0. \end{aligned}$$ This system describes the transmission of phonons across the interface with no regard for scattering, i.e. the refraction of phonons at the interface of two crystals. Unfortunately, even this system cannot be solved analytically, since it is impossible to inverse the expression (12) and express the wave vector component normal to the interface, $q_x$, in terms of frequency and two other components (except for the case of high symmetry, $q_y = q_z = 0$, considered in section $\mathbf{4}$). Such an inversion can be performed for the interface of face-centered cubic lattices and was made in the work [@Young]. In the present paper we deal with the model of simple cubic lattices because just this model ensured the simplest qualitative study of the impact of the crystal lattice mismatch on the transmission of phonons across the interface. To facilitate the numerical calculation of the problem, it is reasonable to invoke the theorem on the matrix of the interfacial interaction in the general. Let’s expand the function $\Phi$ into the Fourier series: $$\Phi (x) = \sum_{\mathbf{k}=-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_k\, e^{2 \pi i\mathbf{k}x/ a^R}.$$ On substitution into Eq. (42), we find that the matrix $ K^L_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta}$ is expressed in terms of the components of $\Phi$ as $$K^L_{\mathbf{k}, \alpha \beta} = k_\alpha \Phi_k.$$ Thus, $K_{(0, k_z), y \beta} = 0$ and $K_{(k_y, 0), z \beta} = 0$. We use the fact that according to Eq.(23), $ K_{\beta \alpha}^{R} = (a^L/a^R)^2 K_{\alpha \beta}^{L}$ and that for $K_{\beta \alpha}^{R}$ the expression analogous to Eq.(42) is valid. We obtain $$K^L_{0, \alpha \beta} = \beta \delta_{\alpha x} \delta_{\beta x}.$$ Thus, the atomic oscillations parallel to the interface do not contribute to the transmission of phonons without scattering at the interface. Refraction of phonons at the crystal interface ============================================== Eq.(60) admits the analytical solution in the case when a phonon falls at the interface at a small angle. Then, by taking $\mathbf{q}_{||}$ as a small parameter and applying the perturbation theory, we can find the correction to the amplitudes of the reflection and transmission, which is proportional to $q^2_{||}$. This solution is extraordinary cumbersome and so we omit it here. {width="60.00000%"} Instead we will give a qualitative description of refraction of phonons at the crystal interface, for any angle of incidence. To do so, we display the surface of the constant frequency $\omega$ in the Brillouin zone (Fig.3) and make a projection of this surface onto the plane $(q_y, q_z)$. If the component $\mathbf{q}_{||}$ of the incident phonon is lying in limits of this projection, it is easy to see that for the transmitted phonon the wave vector component normal to the interface, $q_x$, is equal to the $q_x$ of that point in the Brillouin zone which was projected into the point $\mathbf{q}_{||}$. If the component $\mathbf{q}_{||}$ of the incident phonon lies beyond the projection, the transmitted phonon does not appear, because there is no the $q_x$ such that the phonon with the wave vector $(q_x, q_{||y}, q_{||z})$ has the frequency $\omega$. In this case there occurs the oscillation directed into the depth from the interface, with the damping coefficient $\kappa$ and wave vector parallel to the interface $\mathbf{q}_{||}$. The specific cases of such oscillations are well known Rayleigh waves [@Ld]. Just as there are three branches of oscillations for the given $\omega, \mathbf{q}_{||}$, one should perform the above procedure for each of them. If the frequency of the incident wave exceeds the maximum possible in the given branch, there occurs in the crystal the inward-damping oscillation at any value of $\mathbf{q}_{||}$. The oscillations of this kind were predicted in the model of a one-dimensional chain in paper [@Me]. Probably, it is such oscillations that were found in numerical simulations in work [@Nuo]. {width="60.00000%"} The maximum frequency of the transverse oscillations for a simple cubic lattice lies inside and not on the boundary of the Brillouin zone [@Ans]. At some frequencies, the surface of constant frequency for these oscillation branches is closed (Fig. 4). In this case to every $\mathbf{q}_{||}$, lying inside the projection of the isofrequency surface onto the plane $(q_y, q_z)$, correspond two values of $q_x$. To these two values of $q_x$ correspond different values of the derivative $\partial \omega/\partial q_x$, and, hence, different directions of propagation of energy. The transmitted waves should have the same sign $q_x$ as the incident (and the reflected the opposite) due to the principle of causality. In addition, because of the energy conservation law, the energy flux direction is the same for the incident and transmitted waves. If we assume that the incident wave is one in which the energy propagates towards the interface, then the value of $q_x$ in such a wave can be both positive and negative. Correspondingly, one should take the sign of $q_x$ in the transmitted and reflected waves. The uncertainty is thus eliminated. {width="90.00000%"} An interesting effect occurs when the parallel-to-the interface component of the wave vector, $q_{||}$, of the incident phonon is beyond the Brillouin zone of the right crystal (Fig.5). In this case the phonon is refracted and undergoes the Bragg scattering simultaneously. Then it appears that the refracted phonons have the opposite direction of propagation, in the plane of the interface, relative to the incident phonons. Thus, the inverse refraction takes place. It is interesting to note, that the energy flux in the direction perpendicular to the interface should be conserved for each solution of the system of Eqs.(60), and for the solutions of the more exact system of Eqs.(58), (59). However, for each solution, the energy flux in the plane of the interface can be different on the opposite sides from the interface. It means that at the interface not only the temperature may undergo a jump but the thermal flux parallel to the interface plane as well. Conclusion ========== In this paper we have studied the model of the interface between two crystals taking into consideration the mismatch of crystal lattices. The basic assumption of the model is that displacements of atoms near the interface are not random but determined by interaction with atoms of the other crystal. We have shown that in the harmonic approximation such the displacements have no effect on phonon transmission across the interface. The equation was set up, which determines the amplitudes of the transmitted and reflected waves of lattice oscillations. The exact solution has been derived for the quasi-one-dimensional case. It was shown that the mismatch of lattices leads to the scattering of phonons at the crystal interface. In other words, the scattering appears even in the case of the ideal interface in the absence of defects and roughness. On the other hand, such scattering occurs not uniformly in all directions but has a certain structure. It has been established that the finiteness of the lattice parameter results, at certain angles of incidence, in the backward phonon refraction at the interface. A new family of lattice oscillations has been described, which includes only the atoms lying near the crystal interface. It was predicted that at the plane parallel to the interface, the heat flows suffer a discontinuity at the interface. The main result of our study is that we have shown that the oscillations of atoms in the plane of the interface interact weakly with the oscillations of atoms on the opposite side of the interface, except of specific resonance cases. In the case of normal incidence of phonons at the interface, the transmission coefficient of the transversely polarized phonons is much less as compared to that of the longitudinally polarized phonons. For an arbitrary angle of incidence, the transmission coefficients of phonons of any polarization are less than that calculated with the elasticity theory, even in the case of low frequencies. Allowance for this factor leads to that the calculated value of Kapitza resistance is approximately three times greater. Calculation of the interface thermal resistance, performed by means of the method proposed in the work [@Me2], gives significantly lower values as compared to the experiment. Accounting for the smallness of the transmission coefficient of transversely polarized phonons explains this discrepancy. The author thanks E. D. Eidelman and G. V. Budkin for helpful critical comments, and A. Ya. Vul’ for attention to this study. The work was supported by Dynasty Foundation. [00]{} S.V. Kidalov, F.M. Shakhov Materials **2**, 2467 (2009) C. Zhang, R. Wang, et al. J. Material Science **26** (2014) M. Terraneo, M. Peyrard, and G. Casati, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 094302 (2002) L. Wang and B. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 267203 (2008) I.M. Khalatnikov, JETP **22**, 687 (1952) W.A. Little, Can. J. Phys. **37**, 334 (1959) R.J. Stoner and H.J. Maris, Phys. Rev. B **48**, 16373 (1993) T.Swartz and R.O. Pohl, Rev. Mod. Phys. **61**, 605 (1989) L. Zhang, P. Keblinski, J.-S. Wang, and B. Li, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 064303 (2011) A.P Meilakhs, E.D. Eidelman, JETP Letters **97**, 38 (2013) D.A. Young and H.J. Maris, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 3685 (1989) M. Hu, P. Keblinski, and P.K. Schelling, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 104305 (2009) Z. Tian, K. Esfarjani and G. Chen Rev. B **86**, 235304 (2012) K. Saaskilahti, J. Oksanen, J. Tulkki, and S. Volz, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 134312 (2014) N. Yang, T. Luo et. al. http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5550 (2015) A.I. Anselm, *Introduction to Semiconductor Theory* (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1981) V.I. Arnold, *Collected Works* vol.1 (Springer, 2009), p. 253 L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Course of Theoretical Physics*, Vol. 7: *Theory of Elasticity* (Pergamon, New York, 1986) A.P Meilakhs, Phys. Solid State, **57** 148-152 (2015)

--- author: - 'Driss Bennis$^{1}$, Brahim Fahid$^{2}$ and Abdellah Mamouni$^{3}$' title: 'Dhara-Rehman-Raza’s identities on left ideals of prime rings' --- \ $\mbox{}$ $\mbox{}$ [**Abstract.**]{} It is known that every nonzero Jordan ideal of $2$-torsion free semiprime rings contains a nonzero ideal. In this paper we show that also any square closed Lie ideal of a $2$-torsion free prime ring contains a nonzero ideal. This can be interpreted by saying that studying identities over one sided ideals is the “optimal" case to study identities. With this fact in mind, we generalize some results of Dhara, Rehman and Raza in \[Lie ideals and action of generalized derivations in rings, Miskolc Mathematical Notes, **16** (2015), 769 – 779\] to the context of nonzero left ideals. Introduction ============ Let $R$ be an associative ring with center $Z(R)$. Recall that $R$ is prime if for $a, b \in R$, $aRb = \{0\}$ implies either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. $R$ is said to be semiprime if for $a \in R$, $aRa =\{0\}$ implies $a = 0$. Let $R$ be a prime ring. For any pair of elements $x, y \in R$, we shall write $[x,y]$ (resp., $x \circ y $) for the commutator $xy-yx $ (resp., for the Jordan product $ xy+yx $). An additive subgroup $J$ of $R$ is said to be a Jordan ideal of $R$ if $ u \circ r \in J$ for all $ u \in J$ and $r \in R$. Note that every ideal of $R$ is a Jordan ideal of $R$ but the converse is not true in general. An additive subgroup $U$ of $R$ is said to be a Lie ideal of $R$ if $[u,r] \in U$ for all $u \in U $ and $ r \in R$. It is clear that if characteristic of $R$ is $2$, then Jordan ideals and Lie ideals of $R$ coincide. A Lie ideal $U$ of $R$ is said to be square closed if $u^2 \in U $ for all $u \in U$. An additive mapping $ d : R \longrightarrow R $ is called a derivation if $d(xy) = d(x)y + xd(y)$ holds for all $ x,y \in R$. In [@B] Brešar introduced the generalized derivation: an additive mapping $ F : R \longrightarrow R $ is called a generalized derivation if there exists a derivation $ d : R \longrightarrow R $ (an associated derivation of $F$) such that $ F(xy) = F(x)y + xd(y)$ for all $ x, y \in R$. The notion a generalized derivation covers both the notions of a derivation and of a left multiplier (i.e., an additive mapping $ f : R \longrightarrow R $ satisfying $f(xy) = f(x)y$ for all $x, y \in R$). A ring $R$ is said to be $n$-torsion free, where $ n \neq 0$ is a positive integer, if whenever $na = 0$, with $a \in R$, then $ a = 0$. In the present paper we investigate commutativity of a prime ring satisfying certain differential identities on a nonzero left ideal. Let us first recall that the study of commutativity of rings using differential identities goes back to the well-known Posner’s work [@P57] in which he proved that the existence of a nonzero centralizing derivation $f$ on a prime ring $R$ (i.e., $[f(x),x]\in Z(R)$ for all $x\in R$) forces the ring $R$ to be commutative. This result is now known by Posner’s second theorem. Since then, several authors have been interested in extending or generalizing this result to different contexts. For instance, Awtar, in [@A], extended Posner’s second theorem to the case of centralizing derivation on either nonzero Jordan ideals or nonzero square closed Lie ideals (see also Mayne’s papers [@M1; @M2; @M3]). In [@B93], Bre$\mathrm{\check{s}}$ar generalised Posner’s second theorem to identities related to two derivations (see [@B93 Theorem 4.1]). In [@H98], Hvala introduced the study of identities related to generalized derivations. In [@AFS], Ali, De Filippis and Shujat studied identities with generalized derivations on one sided ideals of a semiprime ring. Also motivated by the success that known Posner’s second theorem, several authors have introduced new kind of differential identities. In this context, Ashraf and Rehman proved in [@AR] that a prime ring $R$ with a nonzero ideal $I$ must be commutative if $R$ admits a nonzero derivation $d$ satisfying $d(xy)-xy \in Z(R)$ for all $ x,y \in I$ or $d(xy)+xy \in Z(R)$ for all $x,y \in I$. In [@AAA], Ashraf, A. Ali and S. Ali studied these identities in the case where $d$ is a generalized derivation. In [@DRR], Dhara, Rehman and Raza used more general differential identities. Precisely, they showed that for a nonzero square closed Lie ideal $U$ of a prime ring $R$, if $R$ admits nonzero generalized derivations $F$, $G$ and $H$ satisfying $F(x)G(y)\pm H(xy)\in Z(R)$ or $F(x)F(y)\pm H(yx)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in U$, then $U \subseteq Z(R)$. See also [@AliDharaKhan; @DKM; @DKP; @DPA; @TSD] for other works related to these identities. Then, naturally one can ask whether we get the same conclusion as the one of Dhara, Rehman and Raza’s results if we replace the nonzero square closed Lie ideal of the prime ring $R$ by other particular subsets of $R$. Namely, Jordan ideals, (both sided) ideals and one sided ideals. It is important to mention that the study of identities on Jordan ideals and (both sided) ideals can be considered as particular case of the study of these identities on square closed Lie ideals. Indeed, it is clear that every ideal is a square closed Lie ideal and, by [@H Theorem 1.1], every nonzero Jordan ideal of $2$-torsion free semiprime rings contains a nonzero ideal. Then, only the “one sided ideals" case could be of interest. Our aim in this paper is to show that $R$ will be commutative if we consider, in Dhara-Rehman-Raza’s identities, only nonzero left ideals instead of square closed Lie ideals (see Theorems \[th-one\] and \[th-tow\]). This is a generalization of Dhara, Rehman and Raza’s results (see Corollary \[cor-princ3\]) we prove that any square closed Lie ideal $L$ of a $2$-torsion free prime ring $R$ contains a nonzero ideal of $R$ (see Proposition \[prop-2L\]). Preliminaries ============= In this section we recall and present some properties of left ideals which will be used to prove our main results. \[lem-p1\] Let $R$ be a prime ring, $I$ is a nonzero left ideal of $R$ and for every $a,b \in R$, $aIb = (0)$, then $a = 0$ or $Ib=(0)$. We have $aIb = (0)$ imply $aRIb = (0)$, so by primeness of $R$ we get $a = 0$ or $Ib=(0)$. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \[lem-p2\] Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ a nonzero left ideal of $R$. If $F$ is a generalized derivation of $R$ with an associated derivation $d$ such that $F(I) = 0$, then $Id(I) = 0$. We have, for every $u,v \in I$, $F(uv) =F(u)v+ud(v)=ud(v)= 0$. Hence $Id(I) = 0$. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \[lem-p3\] Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Then, the following assertions are equivalents: 1. $[I,I]=0$. 2. $ I\subseteq Z(R)$. 3. $R$ is commutative. $(1)\Rightarrow (2)$ Let $I$ be a left ideal such that $[I,I]=0$. Then, $0=[I,RI]=[I,R]I$, which implies that $[I,R]=0$.\ $(2)\Rightarrow (3)$ We have $[I,R]=0$. This gives $0=[RI,I]=[R,R]I$. Since a left annihilator of a left ideal is zero, $[R,R]=0$; that is, $R$ is commutative.\ $(3)\Rightarrow (1)$ Obvious. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \[lem-p4\] Let $R$ be a noncommutative prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $d$ be derivation of $R$ and $z\in Z(R)$, such that $[xy,r]d(z)=0$ for all $x, y \in I$ and $r\in R$. Then $d(z)=0$. First we show that $d(z)\in Z(R)$, for this we have $d(zr)=d(z)r+zd(r)=d(r)z+rd(z)$, so $d(z)\in Z(R)$. On other hand we have $$[xy,r]d(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y \in I;\;\; r\in R.$$ Replacing $x$ by $sxd(z)$ in the above equation, where $s \in R$, we get $$[s,r]xd(z)yd(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\; x, y \in I;\;\; r\in R.$$ So $Id(z)=0$ and $d(z)=0$. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is well-known that every nonzero Jordan ideal of a $2$-torsion free semiprime ring contains a nonzero ideal (see, for instance, [@H Theorem 1.1]). Here we give a similar result for square closed Lie ideals. \[prop-2L\] Let $L$ be a nonzero square closed Lie ideal of a $2$-torsion free prime ring $R$. Then, $L$ contains a nonzero ideal of $R$. Let $L$ be a Lie ideal of $R$ such that $u^2 \in L$ for all $u \in L$. Therefore, for any $u,v \in L$, we get $uv+vu=(u+v)^2-u^2-v^2\in L$. On the other hand we have $uv-vu \in L$. Combining these two equalities we get $2uv \in L$ for all $u,v\in L$. Then, $2L$ is both a Lie ideal and a subring of $R$. Also $2L\neq 0$ since $R$ is a $2$-torsion free ring. Then, by [@H Lemma 1.3] and [@DRR Lemma 5], $2L$ contains a non-zero ideal of $R$ and so does $L$ since $2L\subseteq L$. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Main results ============ We start with the first main result, using Proposition \[prop-2L\], it can be seen as a generalization of [@DRR Theorems 1 and 2] ( see Corollary \[cor-princ3\]). \[th-one\] Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F,$ $G$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f,$ $g$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $F(x)G(y)-H(xy)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. Then $R$ is commutative or $If(I)= 0$ or $Ig(I)= 0$. We are given that $$\label{eq1} F(x)G(y)-H(xy)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y \in I.$$ Replacing $y$ by $yz$ in (\[eq1\]), we get $$\label{eq2} F(x)G(y)z-H(xy)z+F(x)yg(z)-xyh(z)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y, z \in I.$$ That is $$\label{eq3} [F(x)yg(z)-xyh(z),z]=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y, z \in I.$$ Replacing $x$ by $xu$, where $u\in I$, we get $$\label{eq4} [F(x)(uy)g(z)-x(uy)h(z),z]+[xf(u)yg(z),z]=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;u, x, y, z \in I.$$ Since $uy \in I$, then (\[eq3\]) together with (\[eq4\]) force that $$\label{eq5} [xf(u)yg(z),z]=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;u, x, y, z \in I.$$ Writing $rx$ instead of $x$ in (\[eq5\]), where $r\in R$, we obtain $$\label{eq6} [r,z]xf(u)yg(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;u, x, y, z \in I; \;\; r,s\in R.$$ That is $$\label{eq7} [r,z]If(u)Ig(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;u, z \in I; \;\; r,s\in R.$$ The primeness of $R$ together with (\[eq7\]) imply that $[r,z]=0$ or $If(u)=(0)$ or $Ig(z)=(0)$. Therefore, $R$ is commutative or $If(I)= 0$ or $Ig(I)= 0$. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a consequence of Theorem \[th-one\] we get the following result. \[cor-one\] Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F,$ $G$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f,$ $g$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $F(x)G(y)+H(xy)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. Then $R$ is commutative or $If(I)= 0$ or $Ig(I)= 0$. We notice that $-H$ is a generalized derivation of $R$ associated to the derivation $-h$. Hence replacing $H$ by $-H$ in Theorem \[th-one\], we get $ F(x)G(y)-(-H)(xy)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$, that is $ F(x)G(y)+H(xy)\in Z(R)$ all $x, y\in I$. Therfore $R$ is commutative or $If(I)= 0$ or $Ig(I)= 0$. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now we can see that [@DRR Theorems 1 and 2] can be seen as a consequence of Theorem \[th-one\] as follows. \[cor-princ3\] Let $L$ be a nonzero square closed Lie ideal of $2$-torsion free prime ring $R$. Let $F,G,H $ be generalized derivations with associated derivations $f, g,h $ of $R$, respectively, such that $f\neq 0$ and $g\neq 0$. If $F(x)G(y)\pm H(xy)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in L$, then $R$ commutative. Using Proposition \[prop-2L\], $L$ contains a nonzero ideal $I$ of $R$. So we get $F(x)G(y)\pm H(xy)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. Using Theorem \[th-one\] and Corollary \[cor-one\] we get that $R$ is commutative. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, if we suppose $F = f$ and $G = g$ in Theorem \[th-one\], then we get the following corollary. Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F,$ $G$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f,$ $g$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $f(x)g(y)\pm H(xy)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. Then $R$ is commutative or $If(I)= 0$ or $Ig(I)= 0$. When $H$ in Theorem \[th-one\] is the identity map, we get the following result. Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F,$ $G$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f,$ $g$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $F(x)G(y)\pm xy\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. Then $R$ is commutative or $If(I)= 0$ or $Ig(I)= 0$. Now, we give our second main result. Compare it with [@DRR Theorem 3]. \[th-tow\] Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $F(x)F(y)-H(yx)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. If $ 0 \neq If(I) \subseteq I $ and $ 0 \neq Ih(I) \subseteq I $ , then $R$ is commutative. Assume that $ I \cap Z(R)= \{0\}$.\ By the hypothesis, we have $$\label{eq-70} F(x)F(y)-H(yx)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\; \mbox{for all} \;\; x,y \in I.$$ Replacing in (\[eq-70\]) $y$ by $yz$, where $y,z \in I$, we get, for all $x,y,z \in I$: $$\label{eq-71} F(x)F(y)z+F(x)yf(z)-H(yz)x-yzh(x)\in Z(R)$$ That is $$\label{eq-72} (F(x)F(y)-H(yx))z+H(yx)z+$$ $$F(x)yf(z)-H(yz)x-yzh(x)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\; \mbox{for all} \;\; x,y,z\in I.$$ By the hypothesis we have $$\label{eq-73} (F(x)F(y)-H(yx))z+H(yx)z+$$ $$F(x)yf(z)-H(yz)x-yzh(x)\in I \;\;\;\; \mbox{for all} \;\; x,y,z\in I.$$ Since $I\cap Z(R)=0$, we get $$\label{eq-74} (F(x)F(y)-H(yx))z+H(yx)z+$$ $$F(x)yf(z)-H(yz)x-yzh(x)=0 \;\;\;\; \mbox{for all} \;\; x,y \in I.$$ Replacing $z$ by $zx$, we obtain, for all $x,y,z \in I$: $$\label{eq-75} F(x)yzf(x)-yzh(x)x-yz[x,h(x)]=0.$$ Replacing $y$ by $py$, we get $$\label{eq-76} [F(x),p]yzf(x)=0 \;\;\;\; \mbox{ for all} \;\; x,y,p,z \in I.$$ So, using primeness of $R$, we get, for all $x,y \in I$: $[F(x),p]y=0$ or $If(x)=0$. This leads to $$F(x)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\mbox{or}\;\; If(x)=0 \;\;\;\; \mbox{for all} \;\; x \in I.$$ The fact that a group cannot be a union of its proper subgroups with the condition $ If(I)\neq 0 $ imply that $$F(x)\in Z(R) \;\;\; \mbox{for all} \;\; x \in I.$$ Then, $F$ is centralizing on $ I$. Therefore, $\dot{}R$ is commutative. Then $ I=0$, which contradicts our hypothesis. Therefore, $I\cap Z(R)\neq \{0\}.$\ Let $z\in I \cap Z(R)\backslash \{0\}$ and replacing $y$ by $yz$ in our identities hypothesis, we get $$\label{eq80} F(x)yf(z)-yxh(z)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y \in I.$$ So $$\label{eq81} [F(x)y,r]f(z)-[yx,r]h(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y \in I;\;\; r\in R.$$ Replacing $x$ by $xz$ in (\[eq81\]), we get, for all $x, y \in I;\;\; r\in R$: $$\label{eq82} [F(x)(zy),r]f(z)+[xf(z)y,r]f(z)-[y(zx),r]h(z)=0.$$ Using (\[eq80\]) we arrive at $$\label{eq83} [xf(z)y,r]f(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\; x, y \in I ;\;\; r\in R.$$ Replacing $x$ by $sx$ in (\[eq83\]), where $s \in R$, we get $$\label{eq84} [s,r]xf(z)yf(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\; x, y \in I ;\;\; s \in R.$$ The primeness of $R$ together with equation (\[eq84\]) show that $R$ is commutative or $If(z)=0$. If $f(z)=0$, (\[eq81\]) becomes $$\label{eq85} [yx,r]h(z)=0 \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, y \in I ;\;\; r\in R.$$ So by Lemma \[lem-p4\] we get $h(z)=0$.\ \ Replacing now $y$ by $tz$ in (\[eq-70\]), where $t\in R$, we get $$\label{eq86} F(x)F(t)-H(tx)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;x, \in I ;\;\; t\in R.$$ Replacing $x$ by $sz$ in (\[eq86\]), where $s\in R$, we get $$F(s)F(t)-H(ts)\in Z(R) \;\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;s,t \in R.$$ Therefore, since $R$ is a square closed Lie ideal of $R$ itself and by [@DRR Theorem 3] and Lemma \[lem-p3\], we conclude that $R$ is commutative. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \[rem-one\] One can see that, instead of using [@DRR Theorem 3] at the end of the proof above, we can give a direct proof following the same arguments done in [@DRR Theorem 3]. Thus, using [@H Theorem 1.1] and Proposition \[prop-2L\], we conclude that studying identities over one sided ideals can be seen until now as the “optimal" case to study identities. We end this paper, with some consequences of Theorem \[th-tow\]. Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $F(x)F(y)+H(yx)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. If $ 0 \neq If(I) \subseteq I $ and $ 0 \neq Ih(I) \subseteq I $ , then $R$ is commutative . We notice that $-H$ is a generalized derivation of $R$ associated to the derivation $-h$. Hence replacing $H$ by $-H$ in Theorem \[th-tow\], we get $ F(x)F(y)-(-H)(yx)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. That is $ F(x)F(y)+H(yx)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. This implies that $R$ is commutative. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When we consider $F = f$ in Theorem \[th-tow\], we get the following result. Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F$ and $H$ be generalized derivations associated to derivations $f$ and $h$ of $R$, respectively, such that $f(x)f(y)\pm H(yx)\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. If $ 0 \neq If(I) \subseteq I $ and $ 0 \neq Ih(I) \subseteq I $, then $R$ is commutative. Also, if we suppose $H$ to be the identity map in Theorem \[th-tow\], we get the following result. Let $R$ be a prime ring and $I$ be a nonzero left ideal of $ R$. Let $F$ be a generalized derivation associated to a derivation $f$ of $R$ such that $F(x)F(y)\pm yx\in Z(R)$ for all $x, y\in I$. If $ 0 \neq If(I) \subseteq I $ and $ 0 \neq Ih(I) \subseteq I $, then $R$ is commutative. [1]{} A. Ali, B. Dhara, S. Khan and F. Ali, [*Multiplicative (generalized)-derivations and left ideals in semiprime rings*]{}, Hacet. J. Math. Stat. **44** (2015), 1293–1306. M. Ashraf, A. Ali and S. Ali, [*Some Commutativity Theorems for Rings with Generalized Derivations*]{}, Sea. bull. math. **31** (2007) 415–421. M. Ashraf and N. Rehman, [*On derivations and commutativity in prime rings*]{}, East-West J. Math. **3** (2001), 87–91. R. Awtar, [*Lie and Jordan structure in prime rings with derivations*]{}. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **41** (1973), 67–74. A. Ali, V. De Filippis and F. Shujat, [*On one sided ideals of a semiprime ring with generalized derivations*]{}, Aequat. Math. **85** (2013), 529–537. M. Bre$\mathrm{\check{s}}$ar, [*On the distance of the composition of two derivations to be the generalized derivations*]{}. Glasgow Math. J. **33** (1991), 89–93. M. Bre$\mathrm{\check{s}}$ar, [*Centralizing mappings and derivations in prime rings*]{}, J. Algebra **156** (1993), 385–394. B. Dhara, S. Kar and S. Mondal, [*A result on generalized derivations on Lie ideals in prime rings*]{}, Beitr. Algebra Geom. **54** (2013), 677–682. B. Dhara, S. Kar and K. G. Pradhan, [*Generalized derivations acting as homomorphism or anti-homomorphism with central values in semiprime rings*]{}, Miskolc math. Notes **16** (2015), 781–791. B. Dhara, A. Pattanayak and A. Ali, [*On Generalized Derivations and Lie Ideals in Prime Rings*]{}, Tamsui Oxf. J. Math. Inform. Sci. **29** (2013), 427–434. B. Dhara, N. U. Rehman and M. A. Raza, [*Lie ideals and action of generalized derivations in rings*]{}, Miskolc math. **16** (2015), 769–779. I. N. Herstein, [*Topics in ring theory*]{}, University of Chicago Press (1969). B. Hvala, [*Generalized derivations in rings*]{}, Comm. Algebra **26** (1998), 1147–1166. J. H. Mayne, [*Centralizing automorphisms of prime rings*]{}, Canad. Math. Bull. **19** (1976), 113–115. J. H. Mayne, [*Ideals and centralizing mappings in prime rings*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **86** (1982), 211–212. Erratum **89** (1983), 187. J. H. Mayne, [*Centralizing mappings of prime rings*]{}, Canad. Math. Bull. **27** (1984), 122–126. E. C. Posner, [*Derivations in prime rings*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **8** (1957), 1093–1100. S. K. Tiwari, R. K. Sharma and B. Dhara, [*Identities related to generalized derivation on ideal in prime rings*]{}, Beitr. Algebra Geom. **56** (2015). DOI 10.1007/s13366-015-0262-6.

--- author: - | \ Department of Physics, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan\ J-PARC Branch, KEK Theory Center, Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK, 203-1, Shirakata, Tokai, Ibaraki, 319-1106, Japan\ E-mail: - | Takuya Matsumoto\ Department of Physics, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan - | Yasuhiro Kohno\ Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan bibliography: - 'topol\_ref.bib' title: | (0,0)(0,0) (350,60)[(0,0)\[l\][ [J-PARC-TH-0211]{.nodecor} ]{}]{} Classifying topological sector via machine learning --- Introduction ============ The existence of nontrivial topology is one of the most important non-perturbative aspects of Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and other Yang-Mills (YM) gauge theories in four spacetime dimensions. These theories can have topologically nontrivial gauge configurations classified by the topological charge $Q$. The topology in QCD is responsible for various non-perturbative properties of this theory, such as the U(1) problem [@Weinberg:1996kr]. The topological property of YM theories has been studied by numerical simulations of lattice gauge theory. Although gauge configurations on the lattice are strictly speaking topologically trivial, it is known that well separated topological sectors emerge as the continuum limit is approached [@Luscher:1981zq]. It is known that the values of $Q$ of lattice gauge configurations measured by various methods show an approximate agreement [@Alexandrou:2017hqw], which is consistent with the existence of the well separated topological sectors in lattice gauge theory. In the present study, we apply the machine learning (ML) for the analysis of $Q$ of gauge configurations on the lattice [@Matsumoto:2019jia]. We generate data by the numerical simulation of SU(3) YM theory in four spacetime dimensions, and feed them into the neural networks (NN). The main motivation of this study is the search for characteristic local structures in the four-dimensional space related to $Q$ by the ML. It is known that YM theories have classical gauge configurations called instantons, which carry a nonzero topological charge and have a localized structure [@Weinberg:1996kr]. If the topological charge of the quantum gauge configurations is also carried by instanton-like local objects, the NN would recognize and make use of them for the prediction of $Q$. This study will also contribute to a reduction of the numerical costs for the analysis of $Q$. Topological charge and gradient flow {#sec:Q} ==================================== In this study, we consider SU(3) YM theory in the four-dimensional Euclidean space with the periodic boundary conditions for all directions. The Wilson gauge action is used for generating gauge configurations. The numerical analyses are performed at two inverse couplings $\beta=6/g^2=6.2$ and $6.5$ with the lattice volumes $16^4$ and $24^4$, respectively, and $20,000$ gauge configurations have been generated for each analysis. These two lattices have almost the same physical volume. ![ Left: Flow time $t$ dependence of $Q(t)$ on $200$ gauge configurations at $\beta=6.2$ (upper) and $6.5$ (lower). Right: Distribution of $Q(t)$ at several values of $t/a^2$. The colored histograms are the distributions in individual topological sectors. []{data-label="fig:Q(t)"}](Qt62.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"} ![ Left: Flow time $t$ dependence of $Q(t)$ on $200$ gauge configurations at $\beta=6.2$ (upper) and $6.5$ (lower). Right: Distribution of $Q(t)$ at several values of $t/a^2$. The colored histograms are the distributions in individual topological sectors. []{data-label="fig:Q(t)"}](Qt65.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"} ![ Left: Flow time $t$ dependence of $Q(t)$ on $200$ gauge configurations at $\beta=6.2$ (upper) and $6.5$ (lower). Right: Distribution of $Q(t)$ at several values of $t/a^2$. The colored histograms are the distributions in individual topological sectors. []{data-label="fig:Q(t)"}](Qhist65.pdf){width="90.00000%"} In the continuous YM theory the topological charge is defined by $$\begin{aligned} Q = \int_V d^4x\,q(x), \label{eq:Q} \qquad q(x) = -\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} {\rm tr} \left[F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\rho\sigma}(x)\right], %\label{eq:q(x)}\end{aligned}$$ with the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}(x)=\partial_\mu A_\nu(x)-\partial_\nu A_\mu(x)+[A_\mu(x),A_\nu(x)]$ and $q(x)$ the topological-charge density. In lattice gauge theory, Eq. (\[eq:Q\]) calculated on a gauge configuration is not given by an integer, but distributes continuously. To obtain discretized values, one may apply a smoothing of the gauge field before the measurement of $q(x)$. In the present study, we use the gradient flow [@Luscher:2011bx] for the smoothing. The gradient flow is a transformation of the gauge field described by a continuous parameter $t$ called the flow time. The gauge field at a flow time $t$ is a smoothed field with the mean-square smoothing radius $\sqrt{8t}$ [@Luscher:2011bx]. We denote the topological charge density at $t$ as $q_t(x)$, and its four-dimensional integral as $$\begin{aligned} Q(t) = \int_V d^4 x \, q_t(x). \end{aligned}$$ In the left panels of Fig. \[fig:Q(t)\], we show $200$ examples of $Q(t)$ for $\beta=6.2$ and $6.5$. The horizontal axis shows $t/a^2$ with the lattice spacing $a$. The panels show that $Q(t)$ approaches discrete integer values as $t$ becomes larger. In the right panel of Fig. \[fig:Q(t)\], we show the distribution of $Q(t)$ at $\beta=6.5$ for several values of $t/a^2$ by the histogram. Although the values of $Q(t)$ are distributed continuously around the origin at $t=0$, the distribution converges on discretized integer values as $t$ becomes larger. At $t/a^2\gtrsim1.0$, the gauge configurations are well separated into different topological sectors. We define the topological charge from $Q(t)$ at $t/a^2=4.0$ as $$\begin{aligned} Q={\rm round}[Q(t)]_{t/a^2=4.0}, \label{eq:Qdef}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm round}(x)$ means rounding off to the nearest integer. As indicated from Fig. \[fig:Q(t)\], the value of $Q$ in Eq. (\[eq:Qdef\]) hardly changes with the variation of $t/a^2$ in the range $t/a^2\gtrsim4$. It is known that the topological charge $Q$ defined in this way approximately agrees with those obtained through other definitions [@Alexandrou:2017hqw]. In the right panel of Fig. \[fig:Q(t)\], the distributions of $Q(t)$ in individual topological sectors are shown by the colored histograms. From the panel one sees that the distribution of $Q(t)$ deviates from integer values toward the origin. This deviation becomes smaller as $t$ becomes larger. Benchmark {#sec:bench} ========= In this study, we evaluate the performance of a model for an estimate of $Q$ by the accuracy $P$ and recalls $R_Q$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} P = \frac{N_{\rm correct}}{N_{\rm total}}, \qquad R_Q = \frac{N_Q^{\rm correct}}{N_Q} , \label{eq:R}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{\rm total}$, $N_{\rm correct}$, $N_Q$, and $N_Q^{\rm correct}$ mean the numbers of total data, total correct answers, data in the topological sector $Q$, and correct answers among them, respectively. The recalls are suitable to see the bias of the answers. In this study, we analyze $q_t(x)$ or $Q(t)$ at small $t$ by the NN. Here, $t$ used for the input has to be chosen small enough so that a simple estimate of $Q$ like Eq. (\[eq:Qdef\]) $$\begin{aligned} Q_{\rm naive}={\rm round} [Q(t)], \label{eq:Qnaive}\end{aligned}$$ does not give a high accuracy. We also consider an improved estimator of $Q$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} Q_{\rm imp}={\rm round}[ cQ(t)] , \label{eq:Qimp}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a parameter determined so as to maximize the accuracy in the range $c>1$ for each $t$. This parameter is introduced to compensate the deviation of the distribution of $Q(t)$ in each topological sector from integers found in Fig. \[fig:Q(t)\]. We found that Eq. (\[eq:Qimp\]) with the optimized $c$ has a better accuracy compared with the naive model Eq. (\[eq:Qnaive\]) at some range of $t/a^2$. In Table \[table:bench\], we show the accuracy $P_{\rm imp}$ of the model Eq. (\[eq:Qimp\]) for several values of $t/a^2$. We note that $P_{\rm naive}=P_{\rm imp}=1$ at $t/a^2=4.0$ by definition. As the accuracy is almost unity at $t/a^2=2.0$ and $10.0$, the value of $Q$ defined by Eq. (\[eq:Qdef\]) hardly changes with the variation of $t/a^2$ in the range $t/a^2\gtrsim2.0$. Analysis of four-dimensional field {#sec:4} ================================== In this section, we analyze the four-dimensional data of $q_t(x)$ by the ML. We feed the topological charge density $q_t(x)$ into the NN and train it by the supervised learning so that it answers the value of $Q$ defined by Eq. (\[eq:Qdef\]). We employ the convolutional NN (CNN) for four-dimensional space. As the CNN is a class of NNs which had been developed for the image recognition [@726791; @Krizhevsky:2012], this framework would be suitable for searching for local features in the four-dimensional data. The structure of the CNN is shown in the left panel of Table \[table:network\]. The lattice volume is reduced to $8^4$ from $16^4$ and $24^4$ by the average pooling by a preprocessing. The CNN has three convolutional layers with the filter size $3^4$ and five output channels. The global average pooling (GAP) layer, which takes the average with respect to the spatial coordinates, is inserted after the convolutional layers to respects the translational symmetry of the input data. The output of the GAP layer is then processed by two fully-connected layers. For more details on the NN and the procedure of the supervised learning, see Ref. [@Matsumoto:2019jia]. In the upper four rows of Table \[table:4single\], we show the resulting accuracy $P$ and recall of each topological sector $R_Q$ with the input data at several flow times $t$ for $\beta=6.5$. At $t=0$, the accuracy takes a nonzero value $P\simeq0.39$. However, from the values of $R_Q$ one finds that the NN answers $Q=0$ for almost all gauge configurations. This result shows that the CNN does not find any useful features in the input data. Because the analysis of the data at $t=0$ does not provide any useful results, as a next trial we perform the analysis of $q_t(x)$ at nonzero $t$. The resulting accuracy and recalls at $t/a^2=0.1$, $0.2$, and $0.3$ depicted in Table \[table:4single\] shows that the accuracy becomes better as $t/a^2$ becomes larger. From the behavior of $R_Q$ one also finds that the answers of the CNN are distributed for all topological sectors at large $t/a^2$. From this result, it is naïvely expected that the CNN recognizes features in the four-dimensional space. However, by comparing these accuracies with Table \[table:bench\], one finds that the accuracies are almost consistent with the benchmark model Eq. (\[eq:Qimp\]) at the same $t/a^2$. A natural interpretation of this result is that the answers of the CNN are obtained by Eq. (\[eq:Qimp\]). Because the four-dimensional structure is completely integrated out in Eq. (\[eq:Qimp\]), this result shows that characteristic features responsible for the determination of $Q$ in the four-dimensional space were not found by the CNN. In order to realize the recognition of the four-dimensional data by the CNN, we next feed $q_t(x)$ obtained at three different flow times simultaneously as a single multi-channel data. We use $q_t(x)$ at $t/a^2=0.3$, $0.2$, and $0.1$ for the input. The resulting accuracy and recalls are shown at the bottom row of Table \[table:4single\]. One finds a remarkable improvement of the accuracy compared with the analysis of the single flow time, which indicates a nontrivial recognition of the four-dimensional data by the CNN. Analysis of $Q(t)$ {#sec:0} ================== Let us inspect whether the high accuracy of the CNN in the previous section is established by the recognition of the four-dimensional space, or not. For this purpose, in this section we consider a simple fully connected NN (FNN) which accepts only three values of $Q(t)$ at different $t/a^2$. The structure of the FNN is shown in the right panel of Table \[table:network\]. The FNN has only one hidden layer that is fully connected with the input and output layers. In Table \[table:result0\], we show the accuracies obtained by the trained FNN for various combinations of the flow times for the input $Q(t)$ at $\beta=6.2$ and $6.5$. The table shows that the accuracy with the combination $t/a^2=(0.3,0.2,0.1)$ is comparable with that obtained in the previous section, although the four-dimensional structure of the input data is fully integrated out in this analysis. From this result it is concluded that the CNN in Sec. \[sec:4\] does not find features in the four-dimensional space, but performs almost the same analysis as the FNN introduced in this section. Table \[table:result0\] also suggests that the accuracy obtained by the FNN is significantly higher than $P_{\rm imp}$ with the same largest $t/a^2$. In particular, the accuracy with $t/a^2=(0.3,0.25,0.2)$ shown by the bold letters is as high as $99\%$ for $\beta=6.5$, while the benchmark model Eq. (\[eq:Qimp\]) gives $P_{\rm imp}\simeq0.71$ at $t/a^2=0.3$. This result shows that the trained NN can estimate $Q$ quite successfully only with the data at $t/a^2\lesssim0.3$, and this model can be used for an effective analysis of $Q$. The robustness of this result against the variation of the lattice spacing and the effect of the reduction of the training data are discussed in Ref. [@Matsumoto:2019jia]. Dimensional reduction {#sec:dim_red} ===================== ![ Dependence of the accuracy $P$ on the dimension $d$ of the input data. []{data-label="fig:dim_red"}](dim_red.pdf){width="46.00000%"} In Secs. \[sec:4\] and \[sec:0\], we analyzed the data with the space dimension $d=4$ and $0$, respectively. We next consider the analysis of the data with dimensions $d=1$–$3$ by the NN. We reduce the dimension of the input data by the dimensional reduction, i.e. by integrating out some coordinates, and explore a possible optimal dimension of the input data of the CNN between $d=0$ and $4$. In Fig. \[fig:dim\_red\], we show the dependence of the resulting accuracy of the trained CNN on $d$ with the flow times of the input data $t/a^2=(0.3,0.2,0.1)$. The figure shows that the accuracy does not have a statistically-significant $d$ dependence, although the results at $d=1$ and $2$ would be slightly better. This result supports our observation that the CNN does not recognize features in the multi dimensional space. Summary ======= In this study, we applied a machine learning technique for the classification of the topological sector of gauge configurations in SU(3) YM theory. We found that the value of $Q$ defined at a large flow time can be predicted with high accuracy only with $Q(t)$ at $t/a^2 \le 0.3$ with the aid of the NN. This procedure would be used for reducing the numerical cost for the analysis of $Q$. We also found that the analysis of the multi dimensional field $q_t(x)$ by the CNN does not improve the accuracy, which suggests that our CNN fails in capturing useful structures in the multi dimensional space. The lattice simulations of this study are in part carried out on OCTOPUS at the Cybermedia Center, Osaka University. The NNs are implemented by Chainer framework, and are in part trained on Google Colaboratory. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 17K05442 and 19H05598.

--- abstract: 'We analyze the impact of nonlocality on the waveguide modes of metallo-dielectric multilayers and optical patch antennas, the latter formed from metal strips closely spaced above a metallic plane. We model both the nonlocal effects associated with the conduction electrons of the metal, as well as the previously overlooked response of bound electrons. We show that the fundamental mode of a metal-dielectric-metal waveguide, sometimes called the gap-plasmon, is very sensitive to nonlocality when the insulating, dielectric layers are thinner than 5 nm. We suggest that optical patch antennas, which can easily be fabricated with controlled dielectric spacer layers and can be interrogated using far-field scattering, can enable the measurement of nonlocality in metals with good accuracy.' author: - 'A. Moreau' - 'C. Ciracì' - 'D. R. Smith' bibliography: - 'nonlocal.bib' title: 'The impact of nonlocal response on metallo-dielectric multilayers and optical patch antennas' --- Introduction ============ With the emergence of new analytical, numerical and nanofabrication tools, the pursuit of plasmonic systems for a variety of nanophotonic applications has expanded rapidly in recent years[@maier07; @gramotnev2010plasmonics; @schuller2010plasmonics]. Plasmonic media here can be defined as conducting surfaces and nanostructures, whose optical scattering is largely dominated by the response of the conduction electrons. Plasmonic behavior is typically associated with excitation wavelengths at which the inertial inductance of the charge carriers plays a critical role in the collective response[@zhou05]. In the design of plasmonic media, the dynamics of the conduction electrons can often be well approximated by assuming a Drude-like model for the permittivity, which has the frequency dispersive form $$\epsilon= 1- \frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2+i\Gamma \omega}\label{drude}$$ assuming a time dependence of $e^{-i\omega\,t}$. The plasma frequency, $\omega_p$, proportional to the square root of the carrier density, typically lies within the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum for many metals. Thus, for frequencies just below the plasma frequency, the electric permittivity can be characterized as a lossy dielectric, for which the real part of the permittivity is moderately negative. At wavelengths where the real part of the permittivity is negative, surface plasmon modes can be supported, which are collective oscillations of the coupled electromagnetic field and conduction electrons. Surface plasmons can serve to transport energy along metal surfaces in a manner similar to dielectric waveguides, but are also playing an increasingly important role in the field of metamaterials, where metallic nanostructures are often used as elements that provide strong and customizable scattering. Surface plasmons represent the underlying mechanism behind perfect lenses[@pendry2000negative; @fang05], hyperlenses[@jacob2006optical; @liu2007far], spasers[@bergman03; @zheludev08; @oulton09] and many other proposed metamaterial-related devices. The simplicity of the Drude model of electron response, , has has enabled the rapid modeling of plasmonic and metamaterial structures; The salient features associated with most plasmonic structures presented to date can usually be computed with sufficient accuracy –sometimes even analytically– assuming the Drude formula. Particularly when the underlying physics is the main focus rather than detailed performance characteristics, Eq. frequently provides an adequate description of the plasmonic response. It should be noted that despite the relatively simple form of Eq. , the numerical simulation of plasmonic systems remains a non-trivial task because the surface plasmon spatial variation is not limited by the wavelength of light; rather, the surface plasmon can confine light to nanometer sized regions, making plasmonic structures an inherently multiscale modeling problem[@kottmann00]. Thus, the frequency dispersion and the negative permittivity associated with the Drude model contain non-trivial physics, and have been successfully applied to a wide range of plasmonic and metamaterial configurations. Naturally, the actual electronic response of a metal or highly doped semiconductor is much more complicated than that suggested by Eq. (1). Plasmonic structures are now reliably fabricated at the nanometer and sub-nanometer scales, where new optical properties arise that cannot be accounted for solely by the Drude model[@scholl12; @fernandez12]. Since these sub-nanometer features are likely to be crucial for optimizing field localization and enhancement[@pendry12; @ciraci12; @moreau12], a more detailed description of the properties of plasmonic devices is demanded. Effects that would be secondary or of no consequence to the overall function of prior plasmonic devices, may introduce major constraints on the detailed performance and ultimate competitiveness of optimized plasmonic structures with subnanometer features. For these reasons, it is relevant to consider a more advanced physical model of the carrier response in conductors. The Drude model of a conductor assumes only the participation of conduction electrons (no bound charges), and further assumes a straightforward force-response relationship between the applied electric field and responding current density. An intrinsic feature of this model is that the responding current density at a given point within the material is proportional to the electric field at that point; that is, the Drude model assumes locality. Even when the exact, measured values of the bulk permittivity are used, there is an implicit assumption of locality since the permittivity is only a function of frequency rather than of both frequency and wave vector. To capture the additional physics associated with electronic response, it is necessary to consider a more detailed model of the force-response relationship between the field and current density. More accurate descriptions of the free electron gas have been proposed in the past, including a description based on a hydrodynamical model for the conduction electrons[@kliewer68; @barrera81; @boardman82; @gerhardts84; @forstmann86; @fuchs87; @fuchs1981dynamical; @scalora10], and a microscopic description initiated by Feibelman[@feibelman82; @liebsch1997electronic; @wang11]. The latter has been improved over the years[@liebsch1995influence] and has been recently used to include the effects of nonlocality on metallic slabs[@ruppin05b] and slot waveguides[@wang07]. The hydrodynamical approach clearly suffers from an uncertainty about which additional boundary conditions should be used, but allows for more transparent physical interpretations[@fuchs1981dynamical]. Moreover, the hydrodynamical model can be reasonably implemented in numerical calculations, and also is useful for finding closed-form, analytical results. For example, the hydrodynamical model has been used in conjunction with transformation optics techniques to find analytical expressions for nanostructures that illustrate the impact of nonlocal response[@pendry12; @fernandez12]. Recent experiments have shown that the hydrodynamical model is able to describe very accurately the plasmon resonance shift exhibited by spherical nanoparticles interacting with a metallic film[@ciraci12]. While the hydrodynamical model is clearly not the most sophisticated approach to describe the free electron gas, it can obviously capture the physics of nonlocality and it seems it can be made quite accurate through a correct choice of the free parameters it contains for situations of interest in plasmonics. In the present work, we first try to describe the response of the bound electrons as a polarizable medium, as has been shown to be accurate for Feibelman’s method[@liebsch1995influence], but in the framework of the hydrodynamical model. We find that this description greatly simplifies the discussion with respect to the additional boundary conditions. We explore the consequences of the model on the reflection of a wave by a metallic surface, on the surface plasmon and finally on the propagation of a guided wave along a thin metallic waveguide, as Wang and Kempa have shown that nonlocal effects could be expected[@wang07] for such a structure. Using an analytical dispersion relation, we show that the nonlocal effects are enhanced in the slow light regime, when the waveguide is a few nanometers thick. Finally we study the large impact of nonlocality on optical patch nanoantennas[@miyazaki2006controlled; @bozhevolnyi07; @sondergaard08; @jung09; @yang12] where the gap beneath the patch behaves as a cavity, making these structures extremely sensitive[@moreau12]. The optical patch geometry paves the way for future experiments in which the effects associated with nonlocality will have easily measurable effects at wavelengths in the visible. Nonlocal response of metals\[nonlocal\] ======================================= While our analysis is not specific to metals, we use the term metal throughout while keeping in mind the analysis can be applied to highly doped semiconductors[@hoffman07] and potentially other conducting systems[@tassin12]. The polarization of a metal, and hence its dielectric function, generally contains contributions from both bound and free conduction electrons. Because we need to apply different physical response models to the free and bound electrons, it is essential to first distinguish their relative contributions. The experimental permittivity curves can be fit[@rakic98] with a Drude term that models the free electron contribution, to which is added a sum over the Brendel-Bormann[@brendel1992infrared] oscillator terms that models the susceptibility arising from the bound electron contributions. Figure \[fig:eps\] shows the permittivity of gold obtained through the model as well as the fitted Drude permittivity, corresponding to $1+\chi_f$, where $\chi_f$ is the the susceptibility of the free electrons. The difference (not shown) between the modeled permittivity and the fitted Drude term corresponds to the contribution of the bound electrons, $\chi_b$. We assume here that the nonlocal response of the metal is largely dominated by the nonlocality induced by free electrons, so that we can treat the bound electron contribution as purely local, as some authors do[@mcmahon09; @mcmahon10; @fernandez12]. Bound electrons too can be expected to present a nonlocal response, similar to what occurs in dielectrics[@maradudin73; @agranovich]. Our assumption is equivalent to assuming that the interactions between electrons in a free electron gas (through a quantum pressure and Coulomb repulsion) are more intense than essentially dipole-dipole interaction between bound electrons. ![Real part of the relative permittivity of gold in the visible (solid line) and Drude permittivity according to [@rakic98] (dotted line). The difference is the contribution of bound electrons. Inset : imaginary part of the relative permittivity, same $x$ scale, same lines.\[fig:eps\]](permittivite.eps){width="8cm"} Under an applied electric field, the medium will undergo a polarization with contributions from both bound and free electrons. The total polarization vector can thus be written $${\mathbf{P}}= {\mathbf{P}}_b + {\mathbf{P}}_f$$ where ${\mathbf{P}}_b =\epsilon_0 \chi_b {\mathbf{E}}$, $\chi_b$ being the susceptibility of the bound electrons, with the currents in the free electron gas related to the polarization in the usual manner: $$\dot{{\mathbf{P}}}_f={\mathbf{J}}.$$ By incorporating all responding currents and charges into the polarization, we can treat the metal as a dielectric, such that the electric flux density, ${\mathbf{D}} = \epsilon_0 {\mathbf{E}} + {\mathbf{P}}_b + {\mathbf{P}}_f$, satisfies ${\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{D}}}=0$. Taking the divergence of ${\mathbf{D}}$ and writing ${\mathbf{P}}_b$ in terms of the electric field, we obtain $${\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{P}}_f}=-\epsilon_0 (1+\chi_b)\,{\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{E}}}.\label{eq:div}$$ where we have explicitly assumed that the bound electron susceptibility is local and can be taken outside the divergence operator. The free electron current density can be related to the applied electric field using the hydrodynamical model. Using Eq. 2, a linearized equation relating ${\mathbf{P}}_f$ to the electric field is given by[@scalora10] $$-\beta^2\,{\mathbf{\nabla} \left({\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{}}}{P}_f\right)}+\ddot{{\mathbf{P}}}_f+\gamma \dot{{\mathbf{P}}}_f = \epsilon_0 \omega_p^2 {\mathbf{E}} \label{p2}$$ where $\gamma$ is the damping factor, due to collisions of the electron gas with the ion grid, $\omega_p$ is the plasma frequency of the metal, and $\beta$ is the phenomenological nonlocal parameter, proportional to the Fermi velocity $v_F$. Usually the value of $\beta=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}v_F$ has been considered in the literature. However, a slightly more realistic hydrodynamic model should take into account other sources of nonlocality, such as the Bohm potential, which can be shown to be of the same order of the Fermi pressure[@crouseilles08]. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to introduce a more sophisticated model, it makes sense from a phenomenological approach to consider a more empirical value for the parameter $\beta$. Recently it has been shown for plasmonic systems of film-coupled gold nanoparticles that the value $\beta= \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}\frac{E_F}{m}}\simeq 1.27 \times 10^6~\rm{m/s}$ gives a very good agreement with experimental data[@ciraci12]. In this work we will then assume this former value for both gold and silver. Assuming a harmonic solution of the form $e^{-i\omega t}$, and using equation \[eq:div\], the polarization ${\mathbf{P}}_f$ can finally be written $${\mathbf{P}}_f = - \epsilon_0 \frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2+i\gamma\omega} \left({\mathbf{E}} - (1+\chi_b)\,\frac{\beta^2}{\omega_p^2} \,{\mathbf{\nabla} \left({\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{}}}{E}\right)} \right)\label{eq:p2},$$ where the term $$\chi_f = -\frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2+i\gamma\omega}$$ can be identified as the local susceptibility associated with free electrons, corresponding to the Drude model. We have written the polarization terms in such a manner that the free and bound electron contributions can be distinguished. In determining the various parameters in these equations for the calculations that follow, we use the model provided by[@rakic98] and shown Fig. 1. Transverse and longitudinal modes in metals\[derivation\] ========================================================= In a metal, taking the above description of nonlocality into account, Maxwell’s equations can now be written $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{\nabla}\times {\mathbf{E}}} &=i\omega \mu_0 {\mathbf{H}}\label{eq:M1}\\ {\mathbf{\nabla}\times {\mathbf{H}}}&=-i\omega\left(\epsilon_0 (1+\chi_b){\mathbf{E}} + {\mathbf{P}}_f\right)\\ &=-i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon \left({\mathbf{E}}-\alpha {\mathbf{\nabla} \left({\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{E}}}\right)}\right)\label{eq:M2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the local relative permittivity of the metal $$\epsilon=1+\chi_b +\chi_f$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \alpha &=\frac{\chi_f\,(1+\chi_b)}{\epsilon}\,\frac{\beta^2}{\omega_p^2}\\ &= \frac{\beta^2}{\frac{\omega_p^2}{1+\chi_b} - \omega^2 - i\gamma\omega}.\end{aligned}$$ As shown rigorously in the appendix, there are two different solutions to these equations corresponding to two different kinds of waves. The first solution satisfies ${\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{E}}}=0$, so that it corresponds to the standard solution to Maxwell’s equations when the nonlocality is overlooked. Equations and become $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{\nabla}\times {\mathbf{E}}} &= i\omega \mu_0 {\mathbf{H}}\\ {\mathbf{\nabla}\times {\mathbf{H}}} &= -i\omega \epsilon_0 \epsilon {\mathbf{E}},\end{aligned}$$ Finally all the fields satisfy Helmholtz’s equation $$\nabla^2 {\mathbf{H}} +\epsilon\,k_0^2 {\mathbf{H}}={\mathbf{0}}\label{eq:helmholtz},$$ where $k_0=\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}$. Since the divergence of the electric field is zero, the electric field is orthogonal to the wavevector when the wave is propagative, which means it is transverse. The dispersion relation for these transverse waves is thus $${\mathbf{k}}^2=\epsilon\,k_0^2 = \epsilon\,\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}\label{eq:transverse}.$$ The second kind of solution is curl free, which means it satisfies ${\mathbf{\nabla}\times {\mathbf{E}}}={\mathbf{0}}$ and there is no accompanying magnetic field. These waves are called longitudinal because when they are propagative, the electric field is parallel to the wavevector. They correspond to bulk plasmons: oscillations of the free electron gas due to the pressure term. Since the divergence of the electric field is not identically zero, there exists a charge density inside the metal given by $$\rho = \epsilon_0 {\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{E}}}.$$ Equation , then yields the wave equation for the bulk plasmons $${\mathbf{\nabla} \left({\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{E}}}\right)}-\frac{1}{\alpha}{\mathbf{E}} = \nabla^2 {\mathbf{E}}-\frac{1}{\alpha}{\mathbf{E}} = {\mathbf{0}}.\label{eq:bulk}$$ and the corresponding dispersion relation is $${\mathbf{k}}^2 = -\frac{1}{\alpha} =\frac{1}{\beta^2}\left(\omega^2 -\frac{\omega_p^2}{1+\chi_b}+ i\gamma\omega\right)\label{eq:LW}.$$ An alternative way to write this dispersion relation is $$\epsilon_{\parallel}\equiv1+\chi_b - \frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2+i\gamma\omega - \beta^2 {\mathbf{k}}^2} = 0\label{eq:e//},$$ which is the way previous works have taken $\chi_b$ into account[@fernandez12] through a so-called longitudinal permittivity. But the equation governing the polarization ${\mathbf{P}}_f$ (equation ) cannot be deduced from the longitudinal permittivity using a simple Fourier transform[@mcmahon09; @mcmahon10], as has been previously pointed out[@raza11]. ![Dispersion relation for transverse waves (thick lines) and bulk plasmons (thin lines) when (a) the nonlocality is absent ($\beta=0$) and (b) the nonlocality is important. The dashed lines show the imaginary parts of the propagation constants for the transverse and longitudinal waves, below the plasma frequency $\omega_p$. When nonlocality is present, for a given $\omega$ two waves must be taken into account.(color online)\[fig:disp\]](dispersion.eps){width="8cm"} The dispersion relations, Eqs. and , are plotted in Fig. \[fig:disp\] for two cases of the nonlocal parameter $\beta$, for the simplified case where $\epsilon = 1-\frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2}$. For small $\beta$, the longitudinal mode disperses very little, and can be generally ignored in wave propagation problems. When $\beta$ is nonzero, however, the longitudinal mode acquires dispersion, and is generally present at a given frequency of excitation. Above the plasma frequency, both the transverse and longitudinal modes are propagating, while below the plasma frequency both modes decay exponentially. In considering boundary value problems, it is clear that a wave incident on a half space filled with a nonlocal, plasmonic medium will generally couple to both types of waves. To avoid the system being underdetermined, an additional boundary condition must be used as will be discussed in the subsequent section. ![A simple interface between a dielectric and a metal.\[fig:schema0\]](schema0.eps){width="8cm"} Let us now consider a multilayered structure, that could be as simple as the single interface shown in figure \[fig:schema0\], invariant in two directions, here taken as $x$ and $y$. The $z$ axis is thus perpendicular to any interface considered, as shown in Fig. \[fig:schema0\]. Without any loss of generality, it is possible to assume solutions that are translationally invariant along the $y$ (out-of-plane) direction. As shown in the appendix, the system of equations and can be split into two subsystems corresponding to $s$ (electric field polarized perpendicular to the plane of incidence) and $p$ (magnetic field polarized perpendicular to the plane of incidence) polarizations. Moreover, we will assume from now on that all the fields present an $x$ dependence that varies as $e^{ik_x\,x}$ (or, equivalently, we take the Fourier transform along the $x$ axis). For the $s$ polarization, ${\mathbf{\nabla}\times {\mathbf{E}}}={\mathbf{0}}$ yields $E_y=0$, so that no bulk plasmon can be excited. Nonlocality has then no impact on this polarization, so that we will deal in the following with $p$ polarization only. Equation then yields $$\partial_z^2 H_y = -(\epsilon\,k_0^2-k_x^2)\,H_y,$$ so that the magnetic field can be written $$H_y = (A\,e^{i{k_z}_t\,z}+B\,e^{-i{k_z}_t\,z})\,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}$$ with ${k_z}_t =\sqrt{\epsilon\, k_0^2 -k_x^2}$ where $k_0 = \frac{\omega}{c}$. The $E_x$ and $E_z$ accompanying fields can be found using equations $$\begin{aligned} E_x &= \frac{1}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_z H_y\label{eq:Ex}\\ E_z &=-\frac{1}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_x H_y\label{eq:Ez}.\end{aligned}$$ For longitudinal waves, the wave equation becomes $$\partial_z^2 E_x = \left(k_x^2+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\,E_x \,.$$ For normal incidence (for $k_x = 0$), depending whether $\omega$ is smaller or larger than $\frac{\omega_p}{\sqrt{1+\chi_b}}$, the bulk plasmon will be respectively evanescent ($\Re (\alpha) >0$) or propagative ($\Re (\alpha) < 0$) . In the visible range, we usually have $\omega<\frac{\omega_p}{\sqrt{1+\chi_b}}$ so that the bulk plasmon is evanescent and the above equation can be solved to yield $$E_x = (C\,e^{\kappa_l\,z}+D\,e^{-\kappa_l\,z})\,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \kappa_l^2 &= \frac{1}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{\omega_p^2}{1+\chi_b}-\omega^2 -i\gamma\omega\right)+k_x^2\\ &= k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+\frac{1}{1+\chi_b}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The fact that longitudinal waves are curl-free yields $$E_z = \frac{1}{ik_x}\partial_z E_x,$$ which allows determination of the contribution of the bulk plasmon to $E_z$ if needed. Additional boundary conditions\[abc\] ===================================== The nonlocal nature of the metal results in the appearance of a longitudinal bulk plasmon mode that can be excited from the metal interface, in addition to the surface-localized plasmon polariton. The well-known Maxwell’s boundary conditions are not sufficient to uniquely define the amplitudes of these independent waves. More specifically, for each metallic layer, two new unknowns are introduced and must be resolved in the solution of the electromagnetic boundary value problem. To avoid dealing with an underdetermined problem then, *additional boundary conditions* must be imposed at the metal interface. The issue of boundary conditions has been abundantly discussed in the context of spatially dispersive crystals, and a variety of different boundary conditions has been proposed[@agranovich; @halevi84]. In the context of the hydrodynamic model, the choice of boundary conditions is much simpler[@boardman82; @forstmann86], essentially because fewer types of waves are involved. Two additional boundary conditions are typically considered in the case of an interface between a metal and a dielectric, when the contribution of the bound electrons is overlooked: either (i) $P_{z}=0$[@boardman82; @forstmann86] or (ii) the continuity of $E_z$[@ruppin05; @fernandez12]. If the considered dielectric is vacuum, then these two conditions are equivalent. Condition (i) can be justified because the polarization in the metal is due to actual currents; since the electrons are not allowed to leave the metal, then the normal current must vanish at the interface and also the polarization. Condition (ii) can be justified by treating the interface as smooth for all fields, including the normal component of the electric field. In our description of the response of metals, the susceptibility attributed to bound electrons, $\chi_b$ is considered purely local. One might expect that the equation ${\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{}}}{D} = 0$ would impose a supplementary condition (namely the continuity of $D_z$), leaving no freedom in the choice of the boundary condition. This is however not the case: in multilayered systems, the continuity of $H_y$ through an interface implies the continuity of $D_z$, so that an additional boundary condition is still required. The response of the metal in our description is partly the response of a standard dielectric medium, so that there is no reason to assume the continuity of $E_z$ at the surface of the metal. Condition (ii) thus appears very difficult to support when the contribution of bound electrons is taken into account as a local, polarizable medium. The underlying physics[@boardman82; @forstmann86] behind condition (i), that free electrons cannot escape the metal, does however not lead here to $P_z=0$ at the edge of the metal because not all the polarization comes from actual currents in the free electron gas. It is thus not reasonable to use boundary condition (i) for the case when bound electrons contribute to the polarization response. It would be physically reasonable to consider that only the polarization linked to actual current leaving the metal should be zero at the interface between a metal and a dielectric. For multilayered structures, this condition can be written $${P_{f}}_z = 0.$$ at the interface as an additional boundary condition. We underscore that this boundary condition is [*not*]{} equivalent to conditions (i) and (ii) when the outside medium is vacuum. In the case of an interface between two metals, again, condition (i) is hard to justify, but the interface obviously should not be considered as impervious to free electrons. Instead, it would sound to consider that the currents, and thus the polarization ${\mathbf{P}}_f$, should be continuous. This would actually provide the two additional boundary conditions that are required for an interface between two metals. Although we will not consider here structures involving such an interface, we emphasize that taking into account the contribution of bound electrons to the response of metals seem to lead to unambiguous boundary conditions based on physical reasoning. Reflection from a metallic surface\[reflection\] ================================================ Let us now consider an incident plane wave coming from above ($z>0$) and propagating in a dielectric medium with a permittivity $\epsilon_d$, reflected by a metallic interface located at $z=0$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:schema0\] - the metal being characterized by a permittivity $\epsilon$. For $p$ polarization, the magnetic field in the dielectric region can be then written $$H_y = \left( e^{-ik_z\,z} + r\, e^{ik_z\,z} \right) \,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}$$ where $k_z = \sqrt{\epsilon_d\,k_0^2 - k_x^2}$ and $k_0 = \frac{\omega}{c}$, while the electric field along the $x$ direction has the form $$E_x=\frac{ik_z}{i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon_d}\,\left(r\, e^{ik_z\,z}-e^{-ik_z\,z}\right)\,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}.$$ In the metal, the magnetic field can be written $$H_y = A \,e^{\kappa_t\,z}\,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}$$ where $\kappa_t = \sqrt{k_x^2-\epsilon\,k_0^2}$, and the electric field $$\begin{aligned} E_x &=\left(\frac{\kappa_t}{i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon} A \,e^{\kappa_t\,z} +B\,e^{\kappa_l\,z} \right)\,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}\\ E_z &=\left(-\frac{ik_x}{i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon} A \,e^{\kappa_t\,z} +\frac{\kappa_l}{ik_x}\,B\,e^{\kappa_l\,z} \right)\,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}.\end{aligned}$$ The magnetic field $H_y$ and the $x$ component of the electric field $E_x$ are continuous at $z=0$ so that $$\begin{aligned} 1+r &= A\\ (r-1) \frac{ik_z}{\epsilon_d} &= \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon}\,A + i\omega\epsilon_0 \,B.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${P_{f}}_z = -\frac{1}{i\omega} \,\partial_x H_y -\epsilon_0 (1+\chi_b)\,E_z$, the condition ${P_{f}}_z=0$ in the metal at the interface, can be written $$ik_x\,A\,\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \frac{1}{1+\chi_b} \right) =\frac{\kappa_l}{ik_x}\,i\omega\epsilon_0 \,B$$ Finally $A$ and $B$ can be eliminated to yield $$r = \frac{ \frac{ik_z}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} - \Omega }{ \frac{ik_z}{\epsilon_d} - \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} + \Omega }\label{eq:r}$$ where $$\Omega = \frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l} \left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \frac{1}{1+\chi_b} \right)\label{eq:Omega}$$ The reflection coefficient indicates that the bulk plasmon is not excited at normal incidence for $k_x=0$ because in that case only one component of the electric field is present in the incident and reflected fields. When the angle of incidence increases the excitation of the bulk plasmon is more and more important because of the increasing $E_z$ component. Of course $\kappa_l$ is increasing too, which means that the bulk plasmon penetration is more shallow, but only slightly - so that the $\Omega$ increases essentially as $k_x^2$. Surface plasmon\[sp\] ===================== If the field is not propagative in the dielectric region, but has the form $$H_y = \left( C\,e^{\kappa_z\,z} + D\,e^{-\kappa_z\,z} \right) \,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}$$ with $\kappa_z = \sqrt{k_x^2 - \epsilon_d \,k_0^2} = -ik_z$, then it is meaningless to define a reflection coefficient , but still we can write that $$\frac{D}{C} = \frac{ \frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} - \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} + \Omega }{ \frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} - \Omega }\label{eq:r2}$$ The surface plasmon is a solution for which $D\neq 0$ and $C=0$, thus corresponding to a pole of the left hand side of equation , and a zero of its denominator, so that the dispersion relation can be written $$\frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} = \Omega$$ The larger the propagation constant $k_x$, the larger $\Omega$ and thus the larger the impact of nonlocality. However, for surface plasmons, very large values of $k_x$ are difficult to reach (typically, the maximum effective index is around 1.4 for a silver-air interface) as shown in figure \[fig:sp\]. The impact of nonlocality on bare surface plasmons is thus very small. In the following, we will see that for a metal-dielectric-metal waveguide with a very thin dielectric layer, the impact of nonlocality on the guided mode is much more important because very large $k_x$ values can be reached whatever the wavelength. ![Dispersion relation ($\omega$ as a function of $k_x$) for a surface plasmon at the interface between silver and air. The local description (thick solid curve) can almost not be distinguished from the nonlocal description (thick dashed curve, almost identical with the thick solid curve). In order to illustrate the effect of nonlocality, we show here (dotted line) the impact of an exaggerated nonlocality ($\beta$ multiplied by ten). The thin solid curve is $\omega=k_x\,c$.\[fig:sp\]](sp.eps){width="8cm"} The impact of boundary conditions\[others\] =========================================== The form of the reflection coefficient and to the dispersion relation above clearly show that $\Omega$ is the parameter controlling the influence of the nonlocality on propagation phenomena. Moreover, it makes manifest the consequences of a change in the boundary conditions. In the literature, the entire metal response is often attributed to the free electrons, while the response of bound electrons is neglected[@boardman82; @forstmann86; @ruppin05]. When the bound electron response is neglected, the dispersion relation of the bulk plasmon yields $$\kappa_l= \sqrt{k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+1\right)}$$ instead of $$\kappa_l= \sqrt{k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+\frac{1}{1+\chi_b}\right)}$$ where a local contribution from bound electrons is assumed[@fernandez12]. If the boundary condition with the dielectric is chosen to be the continuity of the component of the electric field normal to the interface, then we have $$\Omega = \frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l} \left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \frac{1}{\epsilon_d} \right),$$ where $\kappa_l$ can be calculated using one of the above expressions, depending on the description of the metal’s properties. When the entire polarization $P_z$ is chosen to vanish at the interface, we have instead $$\Omega = \frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l} \left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - 1 \right).$$ In the following, we will investigate all the different descriptions that are presented in table \[tab:desc\] to show that, even if they differ regarding the quantitative impact of nonlocality, they all at least agree qualitatively. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Descr. $\kappa_l^2$ A.B.C. $\Omega$ -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 $k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+1\right)$ $P_z(0) = 0$ $\frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}-1\right)$ 2 $k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+1\right)$ $E_z$ continuous $\frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\frac{1}{\epsilon_d}\right)$ 3 $k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+\frac{1}{1+\chi_b}\right)$ $P_z = 0$ $\frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}-1\right)$ 4 $k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+\frac{1}{1+\chi_b}\right)$ $E_z$ continuous $\frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l} \left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\frac{1}{\epsilon_d}\right)$ 5 $k_x^2 + \frac{\omega_p^2}{\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{\chi_f}+\frac{1}{1+\chi_b}\right)$ ${P_f}_z = 0$ $\frac{k_x^2}{\kappa_l}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\frac{1}{1+\chi_b} \right)$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : \[tab:desc\]Summary of the different descriptions of nonlocality. The first two do not consider separately the contribution from the bound electrons, the last three do. The last one is the one that is preferred in this work. Metal-dielectric-metal waveguide ================================ While the impact of nonlocality can be considered minor for the single interface problem above, nonlocal effects can be far more evident in multilayer systems. In metallo-dielectric layers, it is possible to reduce the thickness of layers to the nanometer or even sub-nanometer scale; modes that propagate in such layers can be significantly confined, to the point where local models are forced to break down. For this reason, multilayer systems and structures based on multilayers can be useful as an experimental tool to investigate and measure nonlocal effects. In this section, we consider the case of a dieletric with a permittivity $\epsilon_d$ sandwiched between two metallic surfaces (as shown in figure \[schema\]) and study more thoroughly the influence of the nonlocality of the metal on the first even guided mode (the fundamental mode). ![Metallic waveguide of width $h$.\[schema\]](schema.eps){width="8cm"} Dispersion relation ------------------- We consider here a symmetric waveguide, the metal being the same on both sides of the dielectric layer. The magnetic field in the dielectric can be written as $$H_y = \left( C\,e^{\kappa_z\,z} + D\,e^{-\kappa_z\,z} \right) \,e^{ik_x\,x-i\omega\,t}\,.$$ As we have seen in the previous section, at $z=-\frac{h}{2}$, we have $$\frac{D\,e^{\kappa_z\,\frac{h}{2}}}{C\,e^{-\kappa_z\,\frac{h}{2}}} = \frac{ \frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} - \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} + \Omega }{ \frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} - \Omega }$$ while for $z=+\frac{h}{2}$ (the $z$ axis has to be reversed, which means $C$ and $D$ should be exchanged) $$\frac{C\,e^{\kappa_z\,\frac{h}{2}}}{D\,e^{-\kappa_z\,\frac{h}{2}}} =\frac{ \frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} - \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} + \Omega }{\frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} - \Omega }.$$ Combining these two equations, we get $$e^{2\kappa_z\,h} = \left(\frac{\frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} - \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} + \Omega }{\frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} - \Omega}\right)^2 = r^2$$ and finally either the mode is symetrical ($C=D$) and we have $r=e^{\kappa_z\,h}$ which can be written $$\frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d}\tanh \frac{\kappa_z\,h}{2} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} = \Omega\label{eq:sym}$$ or the mode is antisymetrical ($C=-D$), which means $r=-e^{\kappa_z\,h}$ and finally $$\frac{\kappa_z}{\epsilon_d}\coth \frac{\kappa_z\,h}{2} + \frac{\kappa_t}{\epsilon} = \Omega.$$ Nature of the guided modes\[mdm\] --------------------------------- We first discuss the nature of the guided modes in a thin metallic waveguide. There are two situations that are clear and for which the guided modes of the structure have well-posed definitions[@maier07] : - The perfect metallic waveguide, which supports a [ *fundamental mode*]{} that is flat and that has no cut-off (it is supported whatever the thickness of the metallic waveguide). In addition, we have analytical expressions for the propagation constant and field profile of all the modes. For the fundamental mode, we have $$k_x^2 = \epsilon_d \,k_0^2$$ - The plasmonic ([*i.e.*]{} wide) metallic waveguide, which supports [ *coupled surface plasmons*]{}[@maier07]. At a given frequency and for a wide enough guide, the even and the odd surface plasmon modes present propagation constants that can be arbitrarily close to the propagation constant of the surface plasmon $$k_x = k_0 \,\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_d\,\epsilon(\omega)}{\epsilon_d+\epsilon(\omega)}},$$ even for complex values of $\epsilon(\omega)$. For the case of a thin (a few nanometers) waveguide we seek the best description to retain for the only guided mode found. Consider the case of coupled surface plasmons first. We can approach the condition of a perfect metallic waveguide by making the permittivity of the metal change such that its real part tends towards infinity. As can be seen in figure\[fig:e\_au\] the odd mode tends towards the fundamental mode but the field inside the dielectric (index of 1.58) always stays evanescent. The even mode tends towards the first even mode of the perfect metallic waveguide and the field becomes propagative at some point (where the real part of the propagation constant becomes smaller than the optical index of the dielectric). The point at which the field of the even mode becomes propagative could even be defined as a limit between the “coupled surface plasmon” and the “perfect metallic waveguide” pictures. ![Trajectory in the complex plane of the quantity $\frac{k_x}{k_0}$ for three different waveguided modes (solid line: first even mode; dashed line: first odd mode ; dotted line: second even mode) when the permittivity of the metal goes from $\epsilon=-10+i$ (circles) to $\epsilon=-2000+i$, for a thickness of the waveguide of 500 nm and a dielectric with an 1.58 optical index. The intermediate value of $-100+i$ is indicated on the curves.\[fig:e\_au\]](fig_mp.eps){width="8cm"} Now consider starting with a large waveguide (500 nm) and decreasing its width down to a few nanometers. As can be seen in figure \[fig:h\], the even mode presents an increasing propagation constant. The odd mode, by contrast, presents a decreasing propagation constant - the field in the dielectric even becomes propagative as in the previous case. For thin layers (smaller than 128 nm here) this mode presents a very large imaginary part and a very small real part: it can be considered as evanescent in the $x$ direction even if the cut-off cannot be defined precisely. ![Trajectory in the complex plane of the quantity $\frac{k_x}{k_0}$ for three different waveguided modes (solide line: first even mode; dashed line: first odd mode ; dotted line: second even mode) when the width of the metal goes from 380 nm (circles) to 10 nm. The permittivity of the metal is taken equal to the permittivity of gold at 608 nm, $\epsilon\simeq -10.01+1.44i$. Intermediate thickness of $221$ nm (when the real part of the index of the odd mode becomes smaller than 1.58, so that the coupled plasmon picture becomes less relevant), $128$ nm (when the odd mode can be considered non-propagative, and the coupled plasmon picture is not relevant any more) and $50$ nm are indicated on the curves. \[fig:h\].](fig_h.eps){width="8cm"} For a small dielectric thickness, the waveguide thus behaves much more like a perfect metallic waveguide (a fundamental mode with no cut-off, no propagative even mode) and except for the fact that the field of the first even mode is evanescent in the $z$ direction, has not much to do with the coupled surface plasmons situation. This is why we refer to this mode as the [*fundamental mode*]{} of the waveguide. This mode is however sometimes called [*gap-plasmon*]{} in the literature[@jung09], a term that underscores the differences between the actual mode and the fundamental more of a [*perfect*]{} metallic waveguide. Nonlocal effects\[thin\] ------------------------ When the waveguide becomes extremely thin, as can be seen in figure \[fig:h\], the effective index (and thus $k_x$) of the fundamental mode (with a dispersion relation given by ) can become arbitrary large. When $k_x$ is larger, $\Omega$ is larger, which means that the non-locality has a much larger impact on the mode’s propagation constant. It is possible to compare (see figures \[fig:mode\], \[fig:log\] for a waveguide filled with a dielectric with a 1.58 optical index) the local effective index as a function of the waveguide’s width with a local and with a nonlocal theory. Obviously the impact of nonlocality is limited for $h>5$ nm but it can become very important under that threshold. The parameters we have considered for gold are given in [@rakic98] and $\beta = 1.27.10^6$ m/s[@scalora10; @ciraci12]. ![Effective index of the guided mode at 600 nm, as a function of the dielectric width, $h$. The dispersion relations are shown for different descriptions (see table \[tab:desc\]): the completely local case (thin black curve, top), $P_z(0)=0$ (description 1, dash-dotted line) and $E_z$ continuous (description 2, dashed line) with no identified contribution of the bound electrons, and descriptions separating the contributions of bound and free electrons, with $P_z=0$ (description 3, dash-double dotted line), a continuous $E_z$ (description 4, thin dash line) and finally our description (description 5, thick solid curve), that is preferred in this work.\[fig:mode\]](mode.eps){width="8cm"} ![Same as figure \[fig:mode\] except for the log scale.\[fig:log\]](mode_log.eps){width="8cm"} Since different descriptions of nonlocality exist in the literature, we have compared our approach to the other descriptions available (different boundary conditions, as well as considering that the whole response of the medium is nonlocal or not, as described in section \[others\] and summarize in table \[tab:desc\]). The hydrodynamic model is often said to exaggerate nonlocal effects. It could be expected that taking into account the response of the bound electrons, which can be considered as local, would lower the impact of nonlocality on the guided mode compared to when the whole response of the metal is considered nonlocal. Figures \[fig:mode\] and \[fig:log\] show that this is paradoxically not the case when the boundary condition that we consider as being the most physical (${P_f}_z=0$) is not chosen. Considering a separate response of the bound electrons actually lowers the effective plasma frequency, as explained above, which leads to a deeper penetration of the field corresponding to the bulk plasmons, which may in turn increase the importance of this field (depending, of course, on the boundary conditions). When the condition we propose is used, the impact of nonlocality is even lower than when considering a completely nonlocal response of the metal and using $P_z=0$. This actually makes us think the boundary condition we propose here, is not only the most sound physically, but it may even yield an more accurate estimate of the nonlocal effects. Cavity resonances for metallic strips coupled to a metallic film\[abs\] ======================================================================= Many structures and phenomena rely on the fundamental mode of the metallic waveguide like the enhanced transmission by subwavelength slit arrays[@cao02; @moreau07; @collin07], highly absorbent gratings[@leperchec08] or strip nanoantennas[@bozhevolnyi07; @sondergaard08; @jung09; @yang12] to mention a few. The latter are patches that are invariant perpendicularly to the plane (see Fig. \[fig:schema2\]). The mode that is guided between a strip and the metallic film, whose dispersion relation is given by as long as the patch is thick enough, if reflected by the edges of the strip. The reflection coefficient $r$ of the mode can be computed easily[@moreau07] using a Fourier Modal Method[@lalanne96; @granet96]. When the strip is wide enough, Fabry-Perot resonances may occur[@jung09]. ![Strips (rods with a 50 nm by 50 nm section) are separated from the metallic film by a 3 nm thick dielectric with an optical index of 1.58. The structure considered here is periodic, with a 200 nm period.\[fig:schema2\]](schema2.eps){width="8cm"} The local energy density (and hence the absorption) should be proportional to the square of the field amplitude, given by a Fabry-Perot formula[@moreau07], yielding $$\left|{\mathbf{H}}\right|^2=\left|\frac{1}{1-r^2 \,e^{2i\,k_x\,d}}\right|^2.\label{eq:fp}$$ This model allows the accurate prediction of the position of the resonance when a purely local response of the metal is assumed, as shown figure \[fig:strips\]: the resonance predicted using model ($k_x$ being computed using dispersion relation Eq. with $\Omega=0$) occurs exactly where there is a dip in the reflectance of the nanorods covered surface. This confirms the physical analysis of the structure and that a one-mode model is sufficient to describe the resonances. As we have shown above, when nonlocality is taken into account, the propagation constant $k_x$ of the guided mode differs from the purely local case. That is why the resonances of the nanorods can be expected to be very sensitive to nonlocality when the thickness of the spacer is typically smaller than 5 nm. Full COMSOL simulations based on the hydrodynamical model with the boundary conditions we suggest in this work (description 5 in table \[tab:desc\]) show that the resonance of the structure is largely blueshifted compared to the purely local simulations. This is completely accounted for by model when using a propagation constant $k_x$ computed using the dispersion relation and keeping the same coefficient reflection $r$ as for the local case. This proves that nonlocality intervenes almost only through the change of the propagation constant of the guided mode, and not at all through a change of the reflection coefficient. ![Bottom : Reflection spectrum according to local (RCWA, dashed line) and nonlocal (COMSOL, solid line) simulations. Top : Model for the field intensity under the strips for the local (dashed line) and nonlocal (solid line) theory. The agreement between the simulations and the model are in excellent agreement for the local as well as for the nonlocal theory.\[fig:strips\]](strips.eps){width="8cm"} Such structures, or structures presenting a very similar behaviour[@moreau12], are obviously a way to assess experimentally the effects of nonlocality on the guided mode of the metallic waveguide with a good accuracy. Conclusion ========== We have proposed in this work an improvement of the hydrodynamic model by clearly separating the nonlocal response of the free electrons, and the response of the bound electrons, considered as local[@liebsch1995influence]. Such a distinction makes the discussion about the additional boundary conditions much more clear, leaving nothing but a single condition that seems physically sound: no current [*of free electrons*]{} leaving the metal. We have shown that this condition leads to a lower impact of the nonlocality than many other descriptions based on the hydrodynamic model. This description may thus answer two main concerns regarding this kind of models compared to Feibelman’s approach[@feibelman82; @wang11]: the uncertainty about the boundary conditions and a tendency to exagerate the effects of nonlocality. Furthermore, recent experimental results have shown that the hydrodynamical model can describe nonlocal effects very accurately[@ciraci12]. Given the reduced complexity of the hydrodynamic model relative to full quantum and other microscopic models of electron response, it is of continued interest to further explore the accuracy of these models in the context of plasmonic nanostructures. Following previous work on slot waveguides that support gap plasmons[@wang07], we have shown that the slow light regime reached when the waveguide is only a few nanometers thick is responsible for a large enhancement of the nonlocal effects. Using these results, we have studied the impact of nonlocality on patch nanoantennas and shown that it should be easy to detect, paving the way for future experiments. Our analysis is of relevance to numerous nanophotonic devices, including metallodielectric waveguides, nanoantennas and nanocavities, which rely on the excitation of gap plasmons on very thin, conducting layers for their operation[@miyazaki2006controlled; @bozhevolnyi07; @sondergaard08; @jung09; @yang12]. These resonant structures have a variety of diverse applications, for instance, as highly efficient concentrators and absorbers of light[@leperchec08; @moreau12]. The description of conductors we provide can also prove useful when testing the limits of the classical theory for describing structures containing metals or doped semiconductors, for which the response of the bound electrons are strong. As has been once more shown here, the hydrodynamic model yields analytical results that help to understand the underlying physics of nonlocality[@fuchs1981dynamical; @ruppin05]. It presents the supplementary avantage of being easy to use in simulations with complex geometries[@ciraci12]. The analytical calculations we have presented, beyond the clarification they may bring[@mcmahon09; @mcmahon10], are thus a first step towards the extension of widely used numerical methods[@granet96; @lalanne96; @krayzel10] to account accurately for nonlocality. Appendix I {#appendix-i .unnumbered} ========== Let us write equations and within the metal in Cartesian coordinates in the case where the fields do not depend on $y$ : $$\begin{aligned} -\partial_z E_y &= i\omega\,\mu_0 \,H_x\\ \partial_z E_x -\partial_x E_z &= i\omega\,\mu_0 \,H_y\\ \partial_x E_y &=i\omega\,\mu_0 \,H_z\\ -\partial_z H_y &=-i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon \left(E_x -\alpha \partial_x^2 E_x -\alpha \partial_x\partial_z E_z \right)\\ \partial_z H_x - \partial_x H_z &=-i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon E_y\label{Py}\\ \partial_x H_y &=-i\omega\epsilon_0\epsilon \left(E_x -\alpha \partial_z^2 E_z -\alpha \partial_x\partial_z E_x \right)\end{aligned}$$ This system of equations can be split into two subsystems corresponding to $s$ (electric field polarized perpendicular to the plane of incidence) and $p$ (magnetic field polarized perpendicular to the plane of incidence) polarizations. The $s$ subsystem is identical to the subsystem without taking nonlocality into account, because of the simple form of equation . Nonlocality has then no impact on this polarization, so that we will deal in the following with $p$ polarization only. The subsystem concerning the $p$ polarization can be written $$\begin{aligned} \partial_z E_x -\partial_x E_z &= i\omega\,\mu_0 \,H_y\label{eq:rot}\\ -\alpha \partial^2_x E_x + E_x-\alpha \partial_x\partial_z E_z&=\frac{1}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_z H_y\label{eq:a1}\\ -\alpha \partial^2_z E_z + E_z-\alpha \partial_x\partial_z E_x&=-\frac{1}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_x H_y\label{eq:a2}\end{aligned}$$ By applying the operator $-\alpha \partial_x\partial_z$ to equation , operator $1-\alpha \partial^2_z$ to equation and subtracting one resulting equation from the other, one gets $$\left(1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)\right) E_x=\frac{\left(1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)\right)}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon} \partial_z H_y.$$ Repeating the same procedure, but applying $1-\alpha \partial^2_x$ to equation , $-\alpha \partial_x\partial_z$ to equation , and subtracting the resulting equation from the other we obtain the decoupled system of equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:vrai} \partial_z E_x -\partial_x E_z &= i\omega\,\mu_0 \,H_y\\ \left(1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)\right) E_x&=\frac{\left(1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)\right)}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon} \partial_z H_y\\ \left(1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)\right) E_z&=-\frac{\left(1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)\right)}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_x H_y.\end{aligned}$$ We can apply the inverse of the differential operator $1-\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right)$ to both sides of the equations to obtain the classical system $$\begin{aligned} \partial_z E_x -\partial_x E_z &= i\omega\,\mu_0 \,H_y\\ E_x &= \frac{1}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_z H_y\\ E_z &=-\frac{1}{i\omega \epsilon_0\,\epsilon}\partial_x H_y.\end{aligned}$$ This system is identical with that corresponding to a purely local response of the metal and its solution satisfies ${\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot {\mathbf{}}}{E}=0$. The wave that it describes is referred to as the [*transverse*]{} wave because when it is propagative, the electric field is orthogonal to the propagation vector. But to this solution should be added any solution for which $$\begin{aligned} -\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right) E_x+E_x&=0\label{long1}\\ -\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right) E_z+E_z&=0\\ -\alpha \left(\partial^2_x +\partial^2_z\right) H_y+H_y&=0.\end{aligned}$$ because it would also be a solution of system \[eq:vrai\]. Using along with and , it is not difficult to show that $H_y=0$ so that this solution satisfies $$\partial_z E_x =\partial_x E_z \label{nulcurl}.$$

--- abstract: 'We present a construction of the reaction amplitude for the inclusive production of a resonance decaying to a pair of identical vector particles such as $J/\psi J/\psi$, $\rho\rho$, $\phi\phi$, or $ZZ$. The method provides the possibility of determining the spin and parity of a resonance in a model-independent way. A test of the methodology is demonstrated using the Standard Model decay of the Higgs boson to four leptons.' author: - Mikhail Mikhasenko - Liupan An - Ronan McNulty bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'The determination of the spin and parity of a vector-vector system' --- Introduction ============ The formation of hadronic matter is one of the few poorly understood parts of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). QCD is the fundamental theory of the strong interaction, but the quarks and gluons that constitute its degrees of freedom can only be resolved in hard processes with large momentum transfer. At lower energy scales where hadrons emerge, perturbative QCD is not applicable. The quark model (QM) [@GellMann:1964nj; @Godfrey:1985xj] works well in classifying conventional hadronic states into mesons and baryons built from the constituent quarks bound in the confined potential. Hadrons beyond conventional mesons and baryons, such as glueballs containing constituent gluons, hybrid states containing quarks and gluons, and multiquark states, are referred to as exotic hadrons [@Klempt:2007cp; @Meyer:2015eta]. They are allowed by the QM, however they have not been seen experimentally until recently. Over the last decade overwhelming evidence has accumulated for exotic hadrons that include the observation of $XYZ$ states in the charmonium spectrum [@Godfrey:2008nc], pentaquark states [@Aaij:2015tga; @Aaij:2019vzc], as well as resonance-like phenomena from the triangle singularity in hadron scattering [@Alexeev:2020lvq]. Nevertheless, the overall picture and the categorisation of these states remain unclear. The spin-parity of the observed exotic hadrons is a critical part of the formation puzzle. In most cases it can be accessed experimentally but the separation of the different spin-parity hypotheses is often rather cumbersome and requires a case-by-case treatment. In this paper we address the problem of the spin-parity assignment for a system of two identical vectors that decay to a pair of leptons or a pair of scalar particles. Amongst the many applications of the presented framework, we note three in particular. First, it facilitates future studies of the resonance-like structure in the $J/\psi J/\psi$ spectrum recently reported by LHCb [@Aaij:2020fnh]. The knowledge of its quantum numbers will help to understand the mechanism for the binding of four charm quarks [@Liu:2019zoy]. Second, it can be applied in investigations of the central exclusive production (CEP) of vector-meson pairs. The colour-free gluon-rich production mechanism of CEP makes the $\rho\rho$ [@Armstrong:1989jk; @Abatzis:1994ym; @Osterberg:2014mta] and $\phi\phi$ [@Barberis:2000em; @Lebiedowicz:2019jru] channels particularly suited to searches for glueballs. The proposed approach sets the ground for a complete partial wave analysis of the high statistics CEP of four scalar mesons that should be possible with modern LHC data. Third, one finds the same vector-vector signature in the Standard Model (SM) decay of the Higgs boson, $H\to ZZ$. In studies of the spin-parity quantum numbers of the Higgs boson performed by both the ATLAS [@Aad:2013xqa] and CMS [@Chatrchyan:2012jja] collaborations, to reach the conclusion that the observed Higgs boson is consistent with the $0^+$ hypothesis, several phenomenological models were compared using the combined datasets from several decay channels. In contrast, here we discuss the anatomy of an assumption-free approach. The two key constraints that determine the decay properties are parity conservation and permutation symmetry. One consequence of these constraints is the Landau-Yang theorem [@Yang:1950rg; @Landau:1948kw], which states that a massive boson with $J^P = 1^\pm$ cannot decay into two on-shell photons. The statement follows naturally from the general equations we provide. Moreover, the extension of the selection rule to all natural quantum numbers with odd spin is easily obtained. A parity-signature test for a signal in the $\phi\phi$ system has been discussed in the past by several authors [@Chang:1978jb; @Trueman:1978kh]. We derive results consistent with previous work using modern conventions on the state vectors and rotation matrices. In addition, we suggest exploring the spin-parity hypothesis using the full power of multidimensional test statistics. The paper is organized as follows. The reaction amplitude is presented in Sec. \[sec:reaction.amplitude\]. In Sec. \[sec:symmetries\] the symmetry constraints are discussed. We propose a test statistic discriminator in Sec. \[sec:test.statistics\], and demonstrate the method on the SM $H\to ZZ$ decay in Sec. \[sec:higgs\]. Conclusions are presented in Sec. \[sec:conclude\]. Angular amplitude {#sec:reaction.amplitude} ================= We focus on the inclusive production process $p p'\to X + \dots$, where $X$ is a resonance decaying to two vector mesons. Although the vector mesons are identical, it is convenient to distinguish them in the reaction amplitude calling them $V_1$ and $V_2$. In that way, we can make sure that the amplitude is symmetric under the permutation of indices $1$ and $2$. When the decay modes of the two vectors are identical, namely $X\to V(l_1^+l_1^-)V(l_2^+l_2^-)$, one needs to account for the symmetrized process $X\to V(l_1^+l_2^-)V(l_1^+l_2^-)$ and the interference between the two decay chains. For narrow resonances, the interference is minor and is neglected in the following discussion. The calculation of interference effects lies beyond the scope of this paper. The production frame is set up in the rest frame of $X$ as a plane that contains the three-vectors of the production reaction, i.e.  $\vec p$ and $\vec p\,'$. The normal to the plane gives the $y$ axis ($\vec p\,'\times \vec p$) as shown in Fig. \[fig:production\]. The Gottfried-Jackson (GJ) frame is used to define the $x$ and $z$ axes in the production plane [@Gottfried:1964nx], where the $z$ axis is defined along the direction of $\vec p$. The choice of $x$ and $z$ axes is not unique: two other common definitions of the production frame are the helicity (HX) frame, where the $z$ axis is defined by the direction of motion of $X$ itself in the lab frame [@Jacob:1959at], and the Collins-Soper (CS) frame in which $z$ is defined by the bisector of the angle between $\vec p$ and $\vec p\,'$ [@Collins:1977iv]. ![Schematic view of the production kinematics of the $X$ state in $pp$ collisions. The Gottfried-Jackson frame is used: the axes are defined in the rest frame of $X$ by the vectors of the beam particles: $\vec z = \vec p / |\vec p|$, $\vec y = \vec p' \times \vec p / |\vec p' \times \vec p|$, $\vec x = \vec y \times \vec z$. The spherical angles $(\theta,\phi)$ are the angles of one of the two decay vectors in the GJ frame. The black arrows shows the three-vectors of the particles. The three-momenta of the vector mesons are labeled by $V$. []{data-label="fig:production"}](production_GJ.pdf){width="60.00000%"} We note that a negligibly small polarization is measured in the prompt production of charmonium (“head on” collisions) [@Aaij:2013nlm; @Chatrchyan:2012woa; @CDF:2011ag; @Aaij:2013oxa; @Sirunyan:2018bfd]. In contrast, for peripheral processes, e.g. central exclusive production, a significant polarization is expected [@Pasechnik:2010pq]. Therefore we consider the general case of an arbitrary polarization of $X$. The full kinematics of the decay is described by 6 angles: a pair of spherical angles $\Omega = (\theta,\phi)$ of the momentum of $V_1$ in the GJ frame, and two pairs of spherical angles $\Omega_i = (\theta_i,\phi_i)$, $i=1,2$ for the decays of the vector mesons $V_i$ in their own HX frames, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:decay\]. The angles $\phi_i$ can also be defined in the $X$ rest frame as shown in Fig. \[fig:decay\] since they are not affected by the boosts along the vector-meson directions of momentum. The spin of the decay particle $X$ defines the rotational properties of the system of decay products [@Mikhasenko:2019rjf]. Every configuration of the three-momenta of the final-state particles in the $X$ rest frame can be considered as a solid body for which the orientation is described by three angles: the pair of spherical angles $(\theta,\phi)$ that describe the direction of $\vec p_{V_1}$, and $\phi_1$, the azimuthal direction of $l^+$ (see Fig. \[fig:production\] and Fig. \[fig:decay\]). We consider the decay $X\to V(l^+l^-)V(l^+l^-)$ in the following: small modifications needed for vector decays to scalars $X\to V(S^+S^-)V(S^+S^-)$ are given in Appendix \[sec:KKKK\]. The normalized differential cross section denoted by the intensity $I$ reads: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:I.6} I(\Omega,\Omega_1,\Omega_2) &= (2J+1) \sum_{M,M'}R_{M,M'}\, \sum_{\nu,\nu'}D_{M,\nu}^{J}(\phi,\theta,\phi_1) D_{M',\nu'}^{J*}(\phi,\theta,\phi_1) \\ \nonumber &\qquad\times \sum_{\xi_1,\xi_2}^{\{-1,1\}}A^{\nu}_{\xi_1,\xi_2}(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi) A^{\nu'*}_{\xi_1,\xi_2}(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi),\end{aligned}$$ where the production and decay parts of the amplitude are explicitly separated. The spin of $X$ is denoted by $J$ and $M$ is its spin projection onto the $z$ axis. The definition of the Wigner D-function can be found in Ref. [@Collins:1977iv]. The production dynamics are encapsulated in the polarization matrix $R_{M,M'}$. The decay amplitude is denoted by $A^{\nu}_{\xi_1,\xi_2}$, where $\nu$ is the difference of the vector-meson’s helicities, $-2\leq \nu \leq 2$, and $\xi_i$ is the difference of the two leptons’ helicities in the decay of $V_i$, $-1\leq \xi_i \leq 1$, $i=1,2$. As $\xi_i=0$ is suppressed by $m_l/m_{V}$ for the electromagnetic transition, we omit it in the summation. The remaining $V\to l^+l^-$ helicity couplings give an overall constant. The decay amplitude is described by the remaining three angles, $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, and $\Delta\phi = \phi_2+\phi_1$ (see Fig. \[fig:decay\]), and is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:decay.A} A^{\nu}_{\xi_1,\xi_2}(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi) &= \frac{3}{2} \sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \delta_{\nu,\lambda_1-\lambda_2} (-1)^{1-\lambda_2} H_{\lambda_1\lambda_2} d_{\lambda_1,\xi_1}^{1}(\theta_1) d_{\lambda_2,\xi_2}^{1}(\theta_2) e^{i\lambda_2 \Delta\phi}.\end{aligned}$$ The factor $(-1)^{1-\lambda_2}$ is related to the Jacob-Wick particle-2 phase convention [@Jacob:1959at]. Once the phase is factored out of the helicity coupling matrix $H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$, the symmetry relations for $H$ are significantly simpler as presented in the next section. ![Schematic view of the $X\to V(l^+l^-)\,V(l^+l^-)$ decay kinematics. The central three planes show the orientation of the vector mesons in the $X$ rest frame. The rightmost plane shows the helicity angle $\theta_1$ for the $V_1$ decay in the rest frame of the two leptons while the leftmost plane shows the helicity for the $V_2$ decay in the rest frame of the other pair of leptons. The $x_i$ axes indicate the directions with respect to which the azimuthal angles of the positive leptons are measured in the decays of the vector mesons. []{data-label="fig:decay"}](angles.pdf){width="80.00000%"} Symmetry constraints {#sec:symmetries} ==================== The matrix of the helicity couplings is strictly defined by $$\label{eq:helicity.def} H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} = {\ensuremath{\left\langle JM;\lambda_1,\lambda_2\right|}}\hat{T}{\ensuremath{\left|JM\right\rangle}},$$ where the bra-state is the projected two-particle state in the particle-2 phase convention, the ket-state is the decaying state with the defined $J$ and $M$ in the GJ frame, and $T$ is the interaction operator [@Martin:1970xx; @Collins:1977jy]. The matrix is constrained by parity and permutation symmetry. Parity transformation relates the opposite values of the vectors’ helicities: $$\label{eq:parity} H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} = P (-1)^J H_{-\lambda_1,-\lambda_2},$$ with $P$ being the internal parity of $X$. The fact that the two vector mesons are identical relates the helicity matrix with the transposed one: $$\label{eq:permutation} H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} = (-1)^J H_{\lambda_2,\lambda_1}.$$ The matrices of the helicity couplings are symmetric (anti-symmetric) for even (odd) spin $J$. group signum $s=(-1)^{J}$ naturality, $\epsilon = P(-1)^{J}$ explicit $J^P$ ----------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------- [$I$]{} even($+$) natural($+$) , $2^+$, $4^+$, $6^+$ [${I\!I}$]{} even($+$) unnatural($-$) , $2^-$, $4^-$, $6^-$ [${I\!I\!I}$]{} odd($-$) natural($+$) $1^-$, $3^-$, $5^-$, $7^-$ [${I\!V}$]{} odd($-$) unnatural($-$) , $3^+$, $5^+$, $7^+$ : Possible quantum numbers of the decaying particle $X$ separated into four groups with respect to the symmetry of the helicity matrix. The framed quantum numbers in the last column have additional restrictions due to the maximal value of the spin projection.[]{data-label="tab:couplings"} The relations in Eq.  and Eq.  greatly reduce the number of free components of the helicity matrix, which can in general be written as $$\begin{aligned} H &= \begin{pmatrix} b & a & c\\ s\,a & d & \epsilon s\, a \\ \epsilon\,c & \epsilon\,a & \epsilon\,b\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are the helicity couplings, $\epsilon = P(-1)^J$ is the naturality of $X$, and the signum, $s$, determined by whether the spin of $X$ is odd or even, is given by $(-1)^J$. According to the values of $\epsilon$ and $s$, all possible quantum numbers $J^P$ are split into four groups as shown in Table \[tab:couplings\]. The helicity matrix for each groups is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:matrices} {\ensuremath{I}}\Rightarrow& \begin{pmatrix} b & a & c\\ a & d & a\\ c & a & b \end{pmatrix},& {\ensuremath{{I\!I}}}\Rightarrow& \begin{pmatrix} b & a & \\ a & & -a\\ & -a & -b \end{pmatrix},& {\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}\Rightarrow& \begin{pmatrix} & a & \\ -a & & -a\\ & a & \end{pmatrix},& {\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}\Rightarrow& \begin{pmatrix} & a & c\\ -a & & a\\ -c & -a & \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are complex helicity couplings, however several of them vanish for specific groups: $c=d = 0$ for group ${\ensuremath{{I\!I}}}$; $b=c=d=0$ for group ${\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}$; and $b=d=0$ for group ${\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}$. There are three special cases for low $J^P$ where additional helicity couplings vanish due to the requirement $|\lambda_1-\lambda_2| \leq J$: $0^+$ in group ${\ensuremath{I}}$, for which $a=c=0$; $0^-$ in group ${\ensuremath{{I\!I}}}$ with $a=0$; and $1^+$ in group ${\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}$ with $c=0$. The helicity matrices of different groups are orthogonal to each other given the scalar product $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sc.prod} (H_1\cdot H_2) = \mathrm{Tr}(H_1 H_2^\dagger).\end{aligned}$$ They produce generally different angular distributions except for a few degenerate cases discussed below. The scalar product in Eq.  is used to fix the normalization of $H$ and gives the relation between the helicity couplings: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:norn} (H\cdot H) = 4|a|^{2}+2|b|^{2}+2|c|^{2}+|d|^{2} = 1.\end{aligned}$$ The form of the helicity matrices in Eq.  immediately leads to the conclusion of the Landau-Yang theorem [@Yang:1950rg; @Landau:1948kw]. For the decay of $X$ to a pair of real photons, $H_{0,\lambda} = H_{\lambda,0} = 0$, as the photon cannot carry the longitudinal polarization, $\lambda=0$. Practically, this corresponds to setting to zero the second row and second column of the helicity matrix. The matrix of group ${\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}$ completely vanishes, hence, mesons with odd-natural $J^P$ cannot decay to two real photons. The special case of group ${\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}$ with $c=0$ also vanishes so the decay of $J^P=1^+$ to two real photons is also forbidden. It is often convenient to simplify the problem and consider only observables that are insensitive to the initial polarization. Once the decay plane orientation is integrated over in Eq. , the production polarization matrix $R$ collapses to its trace. Indeed, using the properties of the Wigner D-function and the normalization of $R$, $\mathrm{Tr}\,R = 1$ we find that $$\label{eq:intensity.3} I(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi) = \int \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega\,{\mathrm{d}}\phi_1}{8\pi^2} I(\Omega,\Omega_1,\Omega_2) = \sum_{\nu=-2}^{2} \sum_{\xi_1,\xi_2}^{\{-1,1\}}|A^{\nu}_{\xi_1,\xi_2}(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi)|^2.$$ This intensity is a polynomial on trigonometric functions of the angles with the coefficients determined by the helicity couplings. For practical convenience we provide an explicit form of this expression calculated for the general matrix $H$: $$\begin{aligned} I(\theta_1,\theta_2, \Delta\phi) = \sum_{i=1}^{6} c_i f_i(\theta_1,\theta_2, \Delta\phi) \label{eq:practical}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_i$ are normalized angular functions and $c_i$ are coefficients that depend on the helicity couplings. The functional forms for $f_i$ and $c_i$ are given in Table \[tab:my\_label\]. $i$ angular functions, $f_i$ coeff. $c_i$ for $X\to V(l^+l^-)V(l^+l^-)$ coeff. $c_i$, for $X\to V(S^+S^-)V(S^+S^-)$ ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- $1$ $9\sin^{2}{\left (\theta_{1} \right )} \sin^{2}{\left (\theta_{2} \right )} \sin^{2}{\left (\Delta\phi \right )} /2$ $-\epsilon |b|^{2}/2$ $- 2 \epsilon |b|^{2}$ $2$ $\sin{\left (\theta_{1} \right )} \sin{\left (\theta_{2} \right )} \cos{\left (\theta_{1} \right )} \cos{\left (\theta_{2} \right )} \cos{\left (\Delta \phi \right )}$ $(18 \epsilon |a|^{2} s - 9(\epsilon+1) \mathrm{Re}\,(b^* d))/4$ $18 \epsilon |a|^{2} s - 9(\epsilon+1) \mathrm{Re}\,(b^* d)$ $3$ $9\sin^{2}{\left (\theta_{1} \right )} \sin^{2}{\left (\theta_{2} \right )}/4$ $(2 \epsilon |b|^{2} - 8 |a|^{2} + 2 |b|^{2} + 2 |c|^{2} + 4 |d|^{2})/4$ $2 \epsilon |b|^{2} - 8 |a|^{2} + 2 |b|^{2} + 2 |c|^{2} + 4 |d|^{2}$ $4$ $3\sin^{2}{\left (\theta_{1} \right )}/2$ $(6 |a|^{2} - 3 (|b|^{2}+|c|^{2}))/2$ $6 |a|^{2} - 6 |d|^{2}$ $5$ $3\sin^{2}{\left (\theta_{2} \right )}/2$ $(6 |a|^{2} - 3 (|b|^{2}+|c|^{2}))/2$ $6 |a|^{2} - 6 |d|^{2}$ $6$ $1$ $9(|b|^{2}+|c|^{2})/2$ $9 |d|^{2}$ : Basis functions and coefficients for the three-dimensional angular distribution $I(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi)$ as expressed in Eq.  for final states consisting of four leptons or four scalar particles. \[tab:my\_label\] There are potential cases where different hypotheses are not distinguishable. If $a$ is the only non-zero helicity coupling, the values of $\epsilon$ and $s$ that distinguish different groups enter only as the product $\epsilon s$. Hence, in this case, group-${\ensuremath{{I\!I}}}$ is indistinguishable from group-${\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}$, and group-${\ensuremath{I}}$ has the same angular distributions as group-${\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}$. Such vanishing of the helicity couplings, however, is an exceptional case and indicates some other symmetry or additional selection rule. Testing hypotheses {#sec:test.statistics} ================== Given a set of data corresponding to the decay of particle $X$, the questions arises as to how well its spin and parity can be determined using the angular distributions. The most powerful method for testing a spin-parity hypotheses is a multidimensional fit, which takes into account the correlations between the angular variables. We confine ourselves here to a three dimensional analysis removing the polarization degrees of freedom, although the discussion can be generalized to the full six-dimensional space treating the polarization as model parameters. To determine which group the particle belongs to, we define a test statistic $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:test.statistics} {\mathrm{TS}}_{G/G'} = {\mathcal{L}}_G - {\mathcal{L}}_{G'},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{L}}_G$ is the maximized value of the averaged log likelihood for group $G$ and is given by $$\label{eq:likelihood} {\mathcal{L}}_G = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{e=1}^{N} \log I((\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi)_e|G\{\hat{h}\})$$ where the sum runs over the $N$ events in the sample. The intensity is calculated for each event, assuming it belongs to group $G$ with the helicity couplings $\hat{h}$ that maximize the likelihood. Alternatively, although formally less precise, one dimensional projections or moments can access the same quantities as can be seen from Eq.  and Table \[tab:my\_label\]. Integrating the intensity over $\cos\theta_1$ and $\cos\theta_2$, the distribution of $\Delta\phi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phi} I(\Delta\phi) = 1 + \beta \cos(2 \Delta\phi),\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta = P |b|^2/(4|a|^2+2|b|^2+2|c|^2+|d|^2)$. The sign of the $\cos(2\Delta\phi)$ component in given by the parity. It is positive for quantum numbers of group ${\ensuremath{I}}$, and negative for those in group ${\ensuremath{{I\!I}}}$. The decays from groups ${\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}$ would not show any $2\Delta\phi$ dependence since $b=0$ for them. The one-dimensional projection in $\cos\theta_i$, $i=1, 2$ also provides useful information on the helicity couplings: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:theta} I(\cos\theta_i) &= 1 + \zeta\,\frac{3\cos^2\theta_i-1}{2}, \quad i=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ with $\zeta = (|b|^2+|c|^2-|a|^2-|d|^2)/(4|a|^2+2|b|^2+2|c|^2+|d|^2)$. The value of $\zeta$ always falls into the range $[-1,1/2]$. Furthermore, $\zeta \geq -1/4$ for groups ${\ensuremath{{I\!I}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{{I\!V}}}$ while it must be equal to $-1/4$ for group ${\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}$. Fig. \[fig:beta.zeta.regions\] summarises the values possible for $\beta$ and $\zeta$ separated by group. ![Allowed values of $\beta$ and $\zeta$ for the four spin-parity groups.[]{data-label="fig:beta.zeta.regions"}](diagram_mu.pdf){width="55.00000%"} Testing the Standard Model Higgs decay {#sec:higgs} ====================================== The power of the test statistic defined in Eq.  is demonstrated using simulated data for the decay of the Higgs boson. The form of the helicity matrix is found by considering the interaction term of the Higgs with the gauge bosons. The covariant amplitude for $H\to ZZ$ reads: $$\label{eq:HZZ} i\mathcal{M}^{H\to ZZ} = 2i\frac{m_Z^2}{v} (\varepsilon_1^*\cdot\varepsilon_2^*),$$ where $m_Z$ is the mass of the $Z$ boson and $v$ is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. Using the explicit expressions for the polarization $\varepsilon_i(\lambda_i)$ vectors (see Appendix \[sec:polarisation.vectors\]), the special form of the matrix for group ${\ensuremath{I}}$ is $$\label{eq:H2ZZ} H^{H\to ZZ} = \frac{\mathbb{I}}{\sqrt{3}} + O(p^2/m_Z^2),$$ where $p = \sqrt{m_H^2 - 4m_Z^2}$ is the break-up momentum of the $Z$ boson in the rest frame of the Higgs boson. The identity matrix corresponds to the $S$-wave in the decay, while the $D$-wave is proportional to $p^2$ and is suppressed at the $ZZ$ threshold: furthermore, since one $Z$ must be virtual, there is a negligible contribution from the $D$ wave. In the tests presented here, we consider the decay channel $H\to Z(e^+e^-)Z(\mu^+\mu^-)$; for $Z$-boson decays to identical final states, the interference between the two decay chains must be included. ![Left: Distribution of the maximized log-likelihood functions in a series of pseudoexperiments, each of which consists of 500 generated $H\to Z(e^+e^-)Z(\mu^+\mu^-)$ decays. Right: The test statistic ${\mathrm{TS}}(0^+|1^-)$ for the sets generated with $J^P=0^+$ and $J^P=1^-$ are indicated by orange and green shading, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:TS.fixedH"}](llh_testing_higgs.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Left: Distribution of the maximized log-likelihood functions in a series of pseudoexperiments, each of which consists of 500 generated $H\to Z(e^+e^-)Z(\mu^+\mu^-)$ decays. Right: The test statistic ${\mathrm{TS}}(0^+|1^-)$ for the sets generated with $J^P=0^+$ and $J^P=1^-$ are indicated by orange and green shading, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:TS.fixedH"}](TS_0p_vs_1m.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} A sample of $500$ simulated $J^P=0^+$ events, corresponding to the helicity matrix in Eq. , were generated using a dedicated framework written in `Julia` [@julia.JpsiJpsi]. These events were fit for each group using the likelihood defined in Eq. . The results are shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:TS.fixedH\] for a series of pseudoexperiments. One sees that the group-${\ensuremath{I}}$ hypothesis has the highest likelihood on average. The separation is even larger once the test statistic from Eq.  is computed for each sample. The orange distribution in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:TS.fixedH\] shows ${\mathrm{TS}}(0^+|1^-)$, the comparison of the $J^P=0^+$ (group-${\ensuremath{I}}$ hypothesis) with a selected alternative hypothesis that is taken to be $J^P=1^-$ (group-${\ensuremath{{I\!I\!I}}}$), and it is seen that the group-${\ensuremath{I}}$ hypothesis is favoured. By contrast, a second set of pseudoexperiments was created simulating the decay of a “Higgs" boson with spin $1^-$. The same test statistic, ${\mathrm{TS}}(0^+|1^-)$, is shown by the green distribution in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:TS.fixedH\], and now generally disfavours the group-${\ensuremath{I}}$ hypothesis. Results from an analysis using the one-dimensional distributions given in Eq.  and are shown in Fig. \[fig:higgs.phi\]. The data correspond to a single pseudoexperiment with 500 simulated $H\to Z(e^+e^-)Z(\mu^+\mu^-)$ decays. Superimposed are the theoretical distributions expected from $J^P=0^+,0^-$ and $1^-$; the data agree best with the $0+$ hypothesis with the values $\beta_H = 1/6$ and $\zeta_H = 0$. An ensemble of pseudoexperiments lead to estimations for $\beta$ and $\zeta$ that are shown as inset plots and compared to the theoretical values for three spin hypothesises. The width of the distributions indicate the precision of the determination. With a data sample of 500 events, the $0^+$ and $1^-$ hypotheses are separated by about twice the uncertainty on the experimental measurement, while in contrast, the multidimensional approach has a separation of about a factor four. This shows the improvement in experimental precision that can be achieved by combining and taking account of the correlations between the angular variables. ![Distribution of the azimuthal angle $\Delta\phi$ (left) and of $\cos\theta_1$ (right) for the Higgs decay to $e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ with a single sample of $500$ simulated events generated with the $J^P=0^+$ hypothesis. The orange lines are the expectation curves under the $J^P=0^+$ hypotheses with $b=d=1/\sqrt{3}$. The blue lines give the expected dependence for the quantum numbers $J^P=0^+$ (group [${I\!I}$]{}). The distributions for $J^P=1^-$ are shown by the green lines. The inset plots show distribution of the parameters $\beta$ and $\zeta$ for an ensemble of pseudoexperiments. The coloured lines indicate the true values corresponding to each hypothesis. []{data-label="fig:higgs.phi"}](phi_higgs.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Distribution of the azimuthal angle $\Delta\phi$ (left) and of $\cos\theta_1$ (right) for the Higgs decay to $e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ with a single sample of $500$ simulated events generated with the $J^P=0^+$ hypothesis. The orange lines are the expectation curves under the $J^P=0^+$ hypotheses with $b=d=1/\sqrt{3}$. The blue lines give the expected dependence for the quantum numbers $J^P=0^+$ (group [${I\!I}$]{}). The distributions for $J^P=1^-$ are shown by the green lines. The inset plots show distribution of the parameters $\beta$ and $\zeta$ for an ensemble of pseudoexperiments. The coloured lines indicate the true values corresponding to each hypothesis. []{data-label="fig:higgs.phi"}](costheta_higgs.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} Conclusion {#sec:conclude} ========== An amplitude for the hadronic production and decay of two identical vector-mesons has been derived in a model-independent framework. For well-defined $J^P$ quantum numbers, the observed intensity has a non-trivial dependence on the angular variables that reflects the spin, parity and naturality of $J^P$. Four groups of $J^P$ can be distinguished based on angular distributions. We have given an explicit form of the expression for decays to leptons and scalar particles. Both projections of these distribution and a multidimensional discriminator have been investigated. We demonstrated the approach using the Standard Model Higgs decay to a pair of $Z$ bosons. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== The project was motivated by a discussion in the LHCb Amplitude Analysis group. We thank Biplab Dey for organizing a meeting dedicated to $X\to VV$. We would like to thank Alessandro Pilloni for useful comments on the work. Modifications for $X\to V(S^+S^-)V(S^+S^-)$ {#sec:KKKK} =========================================== The amplitude requires a small modification when a system of four scalar particles is considered, e.g. $\rho(\pi^+\pi^-)\rho(\pi^+\pi^-)$ and $\phi(K^+K^-)\phi(K^+K^-)$. The decay matrix element in Eq.  reads: $$\begin{aligned} A^{\nu}_{4S}(\theta_1,\theta_2,\Delta\phi) &= 3 \sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \delta_{\nu,\lambda_1-\lambda_2} (-1)^{1-\lambda_2} H_{\lambda_1\lambda_2} d_{\lambda_1,0}^{1}(\theta_1) d_{\lambda_2,0}^{1}(\theta_2) e^{i\lambda_2 \Delta\phi}\end{aligned}$$ where the decay $V\to S^+S^-$ proceeds in $P$-wave only. The variation in the $\Delta\phi$-dependence and $\cos\theta_1$ is more pronounced since there is no averaging over the spins of the final-state particles, $$\begin{aligned} \beta_{(S)} &= 4\beta_{(l)} = \frac{2|b|^2}{4|a|^2+2|b|^2+2|c|^2+|d|^2}, & \zeta_{(S)} &= -2\zeta_{(l)} = \frac{-2|b|^2-2|c|^2+2|a|^2+2|d|^2}{4|a|^2+2|b|^2+2|c|^2+|d|^2},\end{aligned}$$ with lower indices of $(S)$ and $(l)$ to indicate scalar and lepton particles, respectively. Polarization vectors {#sec:polarisation.vectors} ==================== To translate the covariant expression in Eq.  to a helicity amplitude, the explicit expressions for the polarization vectors are used: $$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon_z^{\mu}(\pm1) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( 0,\mp 1,-i,0 \right), & \varepsilon_z^{\mu}(0) &= \frac{1}{m_Z} \left(p,0,0,E\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $E$, $p$, and $m_Z$ are the energy, momentum, and mass of the $Z$ boson, respectively. The general expressions for the rotational vectors follow: $$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon_1(\lambda) &= R_z(\phi) R_y(\theta) \varepsilon_z(\lambda),\\ \varepsilon_2(\lambda) &= (-1)^{1-\lambda} R_z(\phi) R_y(\theta) R_y(\pi) \varepsilon_z(\lambda),\\\end{aligned}$$ where $R_y(\phi)R_y(\theta)$ is a product of the three-dimensional rotation matrices that transforms the vector $(0,0,1)$ to the direction $(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\,\cos\theta)$. The second particle obtains an additional rotation by $\pi$ about the $y$ axis since we use the particle-2 phase convention.

INJE-TP-03-06\ hep-th/0306180 [**Role of the cosmological constant in the holographic description of the early universe**]{} [Yun Soo Myung[^1]]{}\ [**[Abstract]{}**]{} We investigate the role of the cosmological constant in the holographic description of a radiation-dominated universe $C_2/R^4$ with a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$. In order to understand the nature of cosmological term, we first study the newtonian cosmology. Here we find two aspects of the cosmological term: entropy ($\Lambda \to S_{\rm \Lambda}$) and energy ($\Lambda \to E_{\rm \Lambda}$). Also we solve the Friedmann equation parametrically to obtain another role. In the presence of the cosmological constant, the solutions are described by the Weierstrass elliptic functions on torus and have modular properties. In this case one may expect to have a two-dimensional Cardy entropy formula but the cosmological constant plays a role of the modular parameter $\tau(C_2,\Lambda)$ of torus. Consequently the entropy concept of the cosmological constant is very suitable for establishing the holographic entropy bounds in the early universe. This contrasts to the role of the cosmological constant as a dark energy in the present universe. Introduction ============ Nowadays the cosmological constant plays an important role in several fields: cosmology, astronomy, particle physics and string theory. The reason is twofold. One is that the inflation turned out to be a successful tool to resolve the problems of the hot big bang model [@Infl]. Thanks to the recent observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies and large scale structure galaxy surveys, it has become widely accepted by the cosmology community [@JGB]. The idea of primordial inflation is based on the very early universe dominance of vacuum energy density of a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton. This produces the quasi-de Sitter spacetime [@Hogan] and during the slow-roll period, the equation of state can be approximated by the vacuum state as $p\approx -\rho$ like $p_{\rm \Lambda}=\omega\rho_{\rm \Lambda}, \omega=-1$ for the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ [@FKo]. The other is that an accelerating universe (with positive cosmological constant) has recently proposed to interpret the astronomical data of supernova. In this case, the cosmological constant has been identified with a dark exotic form of energy that is smoothly distributed and which contributes 2/3 to the critical density of the present universe[^2]. On the other hand we have to build cosmology from the quantum gravity for completeness, but now we are far from it. Although we are lacking for a complete understanding of the quantum gravity, there exists the holographic principle. This principle is mainly based on the idea that for a given volume $V$, the state of maximal entropy is given by the largest black hole that fits inside $V$. ’t Hooft and Susskind [@Hooft] argued that the microscopic entropy $S$ associated with the volume $V$ should be less than the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy: $S \le A/4G$ in the units of $c=\hbar=1$ [@Beke]. Here the horizon area $A$ of a black hole equals the surface area of the boundary of $V$. That is, if one reconciles quantum mechanics and gravity, the observable degrees of freedom of our three-dimensional universe comes from a two-dimensional surface. Actually holographic area bounds limit the number of physical degrees of freedom in the bulk spacetime. The implications of the holographic principle for the early universe have been investigated in the literature. Following an earlier work by Fischler and Susskind [@FS] and works in [@Hubb; @Bous], it was argued that the maximal entropy inside the universe is given by the [**Hubble entropy**]{}. This geometric entropy plays an important role in establishing the cosmological holographic principle in the early universe. Roughly speaking, the total matter entropy should be less than or equal the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the Hubble-size black hole ($\approx H V_{\rm H}/4G_{n+1}$) times the number ($N_{\rm H}\approx V/V_{\rm H}$) of Hubble regions in the early universe. That is, the Hubble entropy as an upper bound on the total matter entropy is proportional to $HV/4G_{n+1}$. Furthermore, Verlinde fixed the prefactor as $(n-1)$ and proposed the new holographic bounds Eq.(\[4eq5\]) in a radiation-dominated phase by introducing three entropies [@Verl]: Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy ($S_{\rm BV}$), Bekenstein-Hawking entropy ($S_{\rm BH}$), and Hubble entropy ($S_{\rm H}$). As an example, such a radiation-dominated phase is provided by a conformal field theory (CFT) with a large central charge which is dual to the AdS-black hole [@SV]. In this case it appeared an interesting relationship between the Friedmann equation governing the cosmological evolution and the square root form of entropy-energy relation, called Cardy-Verlinde formula [@Cardy]. Although the Friedmann equation has a geometric origin and the Cardy-Verlinde formula is designed only for the matter content, it suggested that both may arise from a single fundamental theory. However, this approach remains obscure for a radiation-dominated universe with a positive cosmological constant [@CM1]. This is mainly due to the unclear role of the cosmological constant in the holographic description of the early universe. In this work we will clarify the role of the cosmological term in the early universe. For this purpose we introduce the newtonian cosmology and the parametric solution to the Friedmann equation. We will show that the geometric entropy interpretation of the cosmological term plays an important role in establishing the holographic entropy bound for a radiation-dominated universe with a positive cosmological constant. Finally we wish to point out the different roles of the cosmological constant in the early universe and in the present universe. The relevant equation is an $(n+1)$-dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric with $k=1$ $$\label{1eq1} ds^2 =-dt^2 +R(t)^2 d\Omega^2_{n} ,$$ where $R$ is the scale factor of the universe and $d\Omega^2_{n}$ denotes the line element of an $n$-dimensional unit sphere. A cosmological evolution is determined by the two Friedmann equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{1eq2} && H^2 =\frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n-1)}\frac{E}{V} -\frac{1}{R^2} +\frac{1}{l^2_{n+1}}, \\ \label{1eq3} && \dot H =-\frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n-1}\left (\frac{E}{V} +p\right) +\frac{1}{R^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ represents the Hubble parameter with the definition $H=\dot R/R$ and the overdot stands for derivative with respect to the cosmic time $t$, $E$ is the total energy of matter filling the universe, and $p$ is its pressure. $V$ is the volume of the universe, $V=R^n \Omega_n$ with $\Omega_n$ being the volume of an $n$-dimensional unit sphere, and $G_{n+1}$ is the newtonian constant in ($n+1$) dimensions. Here we assume the equation of state for any matter: $p=\omega \rho,~ \rho=E/V$. For our purpose, we include the curvature radius of de Sitter space $l_{n+1}$ which relates to the cosmological constant via $1/l^2_{n+1}=2\Lambda_{n+1}/n(n-1)$. For $n=3$ case, we use the notation of $G,\Lambda$ instead of $G_4,\Lambda_4$. The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we study the newtonian cosmology. Section 3 is devoted to solving the Friedmann equation in a parametrical way to find out the role of the cosmological term. The cosmological holographic bounds for a radiation-dominated universe without/with a positive cosmological constant are discussed in section 4. Finally we discuss our results in section 5. Newtonian cosmology =================== In order to understand the cosmological term $\Lambda$ in the Friedmann equation, let us study the newtonian cosmology in (3+1)dimensions. Even though the newtonian cosmology is valid for the matter-dominated universe (that is, it is non-relativistic), this approach is useful for understanding the origin of the cosmological term. We propose that the universe consists of a number of galaxies with their mass $m_i$ and position ${\bf r}_i(t)=r_i(t)\hat {\bf r} $ as measured from a fixed origin $O$. Then the kinetic energy of the system $T$ is given by $$\label{2eq1} T= \frac{1}{2} \sum^{n}_{i=1} m_i \dot r^2_i.$$ The total gravitational potential energy $V$ is $$\label{2eq2} V_g= -G \sum^{n}_{i<j} \frac{m_i m_j}{|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|}.$$ Assuming that there exists a cosmological force acting on the $i$-th galaxy of the form ${\bf F}_i=\frac{\Lambda}{3} m_i{\bf r}_i$ with a constant $\Lambda$ leads to the cosmological potential energy $$\label{2eq3} V_c= -\frac{\Lambda}{6} \sum^{n}_{i=1} m_i r^2_i.$$ Then the total energy $E$ of this system is given by $$\label{2eq4} E=\frac{1}{2} \sum^{n}_{i=1} m_i \dot r^2_i -G \sum^{n}_{i<j} \frac{m_i m_j}{|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|}-\frac{\Lambda}{6} \sum^{n}_{i=1} m_i r^2_i.$$ Suppose that the distribution and motion of the system is known at some fixed epoch $t=t_0$. By the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy, the radial motion at any time $t$ is then given by $r_i(t)=S(t)r_i(t_0)$ where $S(t)$ is a universal function of time which is the same for all galaxies and is called the scale factor. Substituting this into Eq.(\[2eq4\]) leads to $$\label{2eq5} E=A \dot S(t)^2 -\frac{B}{S(t)} -DS(t)^2,$$ where the coefficients are positive constants given by $$\label{2eq6} A= \frac{1}{2} \sum^{n}_{i=1} m_i [r_i(t_0)]^2,~~ B=G \sum^{n}_{i<j} \frac{m_i m_j}{|{\bf r}_i(t_0)-{\bf r}_j(t_0)|},~~D=\frac{\Lambda}{6} \sum^{n}_{i=1} m_i [r_i(t_0)]^2=\frac{\Lambda}{3} A.$$ This is one form of the cosmological differential equation for the scale factor $S(t)$. If the universe with $\Lambda=0$ is expanding, $A$-term decreases since the total energy remains constant as $B$-term decreases. Therefore the expansion must slow down. If $\Lambda$ is positive, all galaxies experience a cosmic repulsion, pushing them away form the origin out to infinity. If $\Lambda$ is negative, all galaxies experience a cosmic attraction towards the origin. Introducing a new scale factor with $R(t)=\mu S(t)$, Eq.(\[2eq5\]) takes the form[^3] $$\label{2eq7} \dot R^2=\frac{C_1}{R} + \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^2 -k,$$ where the constants $C_1$ and $k$ are defined by $C_1=B \mu^3/A$ and $k=-\mu^2 E/A$. When $E=0$, $\mu$ is arbitrary. However, if $E \not=0$, one may choose $\mu^2=A/|E|$ so that $k=1,0,-1$. This equation is exactly the same form of the Friedmann equation of relativistic cosmology. Although there exist ambiguities in determining the cosmological parameters $C_1$ and $k$, one finds that the cosmological term has a slightly different origin from others. The term in the left-hand side of Eq.(\[2eq7\]) originates from the kinetic energy, the first term (last term) in the right-hand side come from the potential energy (total energy) whereas the second term from the constant cosmological repulsion or attraction. We are interested in the role of the cosmological term in the holographic description of cosmology. As are shown in Eqs.(\[2eq5\]) and (\[2eq6\]), a shape of the cosmological term is similar to the kinetic term which can be expressed as the Hubble entropy. On the other hand its nature belongs to the $B$-potential term that can be transformed into the energy term. These two pictures will be used for confirming the cosmological holographic bounds for a radiation-dominated universe with a cosmological constant. Parametric cosmological solutions ================================= There exists another approach to establishing the cosmological holographic principle. In this case, it seems that the cosmological constant plays a role of a parameter in deriving a Cardy formula on torus. In this section, we study this approach to investigate a role of the cosmological term explicitly. Case without a cosmological constant ------------------------------------ In general we have three cosmological parameters $C,\Lambda,k$. Let us first consider the matter-dominated Friedmann equation with $\Lambda=0,k=1$ $$\label{3eq1} \dot R^2=\frac{C_1}{R} -1$$ with $C_1= 8 \pi G \rho_{m0}/3$. Here the energy density for a matter-dominated universe is given by $\rho_m=E_m/V=\rho_{m0}/R^3$. Introducing an arc parameter $\eta$ (radians of arc distance on $S^3$), one finds the solution [@MTW] $$\label{3eq2} R(\eta)=\frac{C_1}{2}(1-\cos \eta),~~t(\eta)=\frac{C_1}{2}(\eta-\sin \eta).$$ The range of $\eta$ from start of expansion to end of recontraction is $2 \pi$ and the curve of $R(t)$ is cycloid. The limiting form of law of expansion at the early times is given by $$\label{3eq3} R \approx \frac{C_1}{4} \eta^2,~~t \approx \frac{C_1}{12} \eta^3~~\to R \approx (9C_1/4)^{1/3} t^{\frac{2}{3}}$$ which is consistent with the solution to the matter-dominated universe. Now we consider the radiation-dominated Friedmann equation $$\label{3eq4} \dot R^2=\frac{C_2}{R^2} -1$$ with $C_2= 8 \pi G \rho_{r0}/3$. The energy density for a radiation-dominated universe is given by $\rho_r=E_r/V=\rho_{r0}/R^4$. Introducing the same arc parameter $\eta$, one finds the solution[^4] $$\label{3eq5} R(\eta)=\sqrt{C_2}\sin \eta,~~t(\eta)=\sqrt{C_2}(1-\cos \eta).$$ The range of $\eta$ from start of expansion to end of recontraction is $\pi$ and the curve of $R(t)$ is semicircle. The limiting form of law of expansion at the early times are given by $$\label{3eq6} R \approx \sqrt{C_2} \eta,~~t \approx \frac{\sqrt{C_2}}{2} \eta^2~~\to R \approx 2^{1/2}C_2^{1/4}t^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ which leads to the well-known solution for the radiation-dominated universe. The parametric solutions to the Friedmann equation with $\Lambda=0$ are determined by the elementary trigonometric functions. But their nature is different: one is cycloid and the other is semicircle. Case with a cosmological constant --------------------------------- We start with the matter-dominated Friedmann equation with $\Lambda \not=0,k=1$ $$\label{3eq7} \dot R^2=\frac{C_1}{R} +\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^2 -1.$$ Introducing an idea of elliptic curves on torus $T^2$, one finds the solution expressed in terms of the Weierstrass function as [@KW] $$\label{3eq8} R(u,\tau)=\frac{3C_1}{12\wp(u+\epsilon,\tau)+1},~~t(u,\tau)= \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} \Big[ \log\Big(\frac{\sigma(u+\epsilon-v_0)}{\sigma(u+\epsilon+v_0)}\Big)+2u \zeta(v_0) \Big],$$ where $\wp(z|\tau),\sigma(z|\tau),\zeta(z|\tau)$ are the Weierstrass’ family of functions: Weierstrass, Weierstrass sigma, Weierstrass zeta functions, respectively. $u(C_1,\Lambda)$ is the complex coordinate and $\tau(C_1,\Lambda)$ is a modular parameter. These two describing a torus are actually functions of both $C_1$ and $\Lambda$. $\epsilon$ is a constant of integration. The Weierstrass function $\wp$ satisfies the equation of an elliptic curve, a Riemann surface of genus 1 (torus) $$\label{3eq9} (\wp')^2=4 \wp^3-g_2 \wp-g_3$$ where the cubic invariants are given by $$\label{3eq10} g_2=\frac{1}{12},~~g_3=\frac{1}{216}-\frac{\Lambda C_1^2}{48}.$$ Also it is a meromorphic modular form of weight 2 under ${\bf SL}(2,Z)$ transformation, $$\label{3eq11} \wp\Big(\frac{z}{c \tau+d},\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\Big)=(c\tau+d)^2 \wp(z,\tau).$$ Differentiating Eq.(\[3eq9\]) twice leads to the KdV nonlinear differential equation of soliton physics in a time-independent way $$\label{3eq12} \wp(z)'''=12\wp(z) \wp(z)'.$$ Now we consider the radiation-dominated Friedmann equation $$\label{3eq13} \dot R^2=\frac{C_2}{R^2} +\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^2 -1.$$ In this case the solution is given by [@AAC] $$\label{3eq14} R(v,\tilde \tau)=\sqrt{\frac{3C_2}{12\wp(v+\epsilon,\tilde \tau)+1}},~~t(v,\tilde \tau)=\frac{1}{2} \int R(v,\tilde \tau) dv$$ where $v(C_2,\Lambda)$ is the complex coordinate and $\tilde \tau(C_2,\Lambda)$ is a modular parameter. These two describing a new torus are functions of both $C_2$ and $\Lambda$. Here the cubic invariants are given by $$\label{3eq15} g_2=\frac{1}{12}-\frac{\Lambda C_2}{12},~~g_3=\frac{1}{216}-\frac{\Lambda C_2}{144}.$$ From Eqs.(\[3eq10\]) and (\[3eq15\]), if $\Lambda=0$, one finds that discriminant is zero $(\Delta =0)$. The solutions to this case are no longer given by the elliptic functions and do not have modular properties. These were previously discussed in Sec.3.1. Assuming a CFT with $(L_0,c)$ on a torus, a partition function with modular parameter $\tau$ can be introduced as $$\label{3eq16} Z(\tau(C_1,\Lambda))={\rm Tr} q^{L_0-c/24},~~q=e^{2 \pi i \tau},$$ where we suppress the $\bar \tau$-part for simplicity. Making use of the modular properties of this partition function, we may find the density of states and a two-dimensional Cardy formula for a matter-dominated universe $$\label{3eq17} S_{matter}= 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\Big(L_0-\frac{c}{24} \Big)}.$$ Similarly, by assuming a CFT with $(\tilde L_0,\tilde c)$, we expect to have $S_{radiation}= 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\tilde c}{6}\Big(\tilde L_0-\frac{\tilde c}{24} \Big)}$ for a radiation-dominated universe, which is the same form as in Eq.(\[3eq17\]). These may lead to the chain connections: Friedmann equation $\to$ Weierstrass equation ($\wp$) $\to$ torus with $\tau$ $\to$ CFT partition function($Z(\tau(C_1,\Lambda))$) $\to$ Cardy formula. However, we don’t know exactly what kind of a CFT is suitable for our purpose. Further, the cosmological parameters of $\Lambda,C_1,C_2$ are used only for determining the geometry of a torus itself. This presumed mapping from the Friedmann equation on $R^1 \times S^3$ into the Cardy formula on torus ($T^2$) is not clearly justified. Actually we do not obtain a direct definition of the quantities of $L_0(\tilde L_0),c(\tilde c)$ appearing in the Cardy formula as a function of $\Lambda,C_1,C_2$. Consequently the existence of a Cardy formula from the solution to the Friedmann equation is not clear and even if it is found, the role of the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ always remains as a modular parameter of torus. Also we note that the Verlinde’s map from the Friedmann equation to the Cardy-Verlinde formula is based on a CFT with a large central charge on 3-sphere of radius $R$ ($S^3$) not torus ($T^2$). Cosmological holographic bounds =============================== In this section we study two aspects of the cosmological term in the holographic description of the universe : a look of entropy ($\Lambda \to S_{\rm \Lambda}$) and a look of energy ($\Lambda \to E_{\rm \Lambda}$). In order to study the first aspect, we introduce four holographic entropies which are necessary for making the holographic description of a radiation-dominated universe with a positive cosmological constant [@Verl; @CM1] [^5]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq1} {\rm Bekenstein-Verlinde\ entropy}:&& S_{\rm BV}=\frac{2\pi}{n}ER, \nonumber \\ {\rm Bekenstein-Hawking\ entropy}:&& S_{\rm BH}=(n-1)\frac{V}{4G_{n+1}R}, \nonumber \\ {\rm Hubble\ entropy}:&& S_{\rm H}=(n-1)\frac{HV}{4G_{n+1}}, \nonumber \\ {\rm Cosmological \ entropy}:&& S_{\rm \Lambda}= (n-1)\frac{V}{4G_{n+1}l_{n+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ $S_{\rm BV} \le S_{\rm BH}$ is supposed to hold for a weakly self-gravitating universe ($HR \le 1$), while $S_{\rm BV} \ge S_{\rm BH}$ works when the universe is in the strongly self-gravitating phase ($HR \ge 1$). It is interesting to note that for $HR=Hl_{n+1}=1$, one finds that four entropies are identical: $S_{\rm BV}= S_{\rm BH}=S_{\rm H}=S_{\rm \Lambda}$. In the holographic approach, it is useful to consider $S_{\rm BV}$ not really as an entropy but rather as the energy. And the remaining three belong to the geometric entropy. Then the first Friedmann equation (\[1eq2\]) can be expressed in terms of the above four entropies as $$\label{4eq2} S^2_{\rm H} +(S_{\rm BV}-S_{\rm BH})^2 =S^2_{\rm BV} +S^2_{\rm \Lambda}.$$ In this section we no longer consider the matter-dominated case because one cannot transform the first Friedmann equation into the cosmological Cardy-Verlinde formula to find the cosmological holographic bounds. This is mainly because its energy-density is given by $\rho_m=\rho_{m0}/R^3$ and the solution $R(t)$ is expressed as a cycloid. In this case, the above entropies are not suitable for representing the cosmological holographic bounds. On the other hand, for a radiation-dominated case, there does not exist any difficulty in representing the Friedmann equation in terms of the above four entropies. In this case we have $\rho_r=\rho_{r0}/R^4$ and $R(t)$ is expressed as the semicircle. As is shown in the footnote 3, the same nature of entropy solution can be obtained by substitution : $R(\eta) \leftrightarrow S_{\rm H}(\eta),~t(\eta) \leftrightarrow S_{\rm BH}(\eta),~\sqrt{C_2} \leftrightarrow S_{\rm BV}$. This is why we will study a radiation-dominated universe without/with the cosmological constant. Radiation-dominated universe without a cosmological constant ------------------------------------------------------------ We start with $\Lambda_{n+1}=0$ case because this case gives us a concrete relation. We define a quantity $E_{\rm BH}$ which corresponds to energy needed to form a universe-size black hole : $ S_{\rm BH}=(n-1)V/4G_{n+1}R \equiv 2\pi E_{\rm BH} R/n $. With this quantity, the Friedmann equations (\[1eq2\]) and (\[1eq3\]) can be further cast to the cosmological entropy-energy relation (cosmological Cardy-Verlinde formula) and the cosmological Smarr formula respectively $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq3} && S_{\rm H}=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_{\rm BH}(2E-E_{\rm BH})}, \nonumber \\ && E_{\rm BH}=n(E+pV -T_{\rm H} S_{\rm H}),\end{aligned}$$ where the Hubble temperature ($T_{\rm H}$) as the minimum temperature during the strongly gravitating phase is given by $T_{\rm H}=-\frac{\dot H}{ 2\pi H}$. These are another representation of the two Friedmann equations expressed in terms of holographic quantities. On the other hand, we propose that the entropy of a radiation-matter and its Casimir energy can be described by the Cardy-Verlinde formula and the Smarr formula respectively $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq4} && S =\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2E-E_c)}, \nonumber \\ && E_c=n(E+pV -T S).\end{aligned}$$ The first denotes the entropy-energy relation, where $S$ is the entropy of a CFT-like radiation living on an $n$-dimensional sphere with radius $R$ ($S^n$) and $E$ is the total energy of the CFT. Further the second represents the relation between a non-extensive part of the total energy (Casimir energy) and thermodynamic quantities. Here $E_c$ and $T$ stand for the Casimir energy of the system and the temperature of radiation with $\omega=1/3$. Actually the above equations correspond to thermodynamic relations for the CFT-radiation which are originally independent of the geometric Friedmann equations. Suppose that the entropy of radiation in the FRW universe can be described by the Cardy-Verlinde formula. Then comparing (\[4eq3\]) with (\[4eq4\]), one finds that if $E_{\rm BH}=E_c$, then $S_{\rm H}=S$ and $T_{\rm H}=T$. At this stage we introduce the Hubble bound for entropy, temperature and Casimir energy [@Verl] $$\label{4eq5} S \le S_{\rm H},~~ T \ge T_{\rm H},~~~E_c \le E_{\rm BH}, ~~{\rm for}~ HR \ge 1$$ which shows inequalities between geometric quantities and matter contents. The Hubble entropy bound can be saturated by the entropy of a radiation-matter filling the universe when its Casimir energy $E_c$ is enough to form a universe-size black hole. If this happens, equations (\[4eq3\]) and (\[4eq4\]) coincide exactly. This implies that the first Friedmann equation somehow knows the entropy formula of a square-root form for a radiation-matter filling the universe. As an example, one considers a moving brane universe in the background of the five-dimensional Schwarzschild-AdS black hole. Savonije and Verlinde [@SV] found that when this brane crosses the black hole horizon, the Hubble entropy bound is saturated by the entropy of black hole(=the entropy of the CFT-radiation). At this moment the Hubble temperature and energy ($T_{\rm H},E_{\rm BH}$) equal to the temperature and Casimir energy ($T,E_c$) of the CFT-radiation dual to the AdS black hole respectively. Radiation-dominated universe with a positive cosmological constant: a look of entropy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a radiation-dominated universe with $\Lambda_{n+1} \not=0$, we have to introduce the cosmological D-entropy $S_{\rm D}$ and D-temperature $T_{\rm D}$ as [@CM1] $$\label{4eq6} S_{\rm D} =\sqrt{|S^2_{\rm H}-S^2_{\rm \Lambda}|} ,~~T_{\rm D}=- \frac{ \dot H} { 2 \pi \sqrt{|H^2-1/l^2_{n+1}|}}.$$ We note that the cosmological D-entropy $S_{\rm D}$ is constructed by analogy of the static D-bound[^6]. $T_D$ is the lower bound of the temperature during the strongly gravitating phase with a positive cosmological constant. Here we insist that the first three entropies appeared in Eq.(\[4eq1\]) are still applicable for describing the radiation-dominated universe with $\Lambda_{n+1} \not=0$ without any modification. As a check point, one can recover the radiation-dominated universe without a cosmological constant, as $\Lambda_{n+1} \to 0$ : $$\label{4eq7} S_{\rm \Lambda} \to 0, ~~ S_{\rm D} \to S_{\rm H} ,~~T_{\rm D} \to T_{\rm H}.$$ Using $S_{\rm D}$, one finds from Eq.(\[4eq2\]) the entropy relation $$\label{4eq8} S^2_{\rm D} +(S_{\rm BV}-S_{\rm BH})^2 =S^2_{\rm BV}.$$ which is the same relation for $\Lambda_{n+1}=0$ case in the footnote 3. Hence $S_{\rm BV}$ is constant, $S_{\rm D}=S_{\rm BV} \sin \eta$ and $S_{\rm BH}=S_{\rm BV}(1-\cos \eta)$ change with time. Then Eqs.(\[4eq8\]) and (\[1eq3\]) can be rewritten as the cosmological Cardy-Verlinde and cosmological Smarr formulas $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq9} && S_{\rm D}=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_{\rm BH}(2E-E_{\rm BH})}, \nonumber \\ && E_{\rm BH}=n(E+pV -T_{\rm D} S_{\rm D}),\end{aligned}$$ while the entropy and Casimir energy of the CFT-radiation can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq10} && S =\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2E-E_c)}, \nonumber \\ && E_c=n(E+pV -T S).\end{aligned}$$ As is shown in Eq.(\[4eq7\]), the cosmological D-entropy plays the same role as the Hubble entropy does in the case without a positive cosmological constant. That is, it is also a geometric entropy during the strongly gravitating phase with a positive cosmological constant. Now we are in a position to see how the entropy bounds are changed here. The first Friedmann equation in Eq.(\[1eq2\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{4eq11} (HR)^2-\frac{R^2}{l_{n+1}^2}= 2 \frac{S_{\rm BV}}{S_{\rm BH}} -1.$$ Using this relation, in case of $\Lambda_{n+1}=0$, one finds that $HR \ge 1 \to S_{\rm BV} \ge S_{\rm BH}$, while $HR \le 1 \to S_{\rm BV} \le S_{\rm BH}$. Hence this leads to the Hubble entropy bound of $S \le S_{\rm H}$ for $HR \ge 1$, whereas the Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy bound of $S \le S_{\rm BV}$ for $HR \le 1$. For $ \Lambda_{n+1} \not=0$, it is shown that $(HR)^2 -\frac{R^2}{l_{n+1}^2} \ge 1 \to S_{\rm BV} \ge S_{\rm BH}$, while $ (HR)^2 - \frac{R^2}{l_{n+1}^2}\le 1 \to S_{\rm BV} \le S_{\rm BH}$. Thus this leads to the cosmological D-bound for entropy, temperature, and Casimir energy for the strongly gravitating phase: $$\label{4eq12} S \le S_{\rm D},~~T \ge T_{\rm D},~~E_c \le E_{\rm BH},~~ {\rm for},~~ HR \ge \sqrt {1+ \frac{R^2}{l_{n+1}^2}},$$ whereas the Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy bound is found for the weakly gravitating phase: $$\label{4eq13} S \le S_{\rm BV},~~{\rm for}~~ HR \le \sqrt {1+ \frac{R^2}{l_{n+1}^2}}.$$ When the cosmological D-entropy bound is saturated by the entropy $S$ of a CFT-radiation, equations (\[4eq9\]) and (\[4eq10\]) coincide, just like the case without the cosmological constant. We note that one cannot find the relation of $S_{\rm D}= S_{\rm BV}=S_{\rm BH}$ for $HR=1$, unless $\Lambda_{n+1}=0$. Radiation-dominated universe with a positive cosmological constant : a look of energy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the cosmological term in Eq.(\[1eq2\]) takes a closer look of the potential energy term, then we can incorporate this into the Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy. Noting that the Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy $S_{\rm BV}$ is really considered as an energy, the cosmological term appears in an additive form of energy in the cosmological Cardy-Verlinde formula Eq.(\[4eq3\]) without introducing $S_{\rm D}$. Introducing the corresponding energy $E_{\rm \Lambda}=\frac{\Lambda_{n+1} V}{8 \pi G_{n+1}}$ (equivalently, the last term in Eq.(\[1eq2\]) is given by $\frac{1}{l^2_{n+1}}=\frac{16 \pi G_{n+1}}{n(n-1)}\frac{E_{\rm \Lambda}}{V}$), the Friedmann equations take the form instead of Eq.(\[4eq8\]) [@Youm] $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq14} && S_{\rm H}=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_{\rm BH}\Big[2(E+E_{\rm \Lambda})-E_{\rm BH}\Big]}, \nonumber \\ && E_{\rm BH}=n(E+pV -T_{\rm H} S_{\rm H}).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the entropy and Casimir energy of the CFT-radiation remains unchanged as $$\begin{aligned} \label{4eq15} && S =\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2E-E_c)}, \nonumber \\ && E_c=n(E+pV -T S).\end{aligned}$$ The above two forms do not resemble each other, because on the CFT side, it is hard to incorporate the bulk cosmological term into the Cardy-Verlinde formula. In terms of naive power counting, the vacuum energy (cosmological term) corresponds to a relevant operator in CFT. And this leads to power divergences. In this case it is not easy to obtain the cosmological holographic bounds like Eqs. (\[4eq5\]) and (\[4eq12\]). Furthermore, introducing a related entropy $\tilde S_{\rm \Lambda}= \frac{2 \pi R}{n} E_{\rm \Lambda}$ like $S_{\rm BH}=\frac{2 \pi R}{n} E_{\rm BH}$, the entropy relation in Eq.(\[4eq2\]) is changed into an ugly form as $$\label{4eq16} S^2_{\rm H} +(S_{\rm BV}+\tilde S_{\rm \Lambda}-S_{\rm BH})^2 =(S_{\rm BV} + \tilde S_{\rm \Lambda})^2.$$ Here $S_{\rm BV} + \tilde S_{\rm \Lambda}$ does not remain constant during the cosmological evolution unlike $\Lambda_{n+1}=0$ case shown in the footnote 3 and Eq.(\[4eq8\]) for $\Lambda_{n+1} \not=0$ case. Discussion ========== In this work we discuss the role of the cosmological constant in the early universe. Especially for the a radiation-dominated universe $\rho_r=\rho_{r0}/R^4$ with a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$, we confirm the cosmological holographic bounds Eq.(\[4eq12\]) if the cosmological constant is considered as an entropy ($\Lambda \to S_{\rm \Lambda}$). Here the entropy concept originates from the Hubble entropy $S_{\rm H}$ which plays a crucial role in establishing the cosmological holographic principle in the radiation-dominated universe. We note here that the two entropies $S_{\rm H}$ and $S_{\rm \Lambda}$ are regarded as the geometric entropy but not the genuine matter entropy like $S$ for a CFT-radiation matter. Taking a genuine view of energy ($\Lambda \to E_{\rm \Lambda}$), one cannot establish the cosmological holographic bounds in the early universe. For the matter-dominated universe without/with a positive cosmological constant, we cannot achieve the cosmological holographic bounds because of its energy density nature with $\rho_m=\rho_{m0}/R^3$. Further, for the pure de Sitter case without any radiation, one cannot derive the cosmological holographic bounds [@myung1]. Finally, considering the cosmological constant term as a candidate of dark energy in the present universe, its role of the geometric entropy in the holographic description of the early universe emerges as an opposite one. If this view is correct, our work implies a duality of the cosmological constant : (geometric) entropy in the early universe and (dark) energy in the present universe. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== We thank C.-R.Cai for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by KOSEF, Project Number: R02-2002-000-00028-0. [99]{} A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 347 (1981); A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**108**]{}, 389 (1982); A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**48**]{}, 1220 (1982). J. Garcia-Bellido, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.  [**114**]{}, 13 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0210050\]. C. J. Hogan, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 023521 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0201020\]. A. Frolov and L. Kofman, arXiv:hep-th/0212327. R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B [**545**]{}, 23 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9908168\]; R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, N. N. Wienberg, arXiv:astro-ph/0302506. G. ’t Hooft, arXiv:gr-qc/9310026; L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys.  [**36**]{}, 6377 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9409089\]. J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 287 (1981). W. Fischler and L. Susskind, arXiv:hep-th/9806039. R. Easther and D. A. Lowe, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**82**]{}, 4967 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9902088\]; G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B [**454**]{}, 22 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9902126\]; G. Veneziano, arXiv:hep-th/9907012; R. Brustein and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**84**]{}, 5695 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9912055\]; D. Bak and S. J. Rey, Class. Quant. Grav.  [**17**]{}, L83 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9902173\]; N. Kaloper and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 103509 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9904120\]. R. Bousso, JHEP [**9907**]{}, 004 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9905177\]; R. Bousso, JHEP [**9906**]{}, 028 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9906022\]. E. Verlinde, arXiv:hep-th/0008140. I. Savonije and E. Verlinde, Phys. Lett. B [**507**]{}, 305 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0102042\]. J. L. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. B [**270**]{}, 186 (1986). R. G. Cai and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 124021 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0210272\]. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (W. H. Freeman and Company, 1973). G. V. Kraniotis and S. B. Whitehouse, Class. Quant. Grav.  [**19**]{}, 5073 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0105022\]. E. Abdalla and L. A. Correa-Borbonet, arXiv:hep-th/0212205. R. Bousso, Rev. Mod. Phys.  [**74**]{}, 825 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0203101\]. D. Youm, arXiv:hep-th/0111276. Y. S. Myung, arXiv:hep-th/0301073. [^1]: e-mail address: ysmyung@physics.inje.ac.kr [^2]: Recently, the dark form of energy is classified according to the equation of state : quintessence with $-1 <\omega<-1/3$, cosmological constant with $\omega=-1$, and phantom energy with $\omega <-1$ [@phan]. [^3]: Similarly, assuming the five-dimensional newton potential $V_{5g}=-G_5 \sum^{n}_{i<j} \frac{m_i m_j}{|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|^2}$, one can find the equation for a radiation-dominated universe in four-dimensional spacetime as $\dot R^2=\frac{C_2}{R^2} + \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^2 -k$. Even though it is a non-relativistic approach to obtain a relativistic matter of radiation, this may provide us a hint for interpreting the cosmological term in the Friedmann equation. [^4]: This is the same form of the entropy solution $ S_H( \eta)=S_{BV}\sin \eta,~~S_{BH}(\eta)=S_{BV}(1-\cos \eta)$ to the circular relation of the holographic entropies with $\Lambda=0$: $S_H^2+(S_{BV}-S_{BH})^2=S_{BV}^2$ [@Verl]. Here $\eta$ corresponds to the conformal time coordinate via $R d \eta=(n-1)dt$. $S_{\rm BV}$ is constant, $S_{\rm H}$ and $S_{\rm BH}$ change with time. [^5]: Although Bousso argued that a cosmological constant did not carry a genuine matter entropy [@Bous2], there is no contradiction to introducing the geometric entropy. $S_{\rm \Lambda}$ was constructed by analogy of the Hubble entropy $S_{\rm H }$. But $S_{\rm \Lambda}$ is closely related to the maximal de Sitter entropy of $S_{\rm dS}$. Explicitly this is given by the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the de Sitter cosmological horizon ($(n-1) V_{\rm dS}/4G_{n+1} l_{n+1} \approx S_{\rm dS}=A/4G_{n+1}$) times the number ($N_{\rm dS}= V/V_{\rm dS}$) of de Sitter regions in the early universe. [^6]: Suppose M is asymptotically de Sitter space. Then the entropy of matter in M is bounded by the difference (D) between the entropy of exact de Sitter space and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the apparent cosmological horizon in M of asymptotically de Sitter space.

--- abstract: | Based on the classical probability, the stability of stochastic differential delay equations (SDDEs) whose coefficients are either linear or nonlinear but bounded by linear functions have been investigated intensively. Moreover, the delay-dependent stability of highly nonlinear hybrid stochastic differential equations has also been studied recently. In this paper, by using the nonlinear expectation theory, we explore the delay-dependent stability of a class of highly nonlinear hybrid stochastic differential delay equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion ($G$-SDDEs). Firstly, we give preliminaries on sublinear expectation. Then, the delay-dependent criteria of the stability and boundedness of solutions to $G$-SDDEs is developed. Finally, an illustrative example is analyzed by the $\varphi$-max-mean algorithm. [**Key words:** ]{}stochastic differential delay equation (SDDE); sublinear expectation; $G$-Brownian motion; asymptotic stability; Lyapunov functional. [**MR Subject Classification:**]{} 60H10. author: - | [**Chen Fei${}^{2}$,  Weiyin Fei${}^{1}$[^1],  Xuerong Mao${}^{3}$,  Litan Yan${}^{2}$** ]{}\ ${}^1$ School of Mathematics and Physics,\ Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, Anhui 241000, China.\ ${}^2$ Department of Statistics, College of Science,\ Donghua University, Shanghai, 200051, China.\ ${}^3$Department of Mathematics and Statistics,\ University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK.\ title: ' **Delay-dependent Asymptotic Stability of Highly Nonlinear Stochastic Differential Delay Equations Driven by $G$-Brownian Motion** ' --- \[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Assumption]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} i Ø Ł § Introduction ============ A sublinear expectation (c.f., [@P2006; @P2008; @P2010]) can be represented as the upper expectation of a subset of linear expectations. In most cases, this subset is often treated as an uncertain model of probabilities. Peng introduced the $G$-expectation theory ($G$-framework) (see [@P2006] and the references therein) in 2006, where the notion of $G$-Brownian motion and the corresponding stochastic calculus of Itô’s type were established. Moreover, the stochastic calculus on $G$-Brownian motion is explored by Denis [*et al.*]{} [@DHP], Fei and Fei [@FF], Hu and Peng [@HP], Li and Peng [@LP], Peng and Zhang [@PZ2017], Soner et al. [@STZ2] and Zhang [@Z2016], etc. So far, there is large amount of literature on the problem of asset pricing and financial decisions under model uncertainty. Chen and Epstein [@CE] put forward to the model of an intertemporal recursive utility, where risk and ambiguity are differentiated, but uncertainty is only a mean uncertainty without a volatility uncertainty. The model of the optimal consumption and portfolio with ambiguity are also investigated in Fei [@FeiINS; @FeiSM]. Epstein and Ji [@EJ1; @EJ2] generalized the Chen-Epstein model and maintained a separation between risk aversion and intertemporal substitution. We know that equivalence of priors is an optional assumption in Gilboa and Schmeidler [@GS]. Apart from very recent developments, the stochastic calculus presumes a probability space framework. However, from an economics perspective, the assumption of equivalence seems far from innocuous. Informally, if her environment is complex, how could the decision-maker come to be certain of which scenarios regarding future asset prices and rates of return, for example, are possible? In particular, ambiguity about volatility implies ambiguity about which scenarios are possible, at least in a continuous time setting. A large amount of literature has argued that the stochastic time varying volatility is important for understanding features of asset returns, and particularly empirical regularities in the derivative markets. On the other hand, it is well to be known that the study of differential equations from both the theory and its applications is important. The classical stochastic differential equation with Brownian motion doesn’t take an ambiguous factor into consideration. Thus, in some complex environments, these equations are too restrictive for describing some phenomena. Recently, under uncertainty, a kind of stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion has been investigated by Deng [*et al.*]{} [@DFFM], Fei and Fei [@FF2019], Fei [*et al.*]{} [@FFY], Gao [@G], Hu [*et al.*]{} [@HJPS], Li and Yang [@LY], Lin[@Lq2013], Lin [@Lin2013], Luo and Wang [@LW2014], Peng [@P2010], Ren [*et al.*]{} [@RYS], Xu [*et al*]{} [@XGH], Yao and Zong [@YZ], and Yin [*et al.*]{} [@YCR]. We know that the stability of the classical stochastic differential equations is an important topic in the study of stochastic systems. Since Lyapunov [@Ly] and LaSalle [@La] obtained the stability for nonlinear systems, with the help of Itô’s breakthrough work about Itô calculus, Hasminskii [@Has] first studied the stability of the linear Itô equation perturbed a noise. Since then, the stability analysis for stochastic differential systems has been done by many researchers. The stabilization and destabilization of hybrid systems of stochastic differential equations is explored by many researchers, such as Mao et al. [@MYY]. In Luo and Liu [@LL], the stability of infinite dimensional stochastic evolution equations with memory and Markovian jumps is investigated. Since a system described by the stochastic differential equation driven by $G$-Brownian motion provides a characterization of the real world with both randomness and ambiguity, it is necessary to investigate its stability like a classical stochastic differential equation. One kind of exponential stability for stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion is discussed by Zhang and Chen [@ZC] where the quasi-sure analysis is used. Fei and Fei [@FF1] investigated the quasi sure exponential stability by $G$-Lyapunov functional method for obtaining different results. However, in many real systems, such as science, industry, economics and finance etc., we will run into time lag. Differential delay equations (DDEs) have been used to set up such time-delay systems. However, since the time-delay often causes the instability of systems, the stability of DDEs has been investigated intensively for more than 50 years. In 1980’s, the stochastic delay differential equations were developed in order to model real systems which are subject to external noises. Since then, in the study of SDDEs including hybrid SDDEs the stability analysis has been one of the most important topics (see, e.g., [@LM; @Liu12; @Mao2007]). The existing delay-dependent stability criteria are mainly provided for the hybrid SDDEs whose coefficients are either linear or nonlinear but bounded by linear functions (or, satisfy the linear growth condition). Recently, [@HMS; @HMZ] initiate the investigation on the stability of the hybrid highly nonlinear stochastic delay differential equations driven by Brownian noise. Based on highly nonlinear hybrid SDDEs (see, e.g., [@HMS; @HMZ]), [@FHMS] has further established the delay-dependent stability criterion. Recently, the delay-dependent stability of the highly nonlinear hybrid SDDEs is investigated in [@FFMXY; @FSFMY; @FHMS2; @MFFM; @SFFM2019; @SFFM2020]. Moreover, to our best knowledge, the current states of the considered real systems mainly follow an SDDE disturbed by Brownian motion. In fact, due to uncertainty including probabilistic and Kightian ones [@CE], many real systems may be disturbed by $G$-Brownian motion. Thus we can characterize our some real systems by Peng’s sublinear expectation framework. Moreover, in this paper, we will explore the dependent stability criteria of SDDEs driven by $G$-Brownian motion ($G$-SDDEs), where the coefficients of $G$-SDDEs are highly nonlinear without linear growth conditions. Our results extend the ones under linear expectation framework discussed in Fei [*et al.*]{} [@FHMS] . We now give an example on the stability of the following highly nonlinear $G$-SDDE $$\begin{aligned} \label {$G$-SDDE1} dX(t) = [-X^3(t)-X(t-\de(t))]dt+\frac12e^{-t}dB(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\de(t)\geq0$ is a time lag, $X(t)\in \mathbb{R}$ is the state of the highly non-linear hybrid system, $B(t)$ is a scalar $G$-Brownian motion (related notions see [@P2010]). For the above system (\[$G$-SDDE1\]), if the time delay $\de(t)=0.01$, the computer simulation shows it is asymptotically stable (see Figure 4.1). If the time-delay is large, say $\de(t)=2$, the computer simulation shows that $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) is unstable (see Figure 4.2). In other words, whether the delay $G$-SDDE is stable or not depends on how small or large the time-delay is. On the other hand, both drift and diffusion coefficients of $G$-SDDE affect the stability of the system due to highly nonlinear. However, there is no delay dependent criterion which can be applied to $G$-SDDE to derive a sufficient bound on the time-delay $\de(t)$ such that $G$-SDDE is stable. The aim of this paper is to establish the delay dependent criteria for highly nonlinear $G$-SDDEs. The main contributions of this paper are presented as follows: (i). We first try to give the criteria on delay-dependent stability of $G$-SDDEs with highly nonlinear coefficients. (ii). The delay-dependent criteria are established by new mathematical techniques, such as constructing Lyapunov functional. (iii). The stochastic calculus on $G$-Brownian motion is applied to solve the stability of the systems with ambiguity. The arrangement of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we give preliminaries on sublinear expectations and $G$-Bwownian motions. Furthermore, we characterize the properties of $G$-Brownian motions and $G$-martingales. In Section 3, the quasi sure exponential stability of the solutions to $G$-SDDE is studied. Next, we give an illustrative example in Section 4, where we use the $\varphi$-max-mean algorithm suggested by Peng [@P-scm]. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper. Notations and Preliminaries =========================== In this section, we first give the notion of sublinear expectation space $(\Omega, {\cal H}, \hat{\mathbb{E}})$, where $\Omega$ is a given state set and $\cal H$ a linear space of real valued functions defined on $\Omega$. The space $\cal H$ can be considered as the space of random variables. The following concepts come from Peng [@P2010]. \[Def2.1\] A sublinear expectation $\hat{\mathbb E}$ is a functional $\hat{\mathbb E}$: ${\cal H}\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ satisfying \(i) Monotonicity: $\hat{\mathbb{E}}[X]\geq \hat{\mathbb{E}}[Y]$ if $X\geq Y$; \(ii) Constant preserving: $\hat{\mathbb{E}}[c]=c$; \(iii) Sub-additivity: For each $X,Y\in {\cal H}$, $\hat{\mathbb{E}}[X+Y]\leq \hat{\mathbb{E}}[X]+\hat{\mathbb{E}}[Y]$; \(iv) Positivity homogeneity: $\hat{\mathbb{E}}[\lambda X]=\lambda \hat{\mathbb{E}}[X]$ for $\lambda\geq 0$. \[Def2.2\] Let $(\Omega,{\cal H}, \hat{\mathbb{E}})$ be a sublinear expectation space. $(X(t))_{t\geq0}$ is called a $d$-dimensional stochastic process if for each $t\geq0$, $X(t)$ is a $d$-dimensional random vector in $\cal H$. A $d$-dimensional process $(B(t))_{t\geq0}$ on a sublinear expectation space $(\Omega,{\cal H}, \hat{\mathbb{E}})$ is called a $G$-Brownian motion if the following properties are satisfies: \(i) $B_0(\omega)=0$; \(ii) for each $t,s\geq 0$, the increment $B(t+s)-B(t)$ is $N(\{0\}\times s\Sigma)$-distributed and is independent from $(B(t_1),B(t_2),\cdots, B(t_n))$, for each $n\in {\mathbb N}$ and $0\leq t_1\leq \cdots\leq t_n\leq t$. More details on the notions of $G$-expectation ${\hat{\mathbb E}}$ and $G$-Brownian motion on the sublinear expectation space $(\Omega,{\cal H}, {\hat{\mathbb{E}}})$ may be found in Peng [@P2010]. We now give the definition of Itô integral. For simplicity, in the rest of the paper, we introduce Itô integral with respect to 1-dimensional $G$-Brownian motion with $G(\alpha):=\frac{1}{2}\hat{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha B(1)^2]=\frac{1}{2}(\bar{\sigma}^2\alpha^+-\underline{\sigma}^2\alpha^-)$, where $\hat{\mathbb{E}}[B(1)^2]=\bar{\sigma}^2, {\cal E}[B(1)^2]:=-\hat{\mathbb{E}}[- B(1)^2]=\underline{\sigma}^2$, $0<\underline{\sigma}\leq \bar{\sigma}<\infty$. Let $p\geq1$ be fixed. We consider the following type of simple processes: for a given partition $\pi_T=(t_0,\cdots,t_N)$ of $[0, T]$, where $T$ can take $\infty$, we get $$\eta_t(\omega)=\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\xi_k(\omega)I_{[t_k,t_{k+1})}(t),$$ where $\xi_k\in L^p_G(\Omega_{t_k}), k=0,1,\cdots,N-1$ are given. The collection of these processes is denoted by $M_G^{p,0}(0,T)$. We denote by $M_G^p(0,T)$ the completion of $M_G^{p,0}(0,T)$ with the norm $$\|\eta\|_{M_G^p(0,T)}:=\left\{\int_0^T\hat{\mathbb{E}}|\eta(t)|^pdt\right\}^{1/p}<\infty.$$ We provide the following property which comes from Denis et al. [@DHP] or Zhang and Chen [@ZC]. \[Pro1\] Let $\hat{\mathbb{E}}$ be $G$-expectation. Then there exists a weakly compact family of probability measures $\cal P$ on $(\Omega, {\cal B}(\Omega))$ such that for all $X\in {\cal H}, \hat{\mathbb{E}}[X]=\max_{P\in{\cal P}}E^P[X]$, where $E^P[\cdot]$ is the linear expectation with respect to $P$. From the above Proposition \[Pro1\], we know that the weakly compact family of probability measures $\cal P$ characterizes the degree of Knightian uncertainty. Especially, if $\cal P$ is singleton, i.e. $\{P\}$, then the model has no ambiguity. The related calculus reduces to a classical one. The definition of stochastic integral $\int_0^T\eta(t) dB(t)$ can see Peng [@P2010]. By [@FF Proposition 2.5] and Peng [@P2010 Lemma 3.5 on page 43], we easily obtain the following lemma. \[BBI\] For all $s< t\in[0,T]$, we have $$\begin{aligned} & \hat{\mathbb E}\Big|\int_s^t\zeta(v)d<B(v)>\Big|^2\leq(t-s)\bar\sigma^2\hat{\mathbb E}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)|^2dv\Big),\\ &\hat{\mathbb E}\Big|\int_s^t\zeta(v)dB(v)\Big|^2\leq \bar\sigma^2\hat{\mathbb E}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)|^2dv\Big).\\\end{aligned}$$ The following Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality provides the explicit bounds based on those in Gao [@G Theorems 2.1-2.2]. (Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality)\[BDG\] Let $p>0$ and $\zeta=\{\zeta(s),s\in[0,T]\}\in M_G^p(0,T)$. Then, for all $t\in[0,T]$, $$\begin{aligned} & \hat{\mathbb E}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u\zeta(v)d<B(v)>\Big|^p\\ &\quad\leq(t-s)^{p-1}C_1(p,\bar\sigma)\hat{\mathbb E}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)|^2dv\Big)^{p/2},\\ &\hat{\mathbb E}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u\zeta(v)dB(v)\Big|^p\leq C_2(p,\bar\sigma)\hat{\mathbb E}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)|^2dv\Big)^{p/2},\\\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1(p,\bar{\sigma})=\bar{\sigma}^p, C_2(p,\bar{\sigma})=C_p\bar{\sigma}^p$, and the constant $C_p$ is defined as follows $$\begin{aligned} C_p&=\Big(\frac{32}{p}\Big)^{p/2},\quad\mbox{\rm if}~0<p<2;\\ C_p&=4,\quad\mbox{\rm if}~p=2;\\ C_p&=\Big(\frac{p^{p+1}}{2(p-1)^{p-1}}\Big)^{p/2},\quad\mbox{\rm if}~p>2.\end{aligned}$$ **Proof**: Based on the idea from Peng [*et al.*]{} [@PSZ], we can characterize the probability measure family $\mathcal P$ as follows: $${\mathcal P}=\{P^{(\sigma_\cdot)}; (\sigma_t)_{t\in[0,\infty)}~\mbox{is a continuous process}, \sigma_t\in [\underline{\sigma},\bar\sigma]\}.$$ For each probability measure $P^{(\sigma_\cdot)}\in {\mathcal P}$, we have $dB(t)=\sigma_tdw(t)$, where $(w(t))_{t\ge0}$ is a standard Brownian motion under $P^{(\sigma_\cdot)}$. The corresponding linear expectation is denoted by $ E^{P^{\sigma_\cdot}}$. Thus, by the Höld inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned} & \hat{\mathbb E}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u\zeta(v)d<B(v)>\Big|^p\\ & =\sup\limits_{P^{\sigma_\cdot}\in{\cal P}}E^{P^{\sigma_\cdot}}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u\zeta(v)\sigma_vd<w(v)>\Big|^p\\ &\quad\leq(t-s)^{p-1}\bar{\sigma}^p\sup\limits_{P^{\sigma_\cdot}}E^{P^{\sigma_\cdot}}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)|^2dv\Big)^{p/2}\\ &\quad=(t-s)^{p-1}\bar{\sigma}^p\hat{\mathbb E}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)\sigma_v|^2dv\Big)^{p/2}.\end{aligned}$$ From the classical Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality (see, e.g. Mao and Yuan [@MY2006 Theorem 2.13 on page 70]), we get $$\begin{aligned} &\hat{\mathbb E}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u\zeta(v)dB(v)\Big|^p\\ &=\sup\limits_{P^{\sigma_\cdot}\in{\cal P}}E^{P^{\sigma_\cdot}}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u\zeta(v)\sigma_vdw(v)\Big|^p\\ &\leq C_p\sup\limits_{P^{\sigma_\cdot}\in{\cal P}}E^{P^{\sigma_\cdot}}\sup\limits_{s\leq u\leq t}\Big|\int_s^u|\zeta(v)\sigma_v|^2dv\Big|^{p/2}\\ & \leq C_p\bar\sigma^p\hat{\mathbb E}\Big(\int_s^t|\zeta(v)|^2dv\Big)^{p/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the proof is complete. $\Box$ We now define $G$-upper capacity $\mathbb{V}(\cdot)$ and $G$-lower capacity $\mathcal{V}(\cdot)$ by $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb V}(A)=&\sup_{P\in {\cal P}}P(A),~\forall~ A\in {\cal B}(\Omega),\\ {\mathcal V}(A)=&\inf_{P\in {\cal P}}P(A),~\forall~ A\in {\cal B}(\Omega).\end{aligned}$$ Thus a property is called to hold quasi surely (q.s.) if there exists a polar set $D$ with ${\mathbb V}(D)=0$ such that it holds for each $\omega\in D^c$. We say that a property holds ${\cal P}$-q.s. means that it holds $P$-a.s. for each $P\in{\cal P}$. If an event $A$ fulfills $\mathbb V(A)=1$, then we call the event $A$ occurs $\mathbb V$-a.s. Delay-Dependent Asymptotic Stability of $G$-SDDEs ================================================= For the convenience of presentation, all processes take values in $\mathbb{R}$. Let $\mathbb{R}_+ = [0,\infty)$. If $A$ is a subset of $\Omega$, denote by $I_A$ its indicator function. Let $(\Omega , {\cal H}, \{{\Omega}_t\}_{t\ge 0}, \hat{\mathbb{E}}, \mathbb{V})$ be a generalized sublinear expectation space. Let $(B(t))_{t\ge0}$ be one dimensional $G$-Brownian motion defined on the sublinear expectation space. Let $f,g: \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}$ be Borel measurable functions and $h: \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}$ be deterministic continuous function. For $\tau>0,$ let $\de(t)\in[0,\tau],t\ge0$ satisfy $d\de(t)/dt=\dot{\de}(t)\le \bar\de$. Consider one dimensional highly nonlinear variable delay SDE driven by $G$-Brownian motion ($G$-SDDE) $$\begin{aligned} \label{sdde1} dX(t)= &f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)dt\nonumber\\ &\quad + g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)d<B(t)>+h(t)dB(t)\end{aligned}$$ on $t\geq 0$ with nonrandom initial data $$\label{2.2} \{X(t):-\tau\leq t\leq 0\} = \eta\in C([-\tau,0]; \mathbb{R}).$$ The uniqueness of solutions to stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion has been proved under the coefficients satisfying non-Lipschitzian conditions, where the coefficients is often bounded by a linear function (see, e.g., Lin [@Lq2013]). In this paper, however, the coefficients of $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) cannot be bounded by a linear function. The coefficients in (\[sdde1\]) are called highly nonlinear in terms of Fei [*et al.*]{} [@FHMS] and Hu [*et al.*]{} [@HMS], the corresponding equations (\[sdde1\]) are called highly nonlinear $G$-SDDEs. In Fei [*et al.*]{} [@FFY], the existence and uniqueness of solutions to $G$-SDDEs (\[sdde1\]) are proved, while the stability and boundedness of solutions to $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) is investigated as well. We will consider highly nonlinear $G$-SDDEs which, in general, do not satisfy the linear growth condition in this paper. Therefore, we impose the polynomial growth condition, instead of the linear growth condition. Let us provide these conditions as an assumption for our aim. \[A2.1\] Assume that for any $b>0$, there exists a positive constant $K_b$ such that $$\begin{aligned} & |f(x,y,t)-f(\bar x,y,t)|\vee|g(x,y,t)-g(\bar x,y,t)|\\ &\quad \leq K_b(|x-\bar x|+|y-\bar y|) \end{aligned}$$ for all $x, \bar x,y,\bar y\in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $|x|\vee |\bar x|\vee|y|\vee|\bar y|\leq b$ and all $t\in \mathbb{R}_+$. Assume moreover that there exist three constants $K >0$, $q_1,q_2$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{Pol} &|f(x,y,t)|\leq K(1+|x|^{q_1}+|y|^{q_1})\nonumber\\ &|g(x,y,t)|\leq K(1+|x|^{q_2}+|y|^{q_2})\nonumber\\ &|h(t)|\le K\end{aligned}$$ for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}, t\in\mathbb{R}_+$. The condition (\[Pol\]) with $q_1=q_2=1$ is the familiar linear growth condition. But, we emphasise that we are here interested in highly nonlinear $G$-SDDEs which mean $q_1>1$ or $q_2>1$. The condition (\[Pol\]) is referred as the polynomial growth condition. It is known that Assumption \[A2.1\] only guarantees that the $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) with the initial data (\[2.2\]) has a unique maximal solution, which may explode to infinity at a finite time. To avoid such a possible explosion, we need to impose an additional condition by Lyapunov functions. To this end, we need more notation. We denote $C^{2,1}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+; \mathbb{R}_+)$ as the family of non-negative functions $U(x,t)$ defined on $(x,t)\in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+$ which are continuously twice differentiable in $x$ and once in $t$. Now we can state another assumption. \[A2.2\] Let $H(\cdot)\in C(\mathbb{R}\times[-\tau,\infty);\mathbb{R}_+)$. Assume that there exists a function $\bar U\in C^{2,1}(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}_+; \mathbb{R}_+)$, nonnegative constants $c_1, c_2, c_3$ and $q=2(q_1\vee q_2$ ) such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{H12} c_3< c_2(1-\bar\de), |x|^q \leq \bar U(x,t) \leq H(x,t)\end{aligned}$$ for $\forall(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_+$, and $$\begin{aligned} \label{ALV} \mathbb{L}\bar U(x,y,t): =& \bar U_t(x,t) + \bar U_x(x,t) f(x,y,t)\nonumber\\ &+ G(2\bar U_x(x,t)g(x,y,t)+\bar U_{xx}(x,t)h^2(t))\nonumber\\ \le& c_1 -c_2 H(x,t) + c_3 H(y,t-\de(t))\end{aligned}$$ for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R},t \in \mathbb{R}_+$. The following result gives the boundedness of the solution to $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) (see, e.g., Fei [*et al.*]{} [@FFY Theorem 5.2]). \[Pro\] Under Assumptions \[A2.1\] and \[A2.2\], the highly nonlinear $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) with the initial data (\[2.2\]) has unique global solution satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \sup\limits_{-\tau\leq t<\infty}\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t)|^q<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we will use the method of Lyapunov functionals to investigate the delay-dependent asymptotic stability. We define two segments $\bar X(t): = \{X(t+s): -2\tau\leq s\leq 0\}$ for $t\geq 0$. For $\bar X(t)$ to be well defined for $0\leq t < 2\tau$, we set $X(s)=\eta(-\tau)$ for $s\in [-2\tau, -\tau)$. We construct the Lyapunov functional as follows $$\begin{aligned} &V(\bar X(t),t) = U(X(t),t)\\ & +\theta \int_{-\tau}^0 \int_{t+s}^t \Big[ \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &\quad+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u),u))|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \Big] du ds\end{aligned}$$ for $t \geq 0$, where $U\in C^{2,1}(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}_+; \mathbb{R}_+)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{|x|\to\infty} \ [\inf_{t\in\mathbb{R}_+}\ U(x,t)]=\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and $\theta$ is a positive number to be determined later while we set $$\begin{aligned} &f(x,s)=f(x,0), \ g(x,s)=g(x,0)\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}, s\in[-2\tau,\infty)$. Applying the Itô formula for $G$-Brownian motion (see [@P2010]) to $U(X(t),t)$, we get, for $t\ge0$, $$\begin{aligned} &dU(X(t),t) \\ &= \Big( U_t(X(t),t)+ U_x(X(t),t) f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t) \Big) dt \\ & \quad+\Big(U_x(X(t),t)g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)\\ &\quad+\frac12 h^2(t)U_{xx}(X(t),t)\Big)d<B(t)> \\ &\quad+ U_x(X(t),t)h(t)dB(t)\\ &\le {{\mathbb{L}}} U(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)dt+U_x(X(t),t)h(t)dB(t)\end{aligned}$$ by [@FF Proposition 2.5]. Rearranging terms gives $$\begin{aligned} dU&(X(t),t)\\ & \leq\Big( U_x(X(t),t) [ f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t) - f(X(t),X(t),t) ] \\ & + { \mathcal{L}}U(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t) \Big)dt+ U_x(X(t), t)h(t)dB(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the function ${\mathcal{ L}}U: \mathbb{R}^2 \times C([-\de(t),0];\mathbb{R}^d)\times \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{LU} {\mathcal{L}}U&(x,y,t)= U_t(x,t) +U_x(x,t) f(x,x,t)\nonumber\\ &+ G(2g(x,y,t)U_{x}(x,t)+h(t)^2U_{xx}(x,t)).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the fundamental theory of calculus shows $$\begin{aligned} & d\Big(\int_{-\tau}^0 \int_{t+s}^t \Big[ \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \Big] du ds\Big) \\ & = \Big( \tau \Big[ \tau |f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)|^2 \\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(t)|^2 \Big]\\ &-\int_{t-\tau}^t \Big[ \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\tau),u)|^2 \\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \Big] du \Big) dt.\end{aligned}$$ \[L3.1\] With the notation above, $V(\bar X(t), t)$ is $G$-Itô process on $t\geq 0$ with its Itô differential $$dV(\bar X(t), t) \leq LV(\bar X(t), t)dt + dM(t) \quad\mbox{q.s.},$$ where $M(t)$ is a $G$-continuous martingale with $M(0)=0$ and $$\begin{aligned} LV&(\bar X(t),t) = \\ & U_x(X(t),t) [ f((X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)- f(X(t),X(t),t) ] \\ & + {\mathcal{L}}U(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)\\ & +\theta \tau \Big[ \tau |f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)|^2 \\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(t)|^2 \Big]\\ &-\theta\int_{t-\tau}^t \Big[ \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\tau),u)|^2 \\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \Big] du.\end{aligned}$$ To study the delay-dependent asymptotic stability of the $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]), we need to impose two new assumptions. \[A3.2\] Assume that there are functions $U\in C^{2,1}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+; \mathbb{R}_+)$, $U_1 \in C(\mathbb{R}\times[-\tau,\infty); \mathbb{R}_+)$, and positive numbers $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ and $\beta_k$ ($k=1,2,3,4$) such that $$\label{A3.2c} \alpha_2<\alpha_1(1-\bar\de)$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{A3.2c1} &{\mathcal{L}}U(x,y,t) + \beta_1 |U_x(x,t)|^2\\ &+ \beta_2|f(x,y,t)|^2 +\beta_3|g(x,y,t)|^2+\beta_4|h(t)|^2 \nonumber\\ &\leq -\alpha_1 U_1(x,t)+\alpha_2U_1(y,t-\de(t)),\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}, t\in\mathbb{R}_+$. \[A3.3\] Assume that there exists a positive number $\varpi$ such that $$|f(x,x,t)-f(x,y,t)| \leq \varpi|x-y|$$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}, t\in [-2\tau,\infty)$. \[T3.4\] Let Assumptions \[A2.1\], \[A2.2\], \[A3.2\] and \[A3.3\] hold, where $h(\cdot)$ is a deterministic function. Assume also that $$\label{WF} \tau\le \sqrt{\frac{4\beta_1\beta_2}{3\varpi^2}}\bigwedge\sqrt{\frac{4\beta_1\beta_3}{3\varpi^2\bar\sigma^2}}\bigwedge\frac{4\beta_1\beta_4}{3\varpi^2\bar\sigma^2}.$$ Then for any given initial data (\[2.2\]), the solution of the $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) has the properties that $$\label{T3.5b} \mathcal{E}\int_{0}^\infty U_1(X(t),t)dt <\infty$$ and $$\sup_{0\leq t <\infty} \hat{\mathbb{E}} U(X(t),t) < \infty.$$ [ **Proof**]{}: Fix the initial data $\eta\in C([-\tau,0];\mathbb{R})$ arbitrarily. Let $k_0 >0$ be a sufficiently large integer such that $\|\eta\|:=\sup_{-\tau\leq s\leq0}|\eta(s)| < k_0$. For each integer $k>k_0$, define the stopping time $$\sigma_k = \inf\{t \geq 0: |x(t)| \geq k\}.$$ It is easy to see that $\sigma_k$ is increasing as $k\to\infty$ and $\lim_{k\to\infty} \sigma_k =\infty$ [a.s.]{} By the Itô formula for $G$-Brownian motion we obtain from Lemma \[L3.1\] that $$\begin{aligned} \label{intV} &\hat{\mathbb{E}} V(\bar X(t\wedge\sigma_k), t\wedge\sigma_k)\nonumber\\ & \leq V(\bar X(0),0)+ \hat{\mathbb{E}} \int_0^{t\wedge\sigma_k} LV(\bar X(s), s) ds\end{aligned}$$ for any $t\geq 0$ and $k\geq k_0$. Let $\theta= 3\varpi^2/(4\beta_1) $. By Assumption \[A3.3\] and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned} &U_x(X(t),t)[f(X(t),X(t),t)- f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t) ] \nonumber\\ &\leq \beta_1|U_x(X(t),t) |^2 + \frac{\varpi^2}{4\beta_1}|X(t)-X(t-\de(t))|^2.\end{aligned}$$ By condition (\[WF\]), we also have $$\theta\tau^2\le \beta_2,~\theta\bar\sigma^2\tau^2\le\beta_3,~\theta\bar\sigma^2\tau\leq \beta_4.$$ It then follows from Lemma \[L3.1\] that $$\begin{aligned} &L V(\bar X(s), s) \leq {\mathcal{L}}U(X(s),X(s-\de(t)),s) + \beta_1 |U_x(X(s),s)|^2\\ & +\beta_2 |f(X(s),X(s-\de(s)),s)|^2\\ & + \beta_3 |g(X(s),X(s-\de(s)),s)|^2+\beta_4|h(s)|^2\\ & + \frac{\varpi^2}{4\beta_1}|X(s)-X(s-\de(s))|^2 \\ & - \frac{3\varpi^2}{4\beta_1} \int_{s-\de(s)}^s \Big[ \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \Big] du.\end{aligned}$$ By Assumption \[A3.2c1\], we then have $$\begin{aligned} &L V (\bar X(s),s) \\ & \leq -\alpha_1 U_1(X(s),s) +\alpha_2U_1(X(s-\de(s)),s-\de(s))\\ & + \frac{\varpi^2}{4\beta_1} \int_{-\de(s)}^0|X(s)-X(s+u)|^2du \\ & - \frac{3\varpi^2}{4\beta_1} \int_{s-\de(s)}^s \Big[ \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \Big] du.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this into (\[intV\]) implies $$\begin{aligned} \label{intV2} \mathbb{ E} V(\bar X(t\wedge\sigma_k), t\wedge\sigma_k) \leq V(\bar X(0),0) +I_1+I_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &I_1 = \hat{\mathbb{E}}\int_0^{t\wedge\sigma_k} \big[ -\alpha_1 U_1(X(s),s)\\ &\quad +\alpha_2U_1(X(s-\de(s)),s-\de(s)) \big] ds, \\ &I_2 = \frac{\varpi^2}{4\beta_1} \hat{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\int_0^{t\wedge\sigma_k} \big[ |X(s)-X(s-\de(s))|^2 \\ &\quad- 3\int_{s-\de(s)}^s\big( \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &\quad+ \tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2\big) du\big ] ds\Big].\end{aligned}$$ We notice the following fact $$\begin{aligned} &\int_0^{\sigma_k\wedge t}U_1(X(s-\de(s)),s-\de(s))ds\nonumber\\ &\leq \frac{ 1}{1-\bar\de}\int_{-\tau}^0U_1(\eta(s),s)ds+\frac{1}{1-\bar\de}\int_0^{\sigma_k\wedge t}U_1(x(s),s)ds.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we get $$\begin{aligned} &I_1\leq\frac{\alpha_2}{1-\bar\de}\int_{-\tau}^0 U_1(\eta(u),u) du \\ &\quad+\frac{\bar\alpha}{1-\bar\de} \hat{\mathbb{E}}\Big[-\int_0^{t\wedge\sigma_k} U_1(X(s),s) ds\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar\alpha= (1-\bar\de)\alpha_1 - \alpha_2> 0$ by Assumption \[A3.2\]. Substituting this into (\[intV2\]) yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{intV3} \frac{\bar\alpha}{1-\bar\de} \mathcal{E}\int_0^{t\wedge\sigma_k} U_1(X(s),s) ds \leq C_1 +I_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ is a constant defined by $$C_1 = V(\bar X(0),0) + \frac{\alpha_2}{1-\bar\de} \int_{-\tau}^{0} U_1(\eta(s),s) ds.$$ Let $k \to\infty$ in (\[intV3\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{intV4} \frac{\bar\alpha}{1-\bar\de} \mathcal{E}\int_0^{t} U_1(X(s),s) ds \leq C_1 +\bar I_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \bar I_2 =& \frac{\varpi^2}{4\beta_1} \hat{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\int_0^t \big[ |X(s)-X(s-\de(s))|^2 \nonumber\\ &\quad- 3\int_{s-\de(s)}^s\big( \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &\quad+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \big) du\big ] ds\Big].\end{aligned}$$ For $t\in [0,\tau]$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{H1H2} \bar I_2 &\leq \frac{\varpi^2}{2\beta_1} \int_0^{\tau} (\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(s)|^2 + \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(s-\de(s))|^2 )ds\nonumber\\ &\leq \frac{\tau\varpi^2}{\beta_1} \Big( \sup_{-\tau\leq u\leq\tau} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(u)|^2 \Big).\end{aligned}$$ For $t> \tau$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{H2j} &\bar I_2 \le \frac{\tau\varpi^2}{\beta_1} \Big( \sup_{-\tau\leq u\leq\tau} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(u)|^2 \Big)\nonumber\\ &\quad+ \frac{\varpi^2}{4\beta_1}\hat{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\int_\tau^t \big[ |X(s)-X(s-\de(s))|^2 \nonumber\\ &\quad- 3\int_{s-\de(s)}^s\big( \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\nonumber\\ &\quad+\tau\bar\sigma^2|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2 \big) du\big ] ds\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Noting $$\begin{aligned} &|X(s)-X(s-\de(s))|\\ & = \Big|\int_{s-\de(s)}^{s} f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)du \\ &+\int_{s-\de(s)}^{s} g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)d<B(u)>\\ &+\int_{s-\de(t)}^{s} h(u)dB(u)\Big|,\end{aligned}$$ by [@FF Proposition 2.5] and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned} &|X(s) -X(s-\de(s))|^2 \\ &\leq 3\int_{s-\de(s)}^{s}\tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(t)),u)|^2du \\ &+ 3\bar\sigma^2\int_{s-\de(s)}^{s}\tau |g(X(u),X(u-\de(s)),u)|^2du\\ &+3\Big(\int_{s-\de(s)}^{s}h(u)dB(u)\Big)^2\quad \mbox{q.s.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we get $$\begin{aligned} &\hat{\mathbb{E}}\int_\tau^t \big[ |X(s)-X(s-\de(s))|^2 \\ &- 3\int_{s-\de(s)}^s\big( \tau |f(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2\\ &+ \bar\sigma^2\tau|g(X(u),X(u-\de(u)),u)|^2+\bar\sigma^2|h(u)|^2\big) du\big ] ds\\ &\leq 3\hat{\mathbb{E}}\int_\tau^t\Big(\int_{s-\de(s)}^{s}h(u)dB(u)\Big)^2ds\\ &- 3\bar\sigma^2\int_\tau^t \int_{s-\de(s)}^s|h(u)|^2 du ds=0\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[BBI\] and the properties of sublinear expectation and $G$-Brownian motion. Thus from (\[H1H2\]) and (\[H2j\]) we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{H3H4} \bar I_2 \leq\frac{\tau\varpi^2}{\beta_1} \Big( \sup_{-\tau\leq u\leq\tau} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(u)|^2 \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[H3H4\]) into (\[intV4\]), together with (\[WF\]), yields $$\frac{\bar\alpha}{1-\bar\de}\mathcal{E}\int_0^{t} U_1(X(s),s) ds \leq C_1+ \frac{4\beta_3}{3\bar\sigma^2} \sup_{-\tau\leq u\leq\tau} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(u)|^2 :=C_2.$$ Letting $t\to \infty$ gives $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}\int_{0}^{\infty} U_1(X(s),s) ds \leq \frac {(1-\bar\de) C_2}{\bar\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ We deduce easily from (\[intV2\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb{E}}U \Big( X(t\wedge\sigma_k), t\wedge\sigma_k \Big) \leq C_1 +I_2.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $k\to \infty$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb{E}}U (X(t),t) \leq C_2 <\infty ,\end{aligned}$$ which shows $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{0\leq t <\infty}\hat{\mathbb{E}}U(X(t),t) <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the proof is complete. $\Box$ \[C3.5\] Let the conditions of Theorem \[T3.4\] hold. If there moreover exists a pair of positive constants $c$ and $p$ such that $$\begin{aligned} c |x|^p \leq U_1(x), \quad \forall x\in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+,\end{aligned}$$ then for any given initial data (\[2.2\]), the solution of $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) satisfies $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal E}\Big [ \int_0^{\infty} |X(t)|^p dt\Big] < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ which means $$\begin{aligned} \label{C3.5b} \int_0^{\infty} {\mathcal E}|X(t)|^p dt < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Noting the property of sublinear $\cal E$, this corollary follows from Theorem \[T3.4\] obviously. However, it does not follow from (\[C3.5b\]) that $\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathcal E}|X(t)|^p=0$. The following proposition provides a stronger claim. \[T3.6\] Let the conditions of Corollary \[C3.5\] hold. If, moreover, $$p\geq 2 \quad\hbox{and}\quad (p+q_1-1)\vee(p+q_2-1)\leq q,$$ then the solution of $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) satisfies $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t)|^p=0$$ for any initial data (\[2.2\]). That is, $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) is p-moment asymptotically stable under the sublinear expectation $\hat{\mathbb E}$. **Proof**: Fix the initial data (\[2.2\]) arbitrarily. For any $0\leq t_1 < t_2<\infty$, by the Itô formula for $G$-Brownian motion, we get $$\begin{aligned} &d|X(t)|^p=p|X(t)|^{p-1}f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)dt \\ &+ p|X(t)|^{p-2}[X(t)g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)))\\ &+\frac{1}{2}(p-1)h^2(t)]d<B(t)>+p|X(t)|^{p-1}h(t)dB(t),\end{aligned}$$ Noting $d<B(t)>\le \bar\sigma^2dt~$q.s. (see, e.g., Fei and Fei [@FF1]), along with the polynomial growth condition (\[Pol\]), we get $$\begin{aligned} &\big | \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t_2)|^p-\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t_1)|^p \big|\\ &\leq \hat{\mathbb{E}} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \Big( p|X(t)|^{p-1} |f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)|\\ & \quad+ p\bar\sigma^2 |X(t)|^{p-1} |g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)|\\ &\quad+\frac{1}{2}p(p-1)\bar\sigma^2|X(t)|^{p-2}h^2(t)\\ & \leq \hat{\mathbb{E}} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \Big( pK|X(t)|^{p-1} \big[1+|X(t)|^{q_1} +|X(t-\de(t))|^{q_1}\big]\\ &\quad +pK\bar\sigma^2|X(t)|^{p-1} \big[1+|X(t)|^{q_2} +|X(t-\de(t))|^{q_2}\big]\\ &\quad+ \frac{1}{2}p(p-1)K^2\bar\sigma^2 |X(t)|^{p-2} \Big)dt.\end{aligned}$$ By inequalities, $$\begin{aligned} &|X(t)|^{p-1} |X(t-\de(t))|^{q_1} \\ &\quad\leq |X(t)|^{p+q_1-1} + |X(t-\de(t))|^{p+q_1-1} ,\\ &|X(t)|^{p-1} \leq 1 + |X(t)|^q,\end{aligned}$$ etc., and noting that for any $1\leq \bar p\leq q$, by Proposition \[Pro\] we have $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t-\de(t))|^{\bar p}\leq 1+\sup\limits_{-\tau\leq s< \infty}\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(s)|^q<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ we can obtain $$\begin{aligned} \big| \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t_2)|^p-&\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t_1)|^p \big| \leq C_3(t_2-t_1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &C_3=(4pK(1+\bar\sigma^2)\\ &\quad+\frac{1}{2}K^2p(p-1)\bar\sigma^2)(1+\sup_{-\tau \leq s< \infty}\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(s)|^q)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t)|^p $ is uniformly continuous in $t$ on $\mathbb{R}_+$. By (\[C3.5b\]), there is a sequence $\{t_l\}_{l=1}^\infty$ in $\mathbb{R}$ such that ${\mathbb E}|X(t_l)|^p\rightarrow0,$ which easily show the claim. Thus, the proof is complete. $\Box$ \[P3.7\] Let the conditions of Theorem \[T3.4\] hold. Assume also that there are positive constants $p$ and $c$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{P3.7a} c|x|^p\leq U(x,t), \quad \forall (x,t)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_+ . \end{aligned}$$ Moreover assume there exists a function $W: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ such that $$\begin{aligned} W(x)=0 ~\mbox{if and only if}~ x=0 \end{aligned}$$ and $$W(x)\leq U_1(x),\forall x\in\mathbb{R}.$$ Then for any given initial data (\[2.2\]), the solution $X(\cdot)$ to Eq. (\[sdde1\]) obeys that $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to\infty}X(t)=0 \quad \mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ **Proof**: Let $X(\cdot)$ be the solution to Eq. (\[sdde1\]) with initial data $\eta$ defined in (\[2.2\]). Since the conditions in Theorem \[T3.4\] hold, we can show that $$C_4:={\mathcal E}\Big[\int_{0}^\infty W(X(t))dt\Big] <\infty,$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned} \label{Wx} \int_{0}^\infty W(X(t))dt < \infty \quad \mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ Set $\sigma_k:=\inf\{t\geq0: |X(t)|\ge k\}$. We observe from (\[Wx\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \label{Wxt} \lim_{t\to\infty}\inf W(X(t))=0 \quad\mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, in the same way as Theorem \[T3.4\] was proved, we can show that $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(T\wedge\sigma_k)|^p &\leq C, \quad\forall T >0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies, by Chebyshev inequality (see, e.g., Chen [*et al.*]{} [@CWL], Proposition 2.1 (2)), $$k^p \mathbb{V}(\sigma_k\leq T) \leq C.$$ Letting $T\to\infty$ yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6b} k^p\mathbb{V}(\sigma_k< \infty) \leq C. \end{aligned}$$ We now claim that $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.1} \lim_{t\to\infty} W(X(t))=0 \quad \mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, if this is false, then we can find a number $\varepsilon \in (0,1/4)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.2} \mathbb{V} (\Omega_1)\geq 4\varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_1=\{\lim\sup _{t\to\infty} W(X(t))>2\varepsilon\}$. Recalling (\[P5.6b\]), we can find an integer $m$ sufficiently large for ${\cal V}(\sigma_{m} < \infty)\leq\mathbb{V}(\sigma_{m} < \infty) \leq \varepsilon$. This means that $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.3} \mathbb{V}(\Omega_2)=1-\mathcal{V}(\Omega_2^c) \geq 1-\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_2:=\{|X(t)|< m \hbox{ for }\forall t\geq -\tau\}$, and $\Omega_2^c$ is the complement of $\Omega_2$. By (\[P5.6.2\]) and (\[P5.6.3\]) we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.4} \mathbb{V}(\Omega_1\cap\Omega_2) \ge \mathbb{V}(\Omega_1) - \mathcal{V}(\Omega_2^c) \geq 3\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Let us now define the stopped process $\zeta(t)=X(t\wedge\sigma_m)$ for $t\geq -\tau$. Clearly, $\zeta(t)$ is a bounded Itô process with its differential $$\begin{aligned} d\zeta(t) = \phi(t)dt +\psi(t)d<B(t)>+h(t)dB(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &\phi(t)=f(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)I_{[0,\sigma_m)}(t),\\ &\psi(t)=g(X(t),X(t-\de(t)),t)I_{[0,\sigma_m)}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $f,g,h$ are defined by (\[sdde1\]). Recalling the polynomial growth condition (\[Pol\]) and the boundedness of $h(\cdot)$, we know that $\phi(\cdot),\psi(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ are bounded processes, say $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.5} |\phi(t)|\vee |\psi(t)|\vee h(t)\leq C_{5} \quad\mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.}\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\geq 0$ and some $C_5>0$. Moreover, we also observe that $|\zeta(t)|\leq m$ for all $t\geq -\tau$. Define a sequence of stopping times $$\rho_1= \inf\{t\geq 0:W(\zeta(t)) \geq 2\varepsilon\},$$ $$\rho_{2j} = \inf\{t\geq \rho_{2j-1}:W(\zeta(t)) \leq \varepsilon\}, \quad j=1,2,\cdots,$$ $$\rho_{2j+1}= \inf\{t\geq \rho_{2j}:W(\zeta(t)) \geq 2\varepsilon\}, \quad j=1,2,\cdots.$$ From (\[Wxt\]) and the definition of $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{OO} \Omega_1\cap\Omega_2 \subset \{\sigma_m = \infty\} \bigcap \Big( \cap_{j=1}^\infty \{\rho_j < \infty\} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ We also note that for all $\omega\in\Omega_1\cap\Omega_2$, and $j\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.6} W(\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}))-W(\zeta(\rho_{2j})) =\varepsilon \quad \hbox{ and } \nonumber \\ W(\zeta(t))\geq \varepsilon \quad \hbox{ when } t\in [\rho_{2j-1}, \rho_{2j}].\end{aligned}$$ Since $W(\cdot)$ is uniformly continuous in the close ball $\bar S_m=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^d:|x|\leq m \}$. We can choose $\delta=\delta(\varepsilon)>0$ small sufficiently for which $$\begin{aligned} \label{Wuv} |W(\zeta)-W(\bar\zeta)|<\varepsilon, \zeta, \bar\zeta \in \bar S_m, \hbox{ with} \quad |\zeta-\bar\zeta|<\delta .\end{aligned}$$ We emphasize that for $\omega\in\Omega_1\cap\Omega_2$, if $|\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}+u)-\zeta(\rho_{2j-1})| <\delta$ for all $u\in [0,\lambda]$ and some $\lambda >0$, then $\rho_{2j}-\rho_{2j-1} \geq \lambda$. Choose a sufficiently small positive number $\lambda$ and then a sufficiently large positive integer $j_0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{lambdadef} 3 C_5^2 \lambda (\lambda+ \lambda C_1(2,{\bar\sigma})+C_2(2,{\bar\sigma}))\leq \varepsilon \delta^2 \ \hbox{ and } \ C_4< \varepsilon^2 \lambda j_0.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[P5.6.4\]) and (\[OO\]) we can further choose a sufficiently large number $T$ for $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.7} \mathbb{V}(\rho_{2j_0}\leq T) \geq 2\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $\rho_{2j_0}\leq T$, then $|\zeta(\rho_{2j_0})|<m$, and hence $\rho_{2j_0} < \sigma_m$ by the definition of $\zeta(t)$. We hence have $$\begin{aligned} \zeta(t,\omega)=X(t,\omega) \hbox{ for all $0\leq t\leq \rho_{2j_0}$ and $\omega\in \{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\}$. }\end{aligned}$$ By the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality under sublinear expectation (see, e.g., Lemma \[BDG\]), we can have that, for $1\leq j\leq j_0$, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb{E}}\Big( & \sup_{0\leq t\leq \lambda} |\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T+t) -\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T)|^2 \Big) \\ \leq & 3\lambda \hat{\mathbb{E}}\int_{\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T}^{\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T+\lambda} |\phi(s)|^2 ds \\ &\quad+3C_1(2,{\bar\sigma})\lambda \hat{\mathbb{E}}\int_{\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T}^{\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T+\lambda} |\psi(s)|^2 ds\\ &\quad+ 3C_2(2,{\bar\sigma}) \int_{\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T}^{\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T+\lambda} |h(s)|^2ds \\ \leq & 3 C_5^2 \lambda (\lambda+ \lambda C_1(2,{\bar\sigma})+C_2(2,{\bar\sigma})),\end{aligned}$$ which, together with (\[lambdadef\]) and Chebyshev inequality for sublinear expectation $\hat{\mathbb{E}}$, we can obtain that $$\mathbb{V}\Big( \sup_{0\leq t\leq \lambda} | \zeta(\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T+t) -\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}\wedge T)| \geq \delta \Big) \leq \varepsilon.$$ Noting that $\rho_{2j-1}\le T$ if $\rho_{2j_0}\le T$, we can derive from (\[P5.6.7\]) and the above inequality that $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{V}&\Big(\{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\} \cap \Big\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq \lambda} |\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}+t) - \zeta(\rho_{2j-1})| < \delta \Big\} \Big) \\ &= \mathbb{V}(\rho_{2j_0}\leq T) \\ & -\mathcal{V}\Big( \{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\} \cap \Big\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq \lambda} |\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}+t) - \zeta(\rho_{2j-1})| \geq \delta \Big\} \Big) \\ &\geq \mathbb{V}(\rho_{2j_0}\leq T) -\mathcal{V}\Big( \sup_{0\leq t\leq \lambda} |\zeta(\rho_{2j-1}+t) - \zeta(\rho_{2j-1})| \geq \delta \Big) \\ &\geq \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ This, together with (\[Wuv\]), implies easily that $$\begin{aligned} \label{P5.6.12} \mathbb{V}\Big( \{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\} \cap \{\rho_{2j}-\rho_{2j-1} \geq \lambda\} \Big) \geq \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[P5.6.6\]), (\[P5.6.12\]), and the sub-additivity and Chebyshev inequality for sublinear expectation $\mathcal E$, we derive $$\begin{aligned} C_4 & \geq \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} {\mathcal E} \Big( I_{\{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\}} \int_{\rho_{2j-1}}^{\rho_{2j} } W(X(t)) dt \Big) \\ & \geq \varepsilon \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} {\mathcal E} \Big( I_{\{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\}} (\rho_{2j}-\rho_{2j-1}) \Big) \\ & \geq \varepsilon \lambda \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \mathcal{V}\Big( \{\rho_{2j_0}\leq T\} \cap \{\rho_{2j}-\rho_{2j-1} \geq \lambda\} \Big) \\ & \geq \varepsilon^2 \lambda j_0.\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts the second inequality in (\[lambdadef\]). Thus (\[P5.6.1\]) must hold. We now claim $\lim_{t\to \infty} X(t)=0$ $\mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.} $. If this were not true, then $$\varepsilon_1 :={\cal V}(\Omega_3) > 0,$$ where $\Omega_3 = \{\limsup_{t\to\infty} |X(t)| > 0\}$. On the other hand, by (\[P5.6b\]), we can find a positive integer $m_0$ large enough for $\mathbb{V}(\sigma_{m_0} <\infty) \le 0.5 \varepsilon_1$. Let $\Omega_4 = \{\sigma_{m_0}=\infty\}$. Then $${\cal V}(\Omega_3\cap \Omega_4)={\cal V}(\Omega_3)-\mathbb{V}(\Omega_3\cap\Omega_4^c) \geq {\cal V}(\Omega_3) - \mathbb{V}(\Omega_4^c) \ge 0.5\varepsilon_1.$$ For any $\omega\in \Omega_3\cap \Omega_4$, $X(t,\omega)$ is bounded on $t\in \mathbb{R}_+$. We can then find a sequence $\{t_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $t_j\to\infty$ and $X(t_j,\omega) \to \tilde X(\omega) \not= 0$ as $j\to \infty$. This, together with the continuity of $W$, implies $$\lim_{j\to\infty} W(X(t_j,\omega)) = W(\tilde X(\omega)) > 0,$$ which show $$\limsup_{t\to\infty} W(X(t,\omega)) > 0 \ \hbox{ for all $\omega\in \Omega_3\cap \Omega_4$.}$$ But this contradicts (\[P5.6.1\]). We therefore must have the assertion $\lim_{t\to \infty} X(t)=0\quad\mathbb{V}\mbox{-a.s.}$ Thus, the proof is complete. $\Box$ Stability Example for $G$-SDDEs ================================ For a highly nonlinear $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) with $g(t)\equiv0$, by the equal-spaced partition of time, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \label{Dis} X(t_{i})=&X(t_{i-1})+f(X(t_{i-1}),X(t_{i-1}-\de(t_{i-1})),t_{i-1})\Delta t_i\nonumber\\ &\quad+h(t_{i-1})(B(t_{i})-B(t_{i-1}))\end{aligned}$$ with initial data $\eta=\{X(t)=\eta(t), t\in[-\tau,0]\},\Delta =\Delta {t_i}=t_i-t_{i-1}=1/N, i=1,\cdots,N$, where $N$ is a positive integer. Let us first introduce the simulation algorithm for $G$-Brownian motion $(B(t))_{t\ge0}$. Now consider a random variable $\zeta=B({t_i})-B({t_{i-1}})\sim {\cal N}(0,[\underline\sigma^2,\bar\sigma^2]\Delta), i=1,\cdots,N$, we construct an experiment as follows. We take equal-step points $\sigma^k,k=1,\cdots,m,$ such that $\underline\sigma=\sigma^1<\sigma^2\cdots<\sigma^k<\cdots<\sigma^m=\bar\sigma$. For the $k$th-random sampling ($k=1,\cdots,m$), $\zeta^{kj}_i (i=1,\cdots,N; j=1,\cdots,n)$ are from the classical normal distribution ${\cal N}(0, (\sigma^k)^2\Delta)$. Define $X^{kj}(t_i)$ by $$\begin{aligned} \label{Dis1} &X^{kj}(t_{i})=X^{kj}(t_{i-1})\nonumber\\ &+f(X^{kj}(t_{i-1}),X^{kj}(t_{i-1}-\de(t_{i-1})),t_{i-1})\Delta +h(t_{i-1})\zeta^{kj}_i\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1,\cdots,N; j=1,\cdots,n; k=1,\cdots,m$. By the $\varphi$-max-mean algorithm from Peng [@P-scm Section 3.3], for $p\geq 1$ we can obtain the estimator $\hat{\bar\mu}_{m,n}(p)$ of $\hat{\mathbb E}|X({t_i})|^p$ equals to $\max\limits_{1\leq j\leq n}\{\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{k=1}^m|X^{kj}({t_i})|^p\}$, and the estimator $\hat{\underline\mu}_{m,n}(p)$ of ${\mathcal E}|X({t_i})|^p$ to $\min\limits_{1\leq j\leq n}\{\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{k=1}^m|X^{kj}({t_i})|^p\}, i=1,\cdots,N$, respectively. Also, in terms of Theorem 24 in Peng [@P-scm], we know $\hat{\bar\mu}_{m,n}(p)=\max\limits_{1\leq j\leq n}\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{k=1}^m|X^{kj}({t_i})|^p$ is the unbiased estimator of $\hat{\mathbb E}|X({t_i})|^p$, and $\hat{\underline\mu}_{m,n}(p)=\min\limits_{1\leq j\leq n}\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{k=1}^m|X^{kj}({t_i})|^p$ is the unbiased estimator of $\mathcal E|X({t_i})|^p$. Moreover, we easily know that if $\hat{\mathbb E}|X(t)|$ with the solution $X(t)$ to highly nonlinear $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) is stable, then the solution $X(t)$ to $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) is qusi surely stable, i.e., ${\mathcal V}(\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}|X(t)|=0)=1$. Meanwhile, if ${\mathcal E}|X(t)|$ is unstable under sublinear expectation, then the solution $X(t)$ to $G$-SDDE (\[sdde1\]) is unstable, i.e., ${\mathbb V}(\lim\sup\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}|X(t)|\neq0)=1$. Through utilizing the above discussion on the simulation algorithm, we now investigate an example to illustrate our theory. \[E4.1\] Let us consider the $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]), where $f(x,y,t)=-x^3-y,h(t)=\frac{1}{2}e^{-t}, \underline{\sigma}^2=0.5,\bar\sigma^2=1$ and $\bar\de=0.1$. We consider two case: $\de(t)=0.01$ and $\de(t)=2$ for all $t\geq 0$. In case $\de(t)=0.01$, let the initial data $\eta(u)=2+\text{sin}(u)$ for $u\in [-0.01,0],$ the sample paths of the solution of the $G$-SDDE are shown in Figure 4.1, which indicates that the $G$-SDDE is asymptotically stable. In the case $\de(t)=2$, let the initial data $\eta(u)=2+\text{sin}(u)$ for $u\in [-2,0],$ the solution of the $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) are plotted in Figure 4.2, which indicates that $G$-SDDE is asymptotically unstable. From the example we can see $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) is stable or not depends on how long or short the time-delay is. {height="8cm" width="9cm"} {height="8cm" width="9cm"} We can see coefficients defined by (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) satisfy Assumption \[A2.1\] with $q_1=3$ and $q_2=0$. Define $\bar U(x,t)=|x|^6$ for $(x,t)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_+$. It is easy to show that $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{L}\bar U(x,y,t)= 6x^5f(x,y,t)+15x^4|h(t)|^2\end{aligned}$$ for $(x,t)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_+$. Thus we get $$\begin{aligned} &\mathbb{L}\bar U(x,y,t)= 6x^5(-x^3-y)+\frac {15}{4}x^4e^{-t}\\ &\leq 4x^4+5x^6-6x^8+y^6\\ &\leq c_1-2(1+1.5x^6+2.5x^8)+(1+1.5y^6+2.5y^8),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} c_1=\sup\limits_{x\in\mathbb{R}}(1+4x^4+8x^6-x^8)>0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can set $H(x,t)=1+1.5x^6+x^8$. Due to $1=c_3<(1-\bar\de)c_2=1.8$, we know Assumption \[A2.2\] holds. From Proposition \[Pro\], the solution of the $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) satisfies $$\sup_{-\tau\leq t <\infty}\hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t)|^6<\infty.$$ To verify Assumption \[A3.2\], we define $$\begin{aligned} \label{UF} U(x,t) =e^{-t}+x^2+ x^4,\end{aligned}$$ which shows $$\begin{aligned} U_t=-e^{-t},U_x(x,t) =2x+4x^3,U_{xx}=2+12x^2,\end{aligned}$$ for $(x,t)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_+$. By equation (\[LU\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} &{\cal L}U(x,y,t)=\\ &-e^{-t}+(2x+4x^3)(-x^3-x)+\frac{1}{8}e^{-2t}(2+12x^2)\\ &\leq-\frac{3}{4}e^{-t}-0.5x^2-6x^4-4x^6.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $$\begin{aligned} \label{Ui} |U_{x}(x,t)|^2 = 4x^2+16x^4+16x^6,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label {Fi2} |f(x,y,t)|^2 =|-x^3-y|^2 \leq 1.5x^4+x^6+y^2+0.5y^4.\end{aligned}$$ Since $g(\cdot)\equiv0$, $\beta_3$ can take an arbitrary large number. Next, setting $\beta_1=0.1$, $\beta_2=0.05$, $\beta_4=1$, we get that $$\begin{aligned} &{\cal L}U(x,y,t) +\beta_1 |U_x(x,t)|^2 + \beta_2|f(x,y,t)|^2 + \beta_4|h(t)|^2\\ &\leq -0.5e^{-t}-0.1x^2-4x^4-2x^6+0.05y^2+0.0025y^4\\ &\leq -(0.5e^{-t}+0.1x^2+4x^4+2x^6)\\ &\quad+0.5(0.5e^{-(t-\de(t))}+0.1y^2+4y^4+2y^6)\\ &=:-U_1(x,t)+0.05U_1(y,t-\de(t)).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $U_1(x,t)=0.5e^{-t}+0.1x^2+4x^4+2x^6$. Due to $0.9=\alpha_1(1-\bar\de)>\alpha_2=0.05$, we get condition (\[A3.2c\]). Noting that $\varpi=1$, then condition (\[WF\]) becomes $$\de(t)\leq 0.08.$$ {height="8cm" width="9cm"} By Theorem \[T3.4\], we can therefore conclude that the solution of the $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) has the properties that $$\begin{aligned} &\int_0^\8 (X^2(t)+ X^4(t)+X^6(t))dt <\infty \ q.s.,\\ &{\mathcal E}\int_0^\8 ( X^2(t)+ X^4(t)+ X^6(t))dt <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, as $|X(t)|^p \leq X^2(t)+ X^4(t)+ X^6(t)$ for any $p\in [2,6]$, we have $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal E}\int_0^\8 |X(t)|^p dt <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Recalling $q_1=3,\ q_2=0$ and $q=6$, we see that for $p=4$, all conditions of Theorem \[T3.6\] are satisfied and hence we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to\infty} \hat{\mathbb{E}}|X(t)|^4 =0.\end{aligned}$$ We perform a computer simulation with the time-delay $\de(t)=0.08 $ for all $t\geq 0$ and the initial data $X(u)=2+\text{sin}(u)$ for $u\in [-0.08,0]$. The sample paths of the solution to the $G$-SDDE (\[$G$-SDDE1\]) are plotted in Figure 4.3. The simulation supports our theoretical results. Conclusion ========== In real systems, we are often faced with two kinds of uncertainties: probability and Knightian ones, respectively. By using Peng’s sublinear expectation framework, we can characterize the systems with ambiguity. This paper gives a description of this kind of system with delay through $G$-Brownian motion. Moreover, the boundedness and stability of solutions to $G$-SDDEs are discussed. We first give the delay-dependent criteria of stability and boundedness of the solutions to highly nonlinear $G$-SDDEs by the method of Lyapunov functional. Then, in Section 4 we give a simulation algorithm related $G$-Brownian motion, moreover an illustrative example is explored. In fact, under classical probability, the stability of highly nonliner hybrid SDDEs has been studied by some researchers. However, our idea and framework with sublinear expectation provide a new perspective for further investigating the stability and boundedness of highly nonlinear stochastic systems driven by $G$-Brownian motion. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The authors would also like to thank the Natural Science Foundation of China (71571001) for their financial support. [99]{} Chen, Z. and Epstein, L. (2002). Ambiguity, risk and asset returns in continuous time, *Econometrica* 70(4), 1403-1443. Chen, Z., Wu, P. and Li, B. (2013). A strong law of large numbers for non-additive probabilities, *International Journal of Approximate Reasoning* 54, 365-377. Deng, S., Fei, C., Fei, W, and Mao, X. (2019). Stability equivalence between the stochastic differential delay equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion and the Euler-Maruyama method, *Applied Mathematics Letters* 96, 138-146. Denis, L., Hu, M., and Peng, S. (2008). Function spaces and capacity related to a sublinear expectation: application to $G$-Brownian motion paths, arXiv:0802.1240v1. Epstein, L. and Ji, S. (2013). Ambiguity volatility, possibility and utility in continuous time, *Review of Financial Studies* 26(7), 1740-1786. Epstein, L. and Ji, S. (2014). Ambiguity volatility and asset pricing in continuous time, *Journal of Mathematical Economics* 50, 269-282. Fei, C. and Fei, W. (2019). Consistency of least squares estimation to the parameter for stochastic differential equations under distribution uncertainty, *Acta Mathematica Scientia* 39A(6), 1499-1513 (see arXiv:1904.12701v1). Fei, C., Fei, W., Mao, X., Xia, D., and Yang, L. (2019). Stabilisation of highly nonlinear hybrid systems by feedback control based on discrete-time state observations, *IEEE Trans. Automat. Control*, DOI:10.1109/TAC.2019.2933604. Fei, C., Fei, W., and Yan, L. (2019). Existence-uniqueness and stability of solutions to highly nonlinear stochastic differential delay equations driven by $G$-Brownian motions, *Appl. Math. J. Chinese Univ.* 34(2), 184-204. Fei, C., Shen, M., Fei, W., Mao, X., and Yan L. (2019). Stability of highly nonlinear hybrid stochastic integro-differential delay equations, *Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems* 31, 180-199. Fei, W. (2007). Optimal consumption and portfolio choice with ambiguity and anticipation, *Information Sciences* 177, 5178-5190. Fei, W. (2009). Optimal portfolio choice based on $\alpha$-MEU under ambiguity, *Stochastic Models* 25, 455-482. Fei, W. and Fei, C. (2013). Optimal stochastic control and optimal consumption and portfolio with $G$-Brownian motion, arXiv:1309.0209v1. Fei, W. and Fei, C. (2013). On exponential stability for stochastic differential equations disturbed by $G$-Brownian motion, see arXiv:1311.7311. Fei, W., Hu, L., Mao, X., and Shen, M. (2017). Delay dependent stability of highly nonlinear hybrid stochastic systems, *Automatica* 28, 165-170. Fei, W., Hu, L., Mao, X. and Shen, M. (2018). Structured robust stability and boundedness of nonlinear hybrid delay dystems, *SIAM Contr. Opt.* 56(4), 2662-2689. Gao, F.Q. (2009). Pathwise properties and homeomorphic flows for stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion, *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 119 (10), 3356-3382. Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique priors, *J. Mathematical Economics* 18, 141-153. Has¡¯minskii, R.Z. (2012). *Stochastic Stability of Differential Equations, Second edition*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. Hu, L., X. Mao, and Shen, Y. (2013). Stability and boundedness of nonlinear hybrid stochastic differential delay equations, *Systems & Control Letters* 62, 178-187. Hu, L., X. Mao, and Zhang, L. (2013). Robust stability and boundedness of nonlinear hybrid stochastic delay equations, *IEEE Trans. Automat Control* 58(9), 2319-2332. Hu, M. and Peng, S. (2009). On representation theorem of $G$-expectations and paths of $G$-Brownian motion, *Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica, English Series* 25(3), 539-546. Hu, M., Ji, S., Peng, S. and Song, Y. (2014). Backward stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion, *Stochastic Processes and their Applications* 124, 759-784. LaSalle, J.P. (1968). Stability theory of ordinary differential equations, *J. Differential Equations* 4, 57-65. Lei, J. and Mackey, M. (2007). Stochastic differential delay equation, moment stability, and application to hematopoitic stem cell regulation systems, *SIAM J. Appl. Math.* 67(2), 387-407. Li, X and Peng, S. (2009). Stopping times and related Itô’s calculus with $G$-Brownian motion, *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 121, 1492-1508. Li, Y. and Yan, L. (2018). Stability of delayed Hopfield neural networks under a sublinear expectation framework, *Journal of the Franklin Institute* 355(10), 4268-4281. Lin, Q. (2013). Some properties of stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion, *Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.)* 29, 923-942. Lin, Y. (2013). Stochastic differential eqations driven by $G$-Brownian motion with reflecting boundary, *Electron. J. Probab.* 18(9), 1-23. Liu, J. (2012). On asymptotic convergence and boundedness of stochastic systems with time-delay, *Automatica* 48, 3166-3172. Luo, J. and Liu, K. (2008). Stability of infinite dimensional stochastic evolution equations with memory and Markovian jumps, *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 118, 864-895 Luo, P. and Wang, F. (2014). Stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion and ordinary differential equations. *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 124, 3869-3885. Lyapunov, A.M. (1907). Problème général de la stabilité du movement, Comm. Soc. Math. Kharkov 2 (1892) 265-272; Translated in: Annales de la faculté des sciences de Toulouse 9, 203-474. Mao, X. (2007). *Stochastic Differential Equations and Their Applications, 2nd Edition*, Horwood Pub.£¬ Chichester¡£ Mao, X., Yin G., and Yuan C. (2007). Stabilization and destabilization of hybrid systems of stochastic differential equations, *Automatica* 43, 264-273. Mao, X. and Yuan C. (2006). *Stochastic Differential Equations with Markovian Switching*, Imperical College Press, London. Mei, C., Fei, C., Fei, W., Mao, X. (2020). Stabilisation of highly non-linear continuous-time hybrid stochastic differential delay equations by discrete-time feedback control, *IET Control Theor. Appl.* 14 (2), 313-323. Peng, S. (2006). $G$-expectation, $G$-Brownian motion and related stochastic calculus of Itô¡¯s type, The Abel Symposium 2005, Abel Symposia 2, Edit. Benth et. al., pp. 541-567, Springer-Verlag. Peng, S. (2008). Multi-dimensional $G$-Brownian motion and related stochastic calculus under $G$-expectation, *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 118(12), 2223-2253. Peng, S. (2016). Theory, methods and meaning of nonlinear expectation theory, *Sci. China Math.* 47(10), 1223-1254. (in Chinese) Peng, S. (2019). *Nonlinear Expectations and Stochastic Calculus under Uncertainty*, Springer, Berlin. Peng, S., Song, Y., and Zhang, J. (2014), A complete representation theorem for $G$-martingales, *Stochastics* 86(4), 609-631. Peng, S. and Zhang, H. (2017). Stochastic calculus with respect to $G$-Brownian motion viewed through rough paths. *Sci. China Math.* 60(1), 1-20. Ren, Y., Yin, W., Sakthivel, R. (2018). Stabilization of stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion with feedback control based on discrete-time state observation, *Automatica* 95, 146-151. Shen, M., Fei, C., Fei, W., and Mao, X. (2019). Boundedness and stability of highly nonlinear hybrid neutral stochastic systems with multiple delays, *Sci. China Inf. Sci.* 62, 202205. Shen, M., Fei, C., Fei, W., and Mao, X. (2020). Stabilisation by delay feedback control for highly nonlinear neutral stochastic differential equations, *Systems & Control Letters* 137, 104645. Soner, M., Touzi, N., and J. Zhang (2011). Quasi-sure stochastic analysis through aggregation, *Electronic Journal of Probability* 16, 1844-1879. Song, Y. (2011), Some properties on $G$-evaluation and its applications to $G$-martingale decomposition, *Sci. China Math.* 54 (2), 287-300. Xu, L., Ge Sam S., and Hu, H. (2019), Boundedness and stability analysis for impulsive stochastic differential equations driven by $G$-Brownian motion, *International Journal of Control* 92(3), 642-652. Yao, Z.H. and Zong, X.F. (2020). Delay-dependent stability of a class of stochastic delay systems driven by $G$-Brownian motion, *IET Control Theory & Applications* 14(6), 834-842. Yin, W, Cao, J, and Ren, Y. (2019). Quasi-sure exponential stabilization of stochastic systems induced by $G$-Brownian motion with discrete time feedback control, *Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications* 474(1), 276-289. Zhang, L. (2016). Rosenthal’s inequalities for independent and negatively dependent random variables under sub-linear expectations with applications, *Sci. China Math.* 59(4),751-768. Zhang, D. F. and Chen, Z. (2012). Exponential stability for stochastic differential equation driven by $G$-Brownian motion, *Applied Mathematics Letters* 25, 1906-1910. [^1]: Corresponding author. E-mail: wyfei@ahpu.edu.cn

--- abstract: 'A recent cross-correlation between the SDSS DR7 White Dwarf Catalog with the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (*WISE*) all-sky photometry at 3.4, 4.6, 12, and 22 microns performed by [@debes11] resulted in the discovery of 52 candidate dusty white dwarfs (WDs). The 6$\arcsec$ *WISE* beam allows for the possibility that many of the excesses exhibited by these WDs may be due to contamination from a nearby source, however. We present MMT$+$SWIRC $J$- and $H$-band imaging observations (0.5-1.5$\arcsec$ PSF) of 16 of these candidate dusty WDs and confirm that four have spectral energy distributions (SEDs) consistent with a dusty disk and are not accompanied by a nearby source contaminant. The remaining 12 WDs have contaminated *WISE* photometry and SEDs inconsistent with a dusty disk when the contaminating sources are not included in the photometry measurements. We find the frequency of disks around single WDs in the *WISE* $\cap$ SDSS sample to be 2.6-4.1%. One of the four new dusty WDs has a mass of $1.04~M_{\odot}$ (progenitor mass $5.4~M_{\odot}$) and its discovery offers the first confirmation that massive WDs (and their massive progenitor stars) host planetary systems.' author: - 'Sara D. Barber, Mukremin Kilic, Warren R. Brown, A. Gianninas' title: 'Dusty WDs in the *WISE* All Sky Survey $\cap$ SDSS' --- INTRODUCTION ============ A new class of dusty white dwarfs (WDs) is rapidly being populated through infrared excess searches using *Spitzer*, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (*WISE*; @wright10), and various ground based telescopes such as the IRTF and Gemini (@zuckerman87 [@kilic05; @becklin05; @vonhippel07; @jura07a; @farihi10; @debes11; @barber12; @xu12]). These WDs exhibit excess emission in the near- and mid-infrared due to the thermal reprocessing of light by a disk of circumstellar dust. These dust disks are the debris resultant from the tidal disruption of an asteroid that has veered off its orbit and passed within the WD’s Roche lobe (@debes02 [@jura03; @jura08; @bonsor11; @debes12]). The origin of these asteroids is dynamical instability, initiated by post-main sequence stellar mass loss, whence a massive planet (if present) will start to gravitationally interact with smaller planetary bodies. After numerous interactions, an asteroid’s orbit will become increasingly eccentric and in some cases approach close enough to the WD to be ripped apart by tidal forces. The debris produced by this disruption embodies a circular disk geometry after many subsequent orbits (@debes12). Dust persists around a WD inside the tidal radius of the WD and outside the radius at which the equilibrium temperature is such that the dust will sublimate. Viscous torques cause the sublimated dust to accrete onto WD’s surface (@rafikov11a [@rafikov11b; @veras13]). This accretion results in a spectroscopically detectable pollution of the otherwise pristine WD atmosphere. Photospheric abundance analyses of these WDs show that the accreted metals originate from tidally disrupted minor bodies similar in composition to that of bulk Earth (@zuckerman07 [@klein10; @klein11; @dufour10; @dufour12; @xu14]). Since at least one planet is required to perturb minor bodies out of their stable orbits (@debes12), photospheric pollution as well as circumstellar debris disks serve as tracers for remnant planetary systems at WDs. Dusty disks surrounding WDs are generally assumed to be geometrically flat and optically thick (@jura03 [@rafikov11a; @rafikov11b]). Based on flat disk models, they vary in width from a narrow ring, a few tenths of a solar radius, to a disk filling the entire region interior to the tidal radius of the star and exterior to the radius of dust sublimation. The WDs known to host debris disks typically range in temperature from 9500-24,000 $K$ and in mass from 0.5-0.9 $M_{\odot}$. With this work, we expand the parameter space occupied by WD+disk systems with the confirmation of the first disk orbiting a WD hotter than 24,000 $K$ and the first disk orbiting a WD more massive than 1 $M_{\odot}$. We present follow up near-infrared (NIR) $J$- and $H$-band photometry using the 6.5 m MMT with SWIRC of 16 WDs exhibiting a mid-infrared excess indicative of a debris disk detected by *WISE* (@debes11). We use the higher spatial resolution of SWIRC to confirm the presence of a debris disk or to identify a photometric contamination in the six arcsecond *WISE* beam. We start in Section \[target\] with the selection of our targets. Section \[obs\] is a description of the observations and data reduction as well as the debris disk modeling of the detected excesses. Finally, we present our results in Section \[results\]. TARGET SELECTION {#target} ================ The *WISE* mission opens up new opportunities for detecting excess infrared light at WDs caused by orbiting planetary debris. *WISE* provides four bands of mid-infrared photometry from 3.4 to 22 $\mu$m. The *WISE* InfraRed Excesses around Degenerates (WIRED; @debes11) Survey reveals a large number of candidate WD$+$dust disk systems through a cross-correlation of $\sim$18,000 WDs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 7 WD catalog (@kleinman13), the 2MASS All Sky Data Release Point Source Catalog (@skrutskie06), and the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) Data Release 5 Point Source Catalogs from the Large Area Survey and Galaxy Cluster Surveys (@lawrence07). However, due to the large size of the *WISE* beam, some of these detections are likely the result of nearby contaminating sources. We use the SDSS and UKIDSS observations to pare down the sample of 52 disk candidates identified by the WIRED survey to a target sample of 24 WDs. We removed a total of 28 of the 52 candidate dusty WDs from our target list for various reasons; (1) We found 10 to have a blending source in their SDSS images.\ 085742.05+363526.6, 095337.97+493439.7, 100145.03+364257.3, 124455.15+040220.6,\ 131641.73+122543.8, 134800.05+282355.1, 141351.95+353429.6, 151747.51+342209.7,\ 155359.87+082131.3, 165012.47+112457.1 (2) Another seven have a blending source in their UKIDSS images.\ 024602.66+002539.2, 082624.40+062827.6, 084303.98+275149.6, 092528.22+044952.4,\ 133212.85+100435.2, 153149.04+025705.0, 224626.38$-$005909.2 (3) Six more are known in the literature to host circumstellar dust.\ 030253.09$-$010833.7, 084539.17+225728.0, 104341.53+085558.2, 122859.93+104032.9,\ 145806.53+293727.0, 161717.04+162022.3 (4) Two quasars were misidentified as WDs.\ 031343.07$-$001623.3, 103757.04+035023.6 (5) One final target is known to have a brown dwarf companion (@steele09).\ 222030.69$-$004107.3 (6) Although 011055.06+143922.2 and 090522.93+071519.1 do not have obvious blends in their SDSS and UKIDSS images, we did not target them because NIR SWIRC observations in addition to UKIDSS data would not offer new information about the SEDs of those WDs. These two WDs will reenter our discussion when we consider the frequency of disks in the WISE sample. These cuts reduce the number of true candidate disk systems in *WISE* from 52 to 24 WDs without an obvious nearby blending source, not already known to host disks or brown dwarf companions, without NIR data, and correctly identified as WDs. Hereafter, the WDs in the WIRED sample will be referred to with the letter J followed by the first four numbers of their WIRED name. OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS {#obs} ============================== Near-infrared Photometry ------------------------ During two nights in May 2012, we imaged 16 of our 24 targets in the NIR $J$- and $H$-band using the SAO Wide-Field InfraRed Camera (SWIRC; @brown08) with the MMT located on Mount Hopkins near Tucson, Arizona. SWIRC has a 2048$\times$2048 pixel HAWAII-2 detector with a $0.15$ arcsec/pixel plate scale and $5.12 \times 5.12$ arcmin field of view. Exposure times were adjusted to approach a signal-to-noise of 10. Each target was observed for two sets of a 3$\times$5 dither pattern with offsets of 10 arcseconds to sample the sky background. We took dark frames for each exposure time and sky flats each evening. The weather conditions were good with an average seeing of 0.9 arcseconds. We used the SWIRC data reduction pipeline to dark-subtract and flat-field the images. The images were then shifted to a common position and mean combined into one final image for each target. We calculated a zeropoint offset for each combined image by taking a weighted mean of the offsets for the 2MASS stars in the field. We used the IRAF aperture photometry package $\verb=apphot=$ to measure the flux of each isolated WD and comparison 2MASS stars. In many cases, the presence of an additional point source very near to the target WD interfered with our aperture photometry measurements. We measured these blended targets using the IRAF $\verb=daophot=$ package, where we fit the point-spread-functions of the WD and nearest blending neighbor simultaneously. Disk Modeling ------------- We combine SDSS DR7 *ugriz* (@kleinman13) and *WISE* 3.4 & 4.6 $\mu$m photometry with our SWIRC $J$- & $H$-band data to construct the SED of each WD. We model the flux of the WD in the NIR and MIR bands using pure hydrogen atmosphere models (@tremblay09 [@tremblay10; @gianninas11]) which we normalize to the SDSS $griz$-band data. In most cases, a secondary point source appears within six arcseconds of the WD of interest. The SEDs of these WDs are shown in Figure \[blends\] where the SDSS, SWIRC, and *WISE* data appear as magenta circles, orange squares, and green diamonds, respectively. The SWIRC photometry of the blending point source (when present) is shown by empty orange squares. Two of the objects in this figure (J0914 and J1503) do not have obvious *WISE* contaminants but their SEDs are not consistent with a disk and they likely have unresolved background contaminants. The colors of the blending sources do not resemble those of M dwarf stars or L/T brown dwarfs (see Figure \[blendcolors\]). The average $J-H$, and $H-W2$ colors of the blends in our images are 1.05 and 3.04, respectively, while the $J-H$ and $H-W2$ colors for typical T dwarfs are 0.36 and 2.25, for L dwarfs $J-H=0.92$ and $H-W2=1.49$ on average, and for typical M dwarfs $J-H=0.59$ and $H-W2=0.75$ (@west11 [@lepine11; @kirkpatrick11; @frith13; @newton13]). Therefore, the blends in our sample are too red to be L/T brown dwarfs or M dwarf companions and are likely background galaxies. In the cases where no obvious source of *WISE* contamination is present (J1147, J1234, J1507, J1537), we rule out the possibility of not detecting the presence of a dim resolved contaminant. If the excesses at these four WDs were due to an resolved contaminant with the same $J-H$ and $H-W2$ colors as the blending sources described above, we should have detected them. The limiting magnitudes of our $J$- and $H$-band images are fainter than the expected brightnesses of the typical blending sources for the other WD targets. For these four WDs, we fit a geometrically flat, optically thick disk model (@jura03) to the SWIRC$+$*WISE* excesses using a $\chi^2$ minimization method. Here $\chi^2$ is defined as the square of the difference between the measured excess and the disk model flux over the square of the photometric error for the SWIRC $J$- & $H$- and the *WISE* 3.4 & 4.6 $\mu$m bands. We fit disk models with inner temperature of $800-2100~K$ and outer temperature $100-1200~K$ in steps of $10~K$ and inclination $0-90\degree$ in steps of $10\degree$. The SEDs are shown in Figure \[dusty\] where the best fit disk model appears in red and the WD$+$disk model combination appears in black. Debris disk models accurately reproduce the excesses found at the four isolated WDs in the sample. We compare the colors of these new dusty WDs to the previously known dusty WDs from the literature in Figure \[diskcolors\]. The colors of the four new dusty WDs are comparable to the colors of the dusty WD population from the literature and are therefore likely to have the same mechanism generating their infrared excesses. RESULTS ======= Blended Targets {#blendedtargets} --------------- The SWIRC photometry of our sample along with physical characteristics of the WDs are tabulated in Table \[sample\]. The majority of our disk-candidate targets reveal extraneous sources of contamination when observed with high spatial resolution imaging in the NIR. We measured the photometry of the WD and primary blending source (closest to WD) simultaneously and plot them with filled and empty orange squares, respectively, in Figure \[blends\]. When considering the photometry of the blending source along with the *WISE* photometry, the resultant SEDs do not resemble that of an M dwarf or L/T brown dwarf, and are likely due to a background galaxy. The SWIRC data of the WD line up with the prediction for a hydrogen-dominated atmosphere for all but two of the blended targets, namely J1503 and J1552. These targets likely have an additional blending target not resolved in the SWIRC data that contributes to this deviation from the WD model. Two targets (J0914 and J1530) have SEDs inconsistent with that of a debris disk and no neighboring point sources. While J0914 resembles a disk-hosting WD in that it has no NIR excess in conjunction with a MIR excess, the excess detected by *WISE* is too strong to be reproduced by any of the geometrically thin, optically thick debris disk models that we fit it with. The *WISE* excess is likely caused by a background red galaxy. The excess found at J1530, on the other hand, starts in the SDSS $z$-band which is uncharacteristic of a debris disk excess and enough to refute the presence of a disk. New Dusty WDs {#newdustywds} ------------- A quarter of the WDs in our sample show an excess consistent with that of a debris disk and have no obvious source of contamination within the *WISE* beam radius. The best fit disk parameters are listed in Table \[disks\]. To evaluate the uncertainties in the disk temperatures and inclinations we perform a Monte Carlo analysis where we replace the observed photometric fluxes $f$ with $f + g \delta f$, where $\delta f$ is the error in flux and $g$ is a Gaussian deviate with zero mean and unit variance. For each of 7,000 sets of modified photometry, we repeat the analysis to derive best-fit parameters for the disk. We adopt the interquartile range of these parameters as the uncertainty. We find that the disk temperatures are uncertain by 200 K and the inclination by 20-25$^{\circ}$. The lack of data beyond 5 $\mu$m contributes to the uncertainty in the outer temperature of the disks. The inner and outer radii are obtained from the inner and outer temperatures of the disk using Equation 1 of [@jura03]. The four disks all have similar widths ($\sim0.3 R_{\odot}$), however the radius of the inner edge of the disk orbiting J1537 is three times that of the others. The most massive (J1234) and the coolest (J1507) dusty WDs have the hottest and the coolest disk inner edges; 1900K and 800K, respectively. The temperature of the inner edge of the disk surrounding J1234 is hotter than the sublimation temperature of dust ($\sim 1500K$; @rafikov12) and the flat disk model may need to be replaced with a warped disk in order to explain the SED (@jura09). J1507 is among the coolest dusty WDs known; WD 2115$-$560 (@vonhippel07 [@farihi09; @jura09]) and G166-58 (@farihi08) are the only previously known WD$+$disk systems with host WDs cooler than 10,000 $K$. It is also worth noting that J1234 is a 1.04 $M_{\odot}$ dusty WD with an estimated progenitor main-sequence mass of 5.4 Msol (@kalirai08 [@williams09]). J1234 is the most massive dusty WD currently known, and the discovery of its disk indicates that intermediate mass $\sim5~M_{\odot}$ main-sequence stars also host planets. The Frequency of Disks in the *WISE* All Sky Survey --------------------------------------------------- Two WD$+$disk candidates identified by [@debes11], J0110 and J0905, appear to be bonafide debris disks, due to the lack of an obvious contaminating source in the high resolution UKIDSS images, and must be included in the discussion of the frequency of disks in the WISE sample as a whole. Of the 12 WIRED disk candidates with UKIDSS data, only these two have no apparent contaminating source within a 6$\arcsec$ radius. With the inclusion of J0110 and J0905 there are now 12 confirmed debris disks in the *WISE* sample. These include six previously known dusty WDs, four new dusty WDs presented by this work, and two dusty WDs with UKIDSS data. Out of 1527 WDs in the *WISE* sample, 1020 are WD$+$M dwarf candidates and 42 are WD$+$brown dwarf candidates which leaves 465 single WDs observed by *WISE*. Thus, the frequency of disks around single WDs in the *WISE* sample is at least 2.6% which is consistent with the 1-3% disk frequency derived by [@farihi09]. One of the eight WD+disk candidates in our target list that remain unobserved (J0813) was recently revealed by [@wang13] to have a nearby blending source. The remaining seven disk candidates without NIR data could bring the WISE disk frequency as high as 4.1%, consistent with the 4.3% frequency found by [@barber12]. If we restrict the frequency calculations to WDs with estimated W1 fluxes above the 74% completeness limit of 50 $\mu$Jy, we could not include any of the four new disks in the calculation. The seven WIRED disk candidates included in the flux limited sample can, however, be pared down to four candidates because J1037 was misidentified as a WD, J2220 is a known WD$+$BD system, and J1559 has contaminated *WISE* photometry. Therefore, the frequency of WD$+$disk systems in the flux limited WIRED sample is at most four out of 395 or 1%. We calculate the confidence interval of the disk frequency in both the flux limited (0.7-1.8%) and entire WISE sample (2.0-3.5%) using the Bayesian method outlined in [@cameron11] and find that the two frequencies are consistent within a 2 $\sigma$ ($\sim 95\%$) confidence level. None of the four new dusty WDs is identified by [@kleinman13] as having an atmosphere polluted with metals, but this is most likely due to the low resolution and low S/N of the SDSS spectroscopy data. A metal-free atmosphere does not preclude the existence of a debris disk (@hoard13), however follow-up HIRES observations would be useful to confirm the state of pollution of these WD atmospheres. [@hoard13] report 7 WD$+$disk candidates, but 3 of them do not display pollution in their atmospheres. The warm inner disk temperatures in Table \[disks\] imply that accretion is ongoing (@rafikov11a) and we expect that high quality, high resolution spectra will reveal the presence of metals. Also, the four new dusty WDs in our sample should show $K$-band excess from the disks (see Figure \[disks\]). $K$-band spectra would be useful to further characterize the source of the excess emission in these systems and to constrain the inner radii of the disks more precisely. CONCLUSIONS =========== We have confirmed the presence of dust surrounding four WDs with excess flux detected by *WISE*. These four new dusty WDs, including the two bonafide UKIDSS$+$WISE disks, increases the total number of confirmed WD$+$disk systems from 29 to 35 (@farihi09 [@xu12; @hoard13]). The discovery of these four new debris disks enriches the current dusty WD population with one of the coolest (J1507), hottest (J1537), and the most massive (J1234) WDs known to host circumstellar dust. Expanding the parameter space known to be hospitable to circumstellar dust at WD stars will not only guide future infrared excess searches, but also enhance our understanding of the formation and evolution of these remnant planetary systems. [58]{} Barber, S. D., Patterson, A. J., Kilic, M., et al. 2012, , 760, 26 Becklin, E. E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al. 2005, , 632, L119 Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., Dufour, P., et al. 2011, , 737, 28 Bonsor, A., Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C. 2011, , 414, 930 Brown, W. R., McLeod,B. A., Geary, J. C., & Bowsher, E. C. 2008, , 7014 Cameron, E. 2011, , 28, 128 Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, , 572, 556 Debes, J. H., Hoard, D. W., Wachter, S., Leisawitz, D. T., & Cohen, M. 2011, , 197, 38 Debes, J. H., Walsh, K. J., & Stark, C. 2012, , 747, 148 Dufour, P., Kilic, M., Fontaine, G., et al. 2010, , 719, 803 Dufour, P., Kilic, M., Fontaine, G., et al. 2012, , 749, 6 Farihi, J., Zuckerman, B., & Becklin, E. E. 2008, , 674, 431 Farihi, J., Jura, M., & Zuckerman, B. 2009, , 694, 805 Farihi, J., Jura, M., Lee, J.-E., & Zuckerman, B. 2010, , 714, 1386 Frith, J., Pinfield, D. J., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2013, , 435, 2161 Gianninas, A., Bergeron, P., & Ruiz, M. T. 2011, , 743, 138 Hoard, D. W., Debes, J. H., Wachter, S., Leisawitz, D. T., & Cohen, M. 2013, , 770, 21 Holberg, J. B., & Bergeron, P. 2006, , 132, 1221 Jura, M. 2003, , 584, L91 Jura, M., Farihi, J., & Zuckerman, B. 2007, , 663, 1285 Jura, M., Farihi, J., Zuckerman, B., & Becklin, E. E. 2007, , 133, 1927 Jura, M. 2008, , 135, 1785 Jura, M., Farihi, J., & Zuckerman, B. 2009, , 137, 3191 Kalirai, J. S., Hansen, B. M. S., Kelson, D. D., et al. 2008, , 676, 594 Kilic, M., von Hippel, T., Leggett, S. K., & Winget, D. E. 2005, , 632, L115 Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cushing, M. C., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, , 197, 19 Klein, B., Jura, M., Koester, D., Zuckerman, B., & Melis, C. 2010, , 709, 950 Klein, B., Jura, M., Koester, D., & Zuckerman, B. 2011, , 741, 64 Kleinman, S. J., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2013, , 204, 5 Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, , 379, 1599 L[é]{}pine, S., & Gaidos, E. 2011, , 142, 138 Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al. 2013, arXiv:1310.1087 Rafikov, R. R. 2011, , 732, L3 Rafikov, R. R. 2011, , 416, L55 Rafikov, R. R., & Garmilla, J. A. 2012, , 760, 123 Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163 Steele, P. R., Burleigh, M. R., Farihi, J., et al. 2009, , 500, 1207 Tremblay, P.-E., & Bergeron, P. 2009, , 696, 1755 Tremblay, P.-E., Bergeron, P., Kalirai, J. S., & Gianninas, A. 2010, , 712, 1345 Tremblay, P.-E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A. 2011, , 730, 128 Veras, D., Mustill, A. J., Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M. C. 2013, , 431, 1686 von Hippel, T., Kuchner, M. J., Kilic, M., Mullally, F., & Reach, W. T. 2007, , 662, 544 Wang, Z., Tziamtzis, A., & Wang, X. 2013, arXiv:1307.4887 West, A. A., Morgan, D. P., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2011, , 141, 97 Williams, K. A., Bolte, M., & Koester, D. 2009, , 693, 355 Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868 Xu, S., & Jura, M. 2012, , 745, 88 Xu, S., Jura, M., Koester, D., Klein, B., & Zuckerman, B. 2014, arXiv:1401.4252 Zuckerman, B., & Becklin, E. E. 1987, , 330, 138 Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Melis, C., Hansen, B. M., & Jura, M. 2007, , 671, 872 [ccccccccc]{} 090611.00+414114.3 & 18.20$\pm$0.07 & 18.27$\pm$0.11 & 18.30$\pm$0.07 & 17.29$\pm$0.11 & 469 & 47637 & 7.91 & 0.65\ 091411.11+434332.9 & 20.19$\pm$0.06 & 20.28$\pm$0.15 &&& 820 & 22621 & 7.85 & 0.56\ 114758.61+283156.2 & 17.52$\pm$0.07 & 17.55$\pm$0.07 &&& 134 & 12290 & 8.14 & 0.70\ 122220.88+395553.9 & 19.15$\pm$0.02 & 18.93$\pm$0.02 && 19.90$\pm$0.02 & 350 & 11602 & 7.52 & 0.37\ 123432.63+560643.0 & 18.30$\pm$0.04 & 18.13$\pm$0.05 &&& 133 & 13567 & 8.74 & 1.04\ 131849.24+501320.6 & 20.16$\pm$0.07 & 20.17$\pm$0.08 & 19.75$\pm$0.06 & 18.97$\pm$0.06 & 481 & 13305 & 7.96 & 0.59\ 144823.67+444344.3 & 17.78$\pm$0.07 & 17.74$\pm$0.09 & 20.77$\pm$0.09 & 19.70$\pm$0.1 & 267 & 18188 & 7.45 & 0.37\ 150347.29+615847.4 & 19.97$\pm$0.05 & 19.41$\pm$0.05 & 20.84$\pm$0.08 & 19.94$\pm$0.07 & 693 & 18006 & 7.86 & 0.53\ 150701.98+324545.1 & 18.15$\pm$0.06 & 18.02$\pm$0.08 &&& 114 & 7177 & 8.06 & 0.63\ 151200.04+494009.7 & 19.44$\pm$0.07 & 19.37$\pm$0.07 & 21.62$\pm$0.16 & 19.98$\pm$0.09 & 532 & 19527 & 7.71 & 0.49\ 153017.00+470852.4 & 19.15$\pm$0.05 & 18.87$\pm$0.05 &&& 703 & 15479 & 7.53 & 0.39\ 153725.71+515126.9 & 17.75$\pm$0.05 & 17.54$\pm$0.07 &&& 199 & 24926 & 8.20 & 0.73\ 154038.67+450710.0 & 18.36$\pm$0.06 & 18.23$\pm$0.08 & 19.93$\pm$0.07 & 19.03$\pm$0.04 & 154 & 8824 & 8.03 & 0.62\ 155206.11+391817.2 & 20.56$\pm$0.09 & 19.72$\pm$0.10 & 21.03$\pm$0.10 & 19.88$\pm$0.1 & 945 & 20040 & 7.80 & 0.53\ 155955.27+263519.2 & 16.44$\pm$0.05 & 16.42$\pm$0.06 & 20.52$\pm$0.09 & 19.54$\pm$0.09 & 67 & 11890 & 8.28 & 0.78\ 165747.02+624417.4 & 19.21$\pm$0.07 & 19.22$\pm$0.10 & 20.96$\pm$0.09 & 19.93$\pm$0.11 & 351 & 14241 & 7.87 & 0.55\ [cccccc]{} 114758.61+283156.2 & 1400 & 600 & 60 & 0.126 &0.389\ 123432.63+560643.0 & 1900 & 500 & 70 & 0.062 & 0.367\ 150701.98+324545.1 & 800 & 300 & 0 & 0.134& 0.494\ 153725.71+515126.9 & 1200 & 800 & 30 & 0.414&0.711 ![The spectral energy distribution of WDs with nearby point sources. Pure hydrogen atmosphere models (@tremblay09 [@tremblay10; @gianninas11]), shown in blue, are normalized to the SDSS $griz$-bands. SDSS, SWIRC, and *WISE* photometry are shown as magenta circles, orange squares (empty squares for blended point source), and green diamonds, respectively. ALLWISE data are plotted where available. The SDSS $i$-band and SWIRC $J$- and $H$-band science images of the corresponding WD field are shown to the right. The yellow circle indicates the 6$\arcsec$ *WISE* beam. The small magenta circle is centered on the WD’s SDSS J2000 coordinates with a radius equal to the proper motion since the SDSS DR7 data were taken and is used to identify the WD. Extraneous objects within the yellow circle are likely the source of the excesses detected in the *WISE* data.\[blends\]](blends1.pdf){width="\linewidth"} {width="\linewidth"} {width="\linewidth"} ![The $J-H$ and $H-W2$ colors of the contaminating sources near to the WDs in our sample are shown by red circles. The L/T dwarf and M dwarf colors are derived from the NIR and *WISE* photometry published in Table 1 of [@kirkpatrick11] and are represented by green squares/blue triangles and orange diamonds, respectively. The colors of the contaminating sources in our SWIRC images are generally redder than the known brown dwarf and M dwarf populations and are more likely background galaxies.\[blendcolors\]](blendcolors.pdf){width="\linewidth"} ![The spectral energy distribution of the four isolated WDs in our sample. The SED components are the same as those described in Figure \[blends\] except for the disk model, which is shown in red and the WD$+$disk combination which is shown in black here. The science images of these WDs show no obvious sign of contamination that could explain the excesses found in the *WISE* data. These excesses are well reproduced by geometrically flat, optically thick disk models (@jura03). \[dusty\]](disks.pdf){width="\linewidth"} ![The $J-H$ and $H-W2$ colors of the naked WDs in the WIRED sample are shown as empty green circles, while the colors of known dusty WDs and our four new dusty WDs are shown as small blue and large red circles, respectively. The NIR and MIR photometry for the published WD$+$disk systems are taken from the 2MASS and *WISE* online databases. The colors of the four new dusty WDs are comparable to the colors of the dusty WD population from the literature and are therefore likely to have the same mechanism generating their infrared excesses.\[diskcolors\]](diskcolors.pdf){width="\linewidth"}

--- abstract: 'The Weyl tensor is the trace-free part of the Riemann tensor. Therefore, it is independent of the energy-momentum tensor and is thus not linked to the dynamics of gravitational fields. In this paper, we explore its possible thermodynamical property (i.e. its relationship with the black hole entropy). For a Schwarzschild black hole, the Weyl scalar invariant, $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, is proportional to its Bekenstein–Hawking entropy. This observation inspires us to interpret $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ as the entropy density of the gravitational fields of black holes. A dimensional analysis indicates that this interpretation is only valid in 5-dimensional space-time. We calculate the volume integrals of $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black holes, and find that these integrals indeed lead to the correct entropy formulae, only up to some coefficients.' author: - Nan Li - 'Xiao-Long Li' - 'Shu-Peng Song' date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date' title: An Exploration of the Black Hole Entropy via the Weyl Tensor --- Introduction ============ From a mathematical point of view, the curvature of a manifold is measured by the 4th-order Riemann tensor $R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$. In an $n$-dimensional space-time, the Riemann tensor can be decomposed into the Ricci sector and the Weyl sector, $$\begin{aligned} R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=&\frac{1}{n-2}(g_{\mu\lambda}R_{\nu\rho}+g_{\nu\rho}R_{\mu\lambda}-g_{\nu\lambda}R_{\mu\rho}-g_{\mu\rho}R_{\nu\lambda}) {\nonumber}\\ &+\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}(g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\lambda}-g_{\mu\lambda}g_{\nu\rho})R+C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}, \label{W}\end{aligned}$$ with $R_{\mu\nu}$ being the 2nd-order Ricci tensor, $R$ the Ricci scalar, and $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ the 4th-order Weyl tensor (namely, [Riemann]{} $ = $ [Ricci]{} $+$ [Weyl]{}). However, in the theory of general relativity, the Einstein equations only associate the 2nd-order Ricci tensor $R_{\mu\nu}$ with the energy-momentum tensor. Therefore, a natural question is why the information encoded in the Weyl tensor is absent in general relativity. In other words, what is the role of the Weyl tensor in the theory of gravitation? The Weyl tensor may be considered as a part of the Riemann tensor, containing the components not captured by the Ricci tensor. Thus, the Weyl tensor is locally independent of the energy-momentum tensor, so it may be viewed as a purely geometrical description of the curvature of a space-time. As a consequence, the Weyl tensor is linked not to the dynamical, but possibly to the thermodynamical aspects of gravitational fields. One of the exploration in this direction is the “Weyl curvature conjecture”, or the so-called “Penrose conjecture” [@Penrose]. Before explaining the Penrose conjecture, we briefly list the mathematical properties of the Weyl tensor. From Eq. (\[W\]), the Weyl tensor shares the same symmetries as the Riemann tensor: $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=-C_{\nu\mu\lambda\rho}=-C_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}$, $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=C_{\lambda\rho\mu\nu}$, and $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}+C_{\mu\lambda\rho\nu}+C_{\mu\rho\nu\lambda}=0$. Also, the Weyl tensor is traceless: ${C^\lambda}_{\mu\lambda\nu}=0$. Therefore, the full contraction of the Weyl tensor, $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, is the principal scalar invariant that one can construct. In addition, an important theorem on the Weyl tensor is that the metric of a space-time is comformally flat, if its Weyl tensor vanishes [@Dabrowski:2008kx]. From these properties, Penrose conjectured that some scalar invariant of the Weyl tensor (e.g. $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$) is a monotonically growing function of time and could thus be identified with the gravitational entropy of the universe. This conjecture can be understood in the following way. The Friedmann–Robertson–Walker space-time is conformally flat and thus has vanishing Weyl tensor but non-vanishing Ricci tensor, whereas a Schwarzschild black hole solution has vanishing Ricci tensor but non-vanishing Weyl tensor. During the evolution, our universe evolves from an almost homogeneous and isotropic space-time to an ensemble of randomly distributed black holes in the far future. Therefore, the Weyl tensor grows relative to the Ricci tensor in the universe. A monotonically growing function reminds us of the second law of thermodynamics, so Penrose conjectured that the Weyl tensor is somehow related to the gravitational entropy in the universe. Some early works to comprehend the Penrose conjecture in the theory of gravitation can be found in Ref. [@lit] and in cosmology in Ref. [@litc]. However, despite various attempts, to our present knowledge, Penrose’s idea has never been realized beyond qualitative arguments, or been mathematically formulated in a rigorous way. In fact, even the precise notion of entropy and its relationship to the Weyl tensor are still unclear and have to be specified. The aim of this paper is just to investigate some possible connection between them. In the following two sections, we explore the possibility to calculate the entropy of Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black holes via the Weyl scalar invariant respectively. Entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole from the Weyl scalar invariant ====================================================================== Below, we choose the natural unit system, with $c=\hbar=k_{\rm B}=1$, but we keep the gravitational constant $G$, as we will work in different dimensional space-times, in which the gravitational constants are not the same. The metric of a Schwarzschild black hole with mass $M$ reads $$\begin{aligned} ds^2=&-\left(1-\frac{R_{\rm S}}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(1-\frac{R_{\rm S}}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 {\nonumber}\\ &+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\, d\phi^2), {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{\rm S}=2GM $ is the Schwarzschild radius. From this metric, the corresponding Weyl scalar invariant is $$\begin{aligned} C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=\frac{48(GM)^2}{r^6}=\frac{12R_{\rm S}^2}{r^6}. \label{cc}\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy $S$ of the Schwarzschild black hole is [@Bekenstein] $$\begin{aligned} S=\frac{A}{4G}=\frac{4\pi R_{\rm S}^2}{4G}, \label{S}\end{aligned}$$ where $A=4\pi R_{\rm S}^2$ is the area of its horizon. From Eqs. (\[cc\]) and (\[S\]), we clearly see that $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ is proportional to $S$. From this proportion, we naturally wonder if there is some latent relationship between the Weyl tensor and the entropy of black holes and gravitational fields. We see from Eq. (\[cc\]) that $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ is coordinate-dependent (i.e. it is the function of the radial coordinate $r$). This observation inspires us to interpret it as the entropy density of the gravitational field of the Schwarzschild black hole, and its volume integral may thus give the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy. However, a further consideration easily invalidates this simple attempt. The dimension of the Weyl tensor, $[C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}]$, is $+2$ in the natural unit system, so the dimension of the Weyl scalar invariant, $[C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}]$, should be $+4$. On the other hand, in a 4-dimensional space-time, the dimension of volume element is $-3$. Therefore, we are not allowed to expect $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ as the entropy density of gravitational field, as its volume integral should have dimension $+1$, but entropy itself is dimensionless in the natural unit system. This observation enlightens us to regard $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ as the entropy density in a 5-dimensional space-time, in which the dimension of volume element is $-4$. Hence, the volume integral $$\begin{aligned} \int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} \,dV_4\label{jifen}\end{aligned}$$ is dimensionless. We will show in the following that this integral does lead to the correct entropy formulae for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black holes, only up to some coefficients. The integral in Eq. (\[jifen\]) consists of three parts: the integrand $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, the 4-dimensional invariant volume element $dV_4$, and the domain of integration. Below, we discuss them in order. \(1) For $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, from Eq. (\[W\]), the explicit form of the Weyl tensor in 5-dimensional space-time is $$\begin{aligned} C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=&R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}+\frac{1}{3}(g_{\nu\lambda}R_{\mu\rho}+g_{\mu\rho}R_{\nu\lambda}-g_{\mu\lambda}R_{\nu\rho} {\nonumber}\\ &-g_{\nu\rho}R_{\mu\lambda})+\frac{1}{12}(g_{\nu\rho}g_{\mu\lambda}-g_{\nu\lambda}g_{\mu\rho})R. \label{5}\end{aligned}$$ The metric of the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole with mass $M$ reads [@Horowitz] $$\begin{aligned} ds^2=&-\left(1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}\right)^{-1}dr^2 {\nonumber}\\ &+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\, d\phi^2+\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi \,d\psi^2), \label{5sch}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} R_5=\sqrt{\frac{8G_5M}{3\pi}} {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ is the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild radius, and $G_5$ is the gravitational constant in 5-dimensional space-time. From Eqs. (\[5\]) and (\[5sch\]), a direct calculation arrives at $$\begin{aligned} C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=\frac{72 R_5^4}{r^8}. \label{cccc}\end{aligned}$$ This contraction can also be obtained via the relation, $$\begin{aligned} C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=&R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}R^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}-\frac{4}{n-2}R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu} {\nonumber}\\ &+\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}R^2, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}R^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ is the Kretschmann scalar invariant. The calculation of $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ in this way is much easier, since both the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar vanish for the Schwarzschild metric. \(2) For $dV_4$, from Eq. (\[5sch\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} dV_4=r^3\sqrt{|g_{rr}|}\,drd\Omega_3, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Omega_3$ is the solid angle element of the 3-dimensional sphere in 4-dimensional space. We may first integrate the angular parts, and $$\begin{aligned} \int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\, dV_4&=\int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}r^3\sqrt{|g_{rr}|}\,drd\Omega_3 {\nonumber}\\ &=2\pi^2\int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}r^3\sqrt{|g_{rr}|}\,dr, \label{li}\end{aligned}$$ where $\int d\Omega_3=2\pi^2$ is the solid angle of the 3-dimensional sphere, and $\sqrt{|g_{rr}|}\,dr=|1-{R_5^2}/{r^2}|^{-1/2}\,dr$ is the proper distance element in the radial direction. \(3) For the domain of integration of the radial coordinate $r$, the upper limit can be safely set to be infinity, but the lower limit cannot be taken as 0, which diverges the integral in Eq. (\[jifen\]). Actually, the classical theory of general relativity is invalid at extremely small radius (about the Planck length). Therefore, we first simply set the lower limit of $r$ to be the 5-dimensional Planck length $l_5$, which can be expressed in terms of the 5-dimensional gravitational constant $G_5$ as [@Zw] $$\begin{aligned} l_5=\sqrt[3]{G_5}. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ With all these preparations, substituting Eq. (\[cccc\]) into (\[li\]), we attain the volume integral of the Weyl scalar invariant for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole, $$\begin{aligned} &\int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\,dV_4 =\int^{\infty}_{l_5} \frac{72 R_5^4}{r^8}\frac{2\pi^2r^3\,dr}{\sqrt{\left|1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}\right|}} {\nonumber}\\ =&144\pi^2 R_5^4 \left(\int^{R_5}_{l_5}\frac{dr}{r^5\sqrt{\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}-1}}+ \int^{\infty}_{R_5}\frac{dr}{r^5\sqrt{1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}}}\right) {\nonumber}\\ =&48\pi^2\left\{\left[\left(\frac{R_5}{l_5}\right)^3+\frac{2R_5}{l_5}\right]\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{l_5}{R_5}\right)^2}+2\right\}. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ This result seems lengthy at first glance, but in fact not. As the Schwarzschild radius of a typical celestial body is always much larger than the Planck length, so in the limit $R_5\gg l_5$, the above result can be significantly simplified, with the leading term being $$\begin{aligned} \int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\,dV_4\approx 48\pi^2 \left(\frac{R_5}{l_5}\right)^3. \label{wuwei}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole is $$\begin{aligned} S_5=\frac{A_5}{4G_5}=\frac{\pi^2}{2} \left(\frac{R_5}{l_5}\right)^3, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_5=2\pi^2R_5^3$ is the area (i.e. the 3-dimensional volume) of its horizon. To this point, we eventually find that the volume integral of the Weyl scalar invariant indeed leads to the correct entropy formula, only up to a trivial numerical coefficient, $$\begin{aligned} S_5=\frac{1}{96}\int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\,dV_4. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ From this result, we are convinced that the interpretation of the Weyl scalar invariant $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ as the entropy density for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole is reasonable. Entropy of the Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black hole from the Weyl scalar invariant ===================================================================================== Till now, we only discuss the simplest Schwarzschild black hole solution, for which the Weyl tensor is identical to the Riemann tensor, $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, and the Weyl scalar invariant coincides with the Kretschmann scalar invariant, so the characteristic of the Weyl tensor is not distinct. Therefore, we further explore a more complicated black hole with non-vanishing Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar: the Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter solution (i.e. the Schwarzschild solution with a cosmological constant $\Lambda<0$). In 5-dimensional space-time, its metric reads $$\begin{aligned} ds^2=&-\left(1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{6}\right)dt^2+\left(1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{6}\right)^{-1}dr^2 {\nonumber}\\ &+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\, d\phi^2+\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi \,d\psi^2), \label{schds}\end{aligned}$$ In this case, both the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar are non-vanishing: $R_{\mu\nu}=\frac23\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}$ and $R=\frac{10}{3}\Lambda$. Therefore, the difference between the Weyl and Riemann tensors becomes much more notable. It is straightforward to see that the Kretschmann scalar invariant now receives a modification from the cosmological constant, $$\begin{aligned} R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}R^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=\frac{72R_5^4}{r^8}+\frac{10\Lambda^2}{9}, \label{1}\end{aligned}$$ but the Weyl scalar invariant remains unchanged, $$\begin{aligned} C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}=\frac{72R_5^4}{r^8}. \label{2}\end{aligned}$$ These results strongly support our interpretation of the Weyl scalar invariant, not the Kretschmann scalar invariant, as the entropy density of gravitational field. Below, we perform the parallel procedure for the volume integral in Eq. (\[jifen\]), in order to check the validity of our interpretation. In the similar way, we have $$\begin{aligned} &\int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\,dV_4 =\int^{\infty}_{l_5} \frac{72R_5^4}{r^8}\frac{2\pi^2r^3\,dr}{\sqrt{\left|1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{6}\right|}} {\nonumber}\\ =&144\pi^2R_5^4\left(\int^{R_5'}_{l_5}\frac{dr}{r^5\sqrt{\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}+\frac{\Lambda r^2}{6}-1}} \right. {\nonumber}\\ &\left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +\int_{R_5'}^\infty\frac{dr}{r^5\sqrt{1-\frac{R_5^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{6}}}\right), \label{l}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} R_5'=\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{2\Lambda R_5^2}{3}}\right)} \label{r'}\end{aligned}$$ is the unique zero for $1-{R_5^2}/{r^2}-{\Lambda r^2}/{6}$ (since $\Lambda<0$). The results of the integrals in Eq. (\[l\]) can be expressed analytically via the elliptic functions, which depend on $R_5$ and $\Lambda$. However, the exact but tedious expressions are irrelevant, but only the leading term is important, $$\begin{aligned} \int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\,dV_4\approx 48\pi^2 \left(\frac{R_5}{l_5}\right)^3. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ This result is the same as that in Eq. (\[wuwei\]), indicating that the cosmological constant does not significantly affect the integral in Eq. (\[l\]). This fact is not difficult to understand, as the cosmological constant contributes to the integral only at large $r$, where its effect is dominantly suppressed by the factor $1/r^8$ in the Weyl scalar invariant, so we arrive at the same result in Eq. (\[wuwei\]). Meanwhile, the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black hole is [@page] $$\begin{aligned} S_5=\frac{A_5'}{4G_5}=\frac{\pi^2}{2} \left(\frac{R_5'}{l_5}\right)^3, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_5'=2\pi^2{R'_5}^3$ is the area (i.e. the 3-dimensional volume) of its horizon. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned} S_5'=\frac{1}{96}\left(\frac{R_5'}{R_5}\right)^3\int C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\,dV_4. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we again obtain the entropy formula, but this time the coefficient is $\Lambda$-dependent. From Eq. (\[r’\]), for a small negative $\Lambda$, $({R_5'}/{R_5})^3\rightarrow 1$; for a large negative $\Lambda$, $({R_5'}/{R_5})^3\rightarrow [6/(-\Lambda R_5^2)]^{3/4}$. Although the coefficient varies with $\Lambda$, the proportion remains the same. In short, for the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black hole, for which the Weyl tensor deviates from the Riemann tensor, $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\neq R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, we are still able to obtain the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy by integrating the Weyl scalar invariant $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$, as the effect of the cosmological constant is suppressed at large radius. Especially, from Eqs. (\[1\]) and (\[2\]), we explicitly see the difference between the Kretschmann scalar invariant $R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}R^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ and the Weyl scalar invariant $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$. We find that $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ is not altered in the presence of the cosmological constant, and this fact strengthens our interpretation of the Weyl scalar invariant as the entropy density, but not the Kretschmann scalar invariant, since it receives a constant modification $10\Lambda^2/9$ from the cosmological constant, which diverges the volume integral when $r$ goes to infinity. Here, we should also mention that the thermodynamics of the Schwarzschild–de Sitter black hole (i.e. the Schwarzschild solution with a positive cosmological constant) is not a well-defined issue [@sds], and we skip the corresponding discussion in the present paper. Conclusions and discussions =========================== Finally, we give some brief discussions on our work. The issue of entropy is one of the central problems in black hole thermodynamics [@entropy], and the Penrose conjecture on the Weyl tensor is one of the possible ways to approach this issue. We try in this paper to physically confirm and mathematically formulate the Penrose conjecture, i.e. we explore the latent relationship between the Weyl tensor and the entropy of gravitational fields. We take the Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black holes as examples and find that we may interpret the Weyl scalar invariant $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ as their entropy densities, but this should be realized in 5-dimensional space-time from the dimensional analysis. We perform the volume integral of $C_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}C^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}$ from the 5-dimensional Planck length to infinity, and discover that this volume integral really results in the correct Bekenstein–Hawking entropy formulae, only up to some coefficients. At the same time, we should also point out the limits of our work. First, our calculation only applies in 5-dimensional space-time, but not the 4-dimensional space-time that we live in. We may otherwise imagine that the mass of the 5-dimensional black hole is distributed on an extra dimension, and if this dimension is wrapped to an extremely small scale, we can still utilize our method to calculate the volume integral of the corresponding Weyl scalar invariant. But in this case, what we face is to calculate the metric and the Weyl tensor of a black string, and this calculation is much more complicated and is thus beyond our preliminary exploration. (For the metric solution for a black string, see Ref. [@blackstring].) Second, we should admit that it is difficult to extend our results to the more general black holes (e.g. the charged Reissner–Nordström black hole), because its geometry near the origin is quite different from that of the Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black holes. In summary, our work helps to understand Penrose’s idea and indicates that the Weyl tensor may be related to the entropy of gravitational fields, but some difficulties are still to be overcome. This exploration leads us to investigate whether there exist equations that are parallel to the Einstein equations and quantify the thermodynamical relationship between space-time and matter. These equations are expected to relate the Weyl tensor to the thermodynamical concepts such as entropy and temperature, and we wish that our work would be conducive to the research in this direction in future. .3cm We are very grateful to Tian-Fu Fu, Xiao-Ran Han, and Dominik J. Schwarz for fruitful discussions. This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. N140504008). [99]{} R. Penrose, in [*General Relativity, an Einstein Centenary Survey*]{}, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979) p. 581. M.P. Dabrowski, J. Garecki, and D.B. Blaschke, Ann. Phys. [**18**]{}, 13 (2009). J. Wainwright, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. [**16**]{}, 657 (1984); S.W. Goode and J. Wainwright, Classical Quantum Gravity [**2**]{}, 99 (1984); W.B. Bonnor, Classical Quantum Gravity [**3**]{}, 495 (1986); S.W. Goode, Classical Quantum Gravity [**8**]{}, L1 (1991); R.P.A.C. Newman, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**443**]{}, 473 (1993); N. Pelavas and K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 044009 (2000); [Ø]{}. Gr[ø]{}n and S. Hervik, arXiv:gr-qc/0205026; J.D. Barrow and S. Hervik, Classical Quantum Gravity [**19**]{}, 5173 (2002); [Ø]{}. Rudjord and [Ø]{}. Gr[ø]{}n, Phys. Scripta [**77**]{}, 055901 (2008); T. Maki and M. Morita, Springer Proc. Math. Stat.  [**60**]{}, 311 (2014); R.A. Sussman and J. Larena, Classical Quantum Gravity [**31**]{}, 075021 (2014). V. Husain, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 3314 (1988); S.A. Hayward, Classical Quantum Gravity [**10**]{}, L7 (1993); A.V. Nesteruk, Classical Quantum Gravity [**11**]{}, L15 (1994); S. Barve and T.P. Singh, arXiv:gr-qc/9705060; W.C. Lim, H. van Elst, C. Uggla, and J. Wainwright, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 103507 (2004); N. Li, [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 083539 (2012); O.-C. Stoica, Annals Phys.  [**338**]{}, 186 (2013); N. Li, S.-P. Song, and X.-L. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, 114 (2015); G. Marozzi, J.P. Uzan, O. Umeh, and C. Clarkson, arXiv:1501.04906 \[gr-qc\]. J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**7**]{}, 2333 (1973); J.M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.  [**31**]{}, 161 (1973). R. Gregory, in [*Black Holes in Higher Dimensions*]{}, edited by G.T. Horowitz (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 29. B. Zwiebach, [*A First Course in String Theory*]{}, second edition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 64. S.W. Hawking and D.N. Page, Commun. Math. Phys.  [**87**]{}, 577 (1983). R. Bousso and S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 2436 (1998); Z. Stuchlík and S. Hledík, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 044006 (1999); Y.S. Myung, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**16**]{}, 2353 (2001); A.M. Ghezelbash and R.B. Mann, J. High Energy Phys. [**0201**]{}, 005 (2002); V. Cardoso and J.P.S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 084020 (2003); S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 084026 (2003); D. Kubizňák and F. Simovic, arXiv:1507.08630 \[hep-th\]. G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B [**256**]{}, 727 (1985); T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**75**]{}, 1260 (1995); C. Rovelli, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**77**]{}, 3288 (1996); A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B [**379**]{}, 99 (1996); A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi, and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**80**]{}, 904 (1998). W.A. Hiscock, Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{}, 3288 (1985); L. Herrera, N.O. Santos, A.F.F. Teixeira, and A.Z. Wang, Classical Quantum Gravity [**18**]{}, 3847 (2001).

--- abstract: 'In order to assess the effect of a health care intervention, it is useful to look at an ensemble of relevant studies. The Cochrane Collaboration’s admirable goal is to provide systematic reviews of all relevant clinical studies, in order to establish whether or not there is a conclusive evidence about a specific intervention. This is done mainly by conducting a meta-analysis: a statistical synthesis of results from a series of systematically collected studies. Health practitioners often interpret a significant meta-analysis summary effect as a statement that the treatment effect is consistent across a series of studies. However, the meta-analysis significance may be driven by an effect in only one of the studies. Indeed, in an analysis of two domains of Cochrane reviews we show that in a non-negligible fraction of reviews, the removal of a single study from the meta-analysis of primary endpoints makes the conclusion non-significant. Therefore, reporting the evidence towards replicability of the effect across studies in addition to the significant meta-analysis summary effect will provide credibility to the interpretation that the effect was replicated across studies. We suggest an objective, easily computed quantity, we term the $r$-value, that quantifies the extent of this reliance on single studies. We suggest adding the $r$-values to the main results and to the forest plots of systematic reviews.' title: 'Quantifying replicability in systematic reviews: the $r$-value' --- Liat Shenhav\ *Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel-Aviv university, Tel-Aviv, Israel. E-mail: liatshen@post.tau.ac.il*\ Ruth Heller\ *Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel-Aviv university, Tel-Aviv, Israel. E-mail: ruheller@post.tau.ac.il*\ Yoav Benjamini\ *Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel-Aviv university, Tel-Aviv, Israel. E-mail: ybenja@post.tau.ac.il*\ Introduction ============ In systematic reviews, several studies that examine the same questions are analyzed together. Viewing all the information is extremely valuable for practitioners in the health sciences. A notable example is the Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions. The process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews is described in detail in their manual [@Higgins11]. The reviews attempt to assemble all the evidence that is relevant to a specific healthcare intervention. Deriving conclusions about the overall health benefits or harms from an ensemble of studies can be difficult, since the studies are never exactly the same and there is danger that these differences affect the inference. For example, factors that are particular to the study, such as the specific cohorts in the study that are from specific populations exposed to specific environments, the specific experimental protocol used in the study, the specific care givers in the study, etc., may have an impact on the treatment effect. A desired property of a systematic review is that the effect has been observed in more than one study, i.e., the overall conclusion is not entirely driven by a single study. If a significant meta-analysis finding becomes non-significant by leaving out one of the studies, this is worrisome for two reasons: first, the finding may be too particular to the single study (e.g., the specific age group in the study); second, there is greater danger that the significant meta-analysis finding is due to bias in the single study (e.g., due to improper randomization or blindness). We view this problem as a replicability problem: the conclusion about the significance of the effect is completely driven by a single study, and thus we cannot rule out the possibility that the effect is particular to the single study, i.e., that the effect was not replicated across studies. A replicability claim is not merely a vague description. A precise computation of the extent of replicability is possible. An objective way to quantify the evidence that the meta-analytic findings do not rely on single studies is as follows. For a meta-analysis of several studies (N studies), the minimal replicability claim is that results have been replicated in at least two studies. This claim can be asserted if the meta-analysis results remains significant after dropping (leaving-out) any single study. We suggest accompanying the review with a quantity we term the $r$-value, which quantifies the evidence towards replicability of the effects across studies. The $r$-value is the largest of these $N$ meta-analysis $p$-values. Like a $p$-value, which quantifies the evidence against the null hypothesis of no effect, the $r$-value quantifies the evidence against no replicability of effects. The smaller the $r$-value, the greater the evidence that the conclusion about a primary outcome is not driven by a single study. The report of the $r$-value is valuable for meta-analyses of narrow scope as well as of broad scope. In Section 5.6 of the manual [@Higgins11] the scope of the review question is addressed. If the scope is broad, then a review that produced a single meta-analytic conclusion may be criticized for ‘mixing apples and oranges’, particularly when good biologic or sociological evidence suggests that various formulations of an intervention behave very differently or that various definitions of the condition of interest are associated with markedly different effects of the intervention. The advantage of a broad scope is that it can give a comprehensive summary of evidence. The narrow scope is more manageable, but the evidence may be sparse, and findings may not be generalizable to other settings or populations. If the $r$-value is large (say above 0.05) for a meta-analyses with a narrow scope, this is worrisome since the scope has already been selected, and the large $r$-value indicates that an even stricter selection that removes one single additional study can change the significant conclusion. If the $r$-value is large for a meta-analyses with a broad scope, this is worrisome since the reason for the significant finding may be the single “orange" among the several (null) “apples". We examined the extent of the replicability problem in systematic reviews. We found that there may be lack of replicability in a large proportion of studies. In Section \[sec-lack of replicability\], we show that out of the 21 reviews with a significant meta-analysis result on the most important outcomes of interest published on breast cancer, 13 reviews were sensitive to leaving one study out of the meta-analysis. The problem was less pronounced in the reviews published on influenza, where 2 reviews were sensitive to leaving one study out of the meta-analysis, out of 6 updated reviews with significant primary outcomes. [@AnzuresCarbera10] write that a useful sensitivity analysis is one in which the meta-analysis is repeated, each time omitting one of the studies. A plot of the results of these meta-analysis, called an ‘exclusion sensitivity plot’ by [@Bax06], will reveal any studies that have a particularly large influence on the results of the meta-analysis. In this work, we concur with this view, but recommend the most relevant single number of summary information of such a sensitivity analysis be added to the report of the main results, and to the forest plot, of the meta-analysis. The code for the computation of the $r$-values and sensitivity intervals is available from the first author upon request. The lack of replicability in systematic reviews {#sec-lack of replicability} =============================================== We took all the updated reviews in two domains: breast cancer and influenza. Our eligibility criteria were as follows: (a) the review included forest plots; (b) at least one primary outcome was reported as significant at the .05 level, which is the default significant level used in Cochrane Reviews; (c) the meta-analysis of at least one of the primary outcomes was based on at least three studies and (d) there was no reporting in the review of unreliable/biased primary outcomes or poor quality of available evidence. We consider as primary outcomes the outcomes that were defined as primary by the review authors, and if none were defined we selected the most important findings from the review summaries and treated the outcomes for these findings as primary. We limit ourselves to meta-analyses that include at least three studies , since this is the minimum number of studies for which even if the single studies are not significant the meta-analysis may still be non-sensitive (i.e., that a meta analysis based on every subset of two studies can have a significant finding). In Cochrane reviews, the meta-analyses are of two types: fixed effect and random effects. Under the fixed effect model all studies in the meta-analysis are assumed to share a common (unknown) effect $\theta$. Since all studies share the same effect, it follows that the observed effect varies from one study to the next only because of the random error inherent in each study. The summary effect is the estimate of this common effect $\theta$. Under the random effects model the effects in the studies, $\theta_{i}$ , $i = 1,2,...,N$, are assumed to have been sampled from a distribution with mean $\tilde {\theta}$. Therefore, there are two sources of variance: the within-study error in estimating the effect in each study and the variance in the true effects across studies. The summary effect is the estimate of the effects distribution mean $\tilde {\theta}$. For details on estimation of these effects and their confidence intervals, see [@Higgins11]. In this Section our results are based on the computations of the meta-analysis $p$-values as suggested in [@Higgins11], for both fixed and random effects meta-analyses. In the breast cancer domain 48 updated reviews were published by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group in the Cochrane library, out of which we analyzed 21 updated reviews that met our eligibility criteria (14, 8 , 4 and 1 reviews was excluded due reasons a, b, c and d respectively). Out of the 21 eligible reviews, 13 reviews were sensitive to leaving one study out in at least one primary outcome. Moreover, in 8 out of 13 reviews all the significant primary outcomes were sensitive. The prevalence of sensitive meta-analyses was similar among the fixed effect and random effect meta-analyses, see Table \[Tab-BreastCancer\]. Among the 15 fixed effect meta-analyses, 6 reviews where sensitive in all their primary outcomes, 2 reviews were sensitive in 66% of the primary outcomes, 1 review was sensitive in 50% of the primary outcomes, and 6 reviews were not sensitive in any of their primary outcomes. Among the 7 Random effect meta-analyses, 3 reviews were sensitive in all their primary outcomes, 2 review were sensitive in 50% of their primary outcomes, and 2 reviews were not sensitive in any of their primary outcomes. ---- ---------- ---------------- ------------- ------ ------ ----- --------------------------------- number of significant Review Random/Fixed outcomes 0.01 0.05 0.1 $r$-values 1 CD004421 Fixed 2 2 2 2 (1.300e-10, 1.405e-07) 2 CD003372 Fixed 2 2 2 2 (4.000e-14, 5.368e-05) 3 CD002943 Fixed 2 2 2 2 (9.853e-09, 0.0012) 4 CD006242 Random 2 2 2 2 (2.580e-09, 0.03549) 5 CD000563 Fixed 1 1 1 1 1.28e-11 6 CD008941 Fixed 1 1 1 1 1.025e-04 7 CD005001 Random 1 0 1 1 0.0335 8 CD003370 Fixed 1 0 1 1 0.05341 9 CD003367 Fixed 2 1 1 1 (7.440e-07, 0.18) 10 CD005211 Random 4 1 2 2 (0.0017, 0.0167, 0.1231, 0.178) 11 CD003474 Random 2 1 1 1 (0.0463, 0.253) 12 CD003366 Fixed 3 1 1 1 (3.200e-05, 0.21, 0.38) 13 CD003139 Fixed 3 1 1 1 (0.1053, 0.1852, 0.002) 14 CD006823 Random 1 0 0 1 0.08 15 CD004253 Random 1 0 0 0 0.1028 16 CD005002 Fixed 1 0 0 0 0.15 17 CD008792 Fixed 1 0 0 0 0.24 28 CD007077 Fixed 1 0 0 0 0.3 19 CD002747 Fixed 1 0 0 0 0.9641 20 CD007913 (Random,Fixed) 2 0 0 0 (0.0712,0.0756) 21 CD003142 Fixed 2 0 0 0 (0.1243,0.1827) ---- ---------- ---------------- ------------- ------ ------ ----- --------------------------------- : Table of results for the breast cancer domain. The review name (column 2);the type of meta-analysis (column 3); the number of significant primary outcomes (column 4); the number of outcomes with $r$-values at most (0.01,0.05,0.1) (columns 5,6,7); the actual r-values of the primary outcomes, arranged in increasing order (column 8).The smaller the $r$-value, the stronger the evidence towards replicability. The rows are arranged by order of increasing sensitivity; the last 8 rows are sensitive in all primary outcomes. []{data-label="Tab-BreastCancer"} In the influenza domain 25 reviews were published by different groups (e.g., Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group etc.) in the Cochrane library, out of which we analyzed 6 updated reviews that met our eligibility criteria (9, 2 , 7 and 1 review was excluded due reasons a, b, c and d respectively). Our results are summarized in Table \[Tab-Influenza\]. Out of the 6 eligible reviews, 2 reviews were sensitive to leaving 1 study out. Among the two fixed effect meta-analyses reviews, one review was sensitive in all primary outcomes and one review was not sensitive in all primary outcomes. Among the five reviews with random effect meta-analyses, 1 review was sensitive in 40% of the primary outcomes, and four reviews were not sensitive in any of their outcomes. --- ---------- ---------------- ------------- ------ ------ ----- --------------------------------------------- number of significant Review Random/Fixed outcomes 0.01 0.05 0.1 $r$-values 1 CD001269 (Fixed,Random) 4 4 4 4 ($0.0001^*$, $0.0001^*$,0.0014, 0.0188) 2 CD001169 Random 4 4 4 4 ($0.0001^*$ ,0.0014 ,0.0016, 0.0025) 3 CD004879 Random 4 4 4 4 ($0.0001^*$ ,$0.0001^*$ ,0.0007, 0.006) 4 CD002744 Random 1 1 1 1 0.0009 5 CD008965 Random 5 1 3 3 ($0.0001^*$, 0.0108, 0.0471 ,0.118, 0.1206) 6 CD005050 Fixed 1 0 0 0 0.9888 --- ---------- ---------------- ------------- ------ ------ ----- --------------------------------------------- : Table of results for the influenza domain. The review name (column 2);the type of meta-analysis (column 3); the number of significant primary outcomes (column 4); the number of outcomes with $r$-values at most (0.01,0.05,0.1) (columns 5,6,7); the actual r-values of the primary outcomes, arranged in increasing order (column 8).The smaller the $r$-value, the stronger the evidence towards replicability. The rows are arranged by order of increasing sensitivity. The value $0.0001^*$ indicates that the $r$-value was smaller than 0.0001.[]{data-label="Tab-Influenza"} The influenza domain has a much smaller number of reviews with significant primary results than the breast cancer domain. In the influenza domain, most of the reviews have non-significant endpoints or low quality of evidence. Calculating and reporting the r-value: examples {#sec-ex} =============================================== In this section we shall give examples of sensitive and non-sensitive (fixed and random effect) meta-analyses in the breast cancer domain. For examples in the influenza domain, see Appendix \[app-influenza\]. For each example, we shall compute the $r$-value, which is based on the $N$ leave-one out meta-analysis $p$-values, as well as the sensitivity interval, which is the union of these $N$ meta-analysis confidence intervals. The detailed computations are given in Appendix \[app-computations\]. We shall show how to incorporate these new quantities in the Cochrane reviews’ abstract and forest plots . Our first example is based on a meta-analysis in review CD006242, analyzed by the authors as a random effect meta-analysis, which is non-sensitive and thus has a small $r$-value. The objective of review CD006242 was to assess the efficacy of therapy with Trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Only one of the studies was (barely) significant, and the remaining four studies had non-significant effects at the .05 significance level. However, when combined in a meta-analysis the evidence was highly significant, and the review conclusion was that Trastuzumab improved overall survival in HER2-positive women with metastatic breast cancer, see the left panel of Figure \[fig-Trastuzumab\]. This is a nice example that shows how a meta-analysis can increase power. Even after removing the single significant study (study number 5) there was still a significant effect in the meta-analysis at the 0.05 level; see the right panel of Figure \[fig-Trastuzumab\]. The $r$-value is 0.03549 based on the meta-analysis computations as suggested in [@Higgins11]. In a recent paper, [@IntHout14] suggested an alternative random effect meta-analysis, which controls the type I error rate more adequately. The $r$-value is 0.0366 based on the meta-analysis computations as suggested in [@IntHout14]. We suggest accompanying the original forest plot with this $r$-value, see Figure \[fig-Trastuzumab-orig\]. The significant meta-analytic conclusion can therefore be accompanied by a statement that the replicability claim is established at the .05 level of significance. This is a stronger scientific claim than that of the meta-analysis, and it is supported by the data in this example. In the main results of Review CD006242 the authors write “The combined HRs for overall survival and progression-free survival favoured the trastuzumab-containing regimens (HR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.94, P = 0.004; moderate-quality evidence)”. To this, we suggest adding the following information “This result was replicated in more than one study ($r$-value = 0.03549)". ![The forest plot in Review CD006242 (Left) and excluding study 5 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.03549. The sensitivity interval, \[0.685,0.987\], is the confidence interval excluding study 5 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (very small) left tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Trastuzumab"}](37ALL.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in Review CD006242 (Left) and excluding study 5 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.03549. The sensitivity interval, \[0.685,0.987\], is the confidence interval excluding study 5 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (very small) left tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Trastuzumab"}](37no5.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} . ![The forest plot in the original Review CD006242 including the $r$-value, which was 0.03549. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.[]{data-label="fig-Trastuzumab-orig"}](37original_2.png){width="100.00000%" height="0.5\textheight"} Our second example, also from the breast cancer domain, is based on a meta-analysis in review CD008792, that was analyzed by the authors as a fixed effect meta-analysis. In this example the fixed effect meta-analysis was sensitive. The objective of Review CD008792 was to assess the effect of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs given sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer. In the meta-analysis a significant finding was discovered, see the left panel of Figure \[fig-Combination\]. However, note that the different studies seem to have different effects. Nevertheless, the review conclusion was that the combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm. After removing study number 7, there was no longer a significant effect in the meta-analysis, see the right panel of Figure \[fig-Combination\]. The $r$-value was 0.24. The replicability claim was not established at the .05 level of significance. This lack of replicability, quantified by the $r$-value, cautions practitioners that the significant meta-analysis finding may depend critically on a single study. We suggest accompanying the original forest plot with this $r$-value, see Figure \[fig-Combination-orig\]. In the main results of Review CD008792 the authors write “The combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.31; P = 0.01) with no significant heterogeneity”. To this, we suggest adding the following information “We cannot rule out the possibility that this result is based on a single study ($r$-value = 0.24)". ![The forest plot in Review CD008792 (Left) and excluding study 7 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.24. The sensitivity interval, \[0.94, 1.356\], is the confidence interval excluding study 7 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (small) right tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Combination"}](44ALL.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in Review CD008792 (Left) and excluding study 7 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.24. The sensitivity interval, \[0.94, 1.356\], is the confidence interval excluding study 7 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (small) right tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Combination"}](44no7.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in the original Review CD008792 including the $r$-value, which was 0.24. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.[]{data-label="fig-Combination-orig"}](44original_2.png){width="100.00000%" height="0.5\textheight"} In the right panels of Figures \[fig-Trastuzumab\] and \[fig-Combination\], the meta-analysis confidence intervals that would have been computed had we considered only this specific subset of studies is shown. The sensitivity intervals has an additional tail in the direction favoured by the data. Methodological extensions ========================= A lower bound on the extent of replicability -------------------------------------------- A review is less sensitive than another review if a larger fraction of studies are excluded without reversing the significant conclusions. We can calculate the meta-analysis significance not only after dropping each single study, but also after dropping all pairs of studies, triplets of studies etc. Each time we calculate the maximum $p$-value and stop at the first time it exceeded $\alpha$. The bigger the number of studies that can be dropped, the stronger the replicability claim. For example, the objective of Review CD004421 was to assess the efficacy of therapy taxane containing chemotherapy regimens as adjuvant treatment of pre- or post-menopausal women with early breast cancer. The review included 11 studies, out of which only three studies were significant, and the remaining eight studies had non-significant effects. When combined in a meta-analysis, the evidence was highly significant, and the review conclusion was that the use of taxane containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens improved the overall survival of women with early breast cancer, see Figure \[fig-CD004421\]. In order to reverse the significant conclusion, we need to leave out 6 studies: for $u=6$, the $r$-value was 0.0281, but for $u=7$, the $r$-value was 0.0628, see Table 3. Therefore, with $95\%$ confidence, the true number of studies with an effect (in the same direction) is at least 6. More generally, testing in order at significance level $\alpha$ , results in a 1-$\alpha$ confidence lower bound on the number of studies with an effect in a fixed-effect meta-analysis (see [@Heller11] for proof). Note that although we have a lower bound on the number of studies that show an effect, we cannot point out to which studies these are. This is so since the pooling of evidence in the same direction in several studies increases the lower bound, even though each study on it’s own maybe non-significant. ![The forest plot in the original Review CD004421 including the $r$-value, which was 2.91e-06. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.[]{data-label="fig-CD004421"}](26ALL.png){width="100.00000%" height="0.5\textheight"} --- ----- ----------- ---------------------- --------------- sensitivity interval $u$ $r$-value lower bound exclued study 1 2 2.91e-06 0.89 BCIRG 001 2 3 1.64e-04 0.91 BIG 2-98 3 4 2.29e-03 0.94 Taxit 216 4 5 8.32e-03 0.96 NSABP B-28 5 6 2.81e-02 0.99 HeCOG 6 7 6.28e-02 1.01 PACS 01 --- ----- ----------- ---------------------- --------------- : The $r$-value excluding $u-1$ studies, for $u=2,\ldots,7$, in Review CD004421. This exclusion is in worst-case order, i.e in order of the study that will show the highest lower bound. \[tab-CD004421\] Accounting for multiplicity {#subsec-multiplicity} --------------------------- When more than one primary endpoint is examined, the $r$-value needs to be smaller in order to establish replicability. This is exactly the same logic as with $p$-values, for which we need to lower the significance threshold when faced with multiplicity of endpoints. Family-wise error rate (FWER) or false discovery rate (FDR) controlling procedures can be applied to the individual $r$-values in order to account for the multiple primary endpoints, see [@Benjamini09] for details. For example, in Review CD005211 four endpoints were examined, with the following $r$-values: (1) 0.1231; (2) 0.0017; (3) 0.0167; (4) 0.1776. For FWER control over replicability claims at the 0.05 level, the Bonferroni-adjusted $r$-values are the number of endpoints multiplied by the original $r$-values. Only endpoint (2) is reported as replicated using Bonferroni at the 0.05 level, since it is the only Bonferroni-adjusted $r$-value below 0.05, $4\times 0.0017<0.05$. For FDR control over replicability claims, we can use the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure ([@Benjamini95]) on the reported $r$-values. The BH-adjusted $r$-values for a sorted list of $M$ $r$-values, $r_{(1)}\leq \ldots \leq r_{(M)}$, are $\min_{i\geq j} \frac{Mr_{(i)}}{i}, \quad j=1,\ldots, M.$ In Review CD005211, the sorted list is $(0.0017, 0.0167, 0.1231, 0.1776)$ and the adjusted $r$-values are $(0.0068, 0.0334, 0.1641, 0.1776)$. Therefore, endoints (2) and (3), the two endpoints with the smallest $p$-values in the sorted list, are reported as replicated using FDR at the 0.05 level, since for both endpoints the BH-adjusted $r$-values are below 0.05. Discussion ========== In this work we suggested enhancing the systematic reviews meta-analyses, for both fixed effect and random effects model, with a measure that quantifies the strength of replicability,i.e., the $r$-value. In the reporting, if the $r$-value is small we have evidence that the conclusion is based on more than one study, i.e., that the effect was replicated across studies. We suggest adding a cautionary note if the $r$-value is greater than the significance level (say $=0.05$), that states that the conclusion depends critically on a single study. This does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily reversed, but the large $r$-value warrants another examination of the studies in the meta-analysis, and if the single study upon which the review relies was very well conducted the conclusion may still be justified despite it being only a single study. We would like to emphasize that replicability analysis is relevant for both fixed effect and random effects model meta analysis. In both cases, the meta-analysis can be significant even though the true summary effect is greater than zero in only one study out of the $N$ and hence the replicability analysis is needed. Specifically, for the random effect model in Appendix \[app-sim\] we show simulations where $N-1$ studies have effects $\theta_i$ samples for the normal distribution with zero mean, and one study has effect $\mu_n \in \{0,\ldots, 5\}$. When $\mu_n=0$, the fraction of times the null is rejected at the nominal 0.05 level using a $t$-test with $N-1$ degrees of freedoms on the sample of $N$ estimated effect sizes is about 0.05, and using the meta-analysis computations suggested in [@Higgins11] the fraction is at most 0.12. However, when $\mu_n>0$, the fraction of times the null is rejected at the nominal 0.05 level using a $t$-test with $N-1$ degrees of freedoms on the sample of $N$ estimated effect sizes can be as high as 0.15, and using the meta-analysis computations suggested in [@Higgins11] the fraction can reach almost 0.3. We conclude from these simulations that for meta-analysis, it is better to use the $t$-test, and that even with this non-liberal test the significant conclusion can be entirely driven from a single study. Therefore, a replicability analysis is necessary in order to rule out the possibility that a significant random effect meta-analysis conclusion is driven by a single study. In our two domains there were typically 1-4 primary endpoints per review. We briefly discussed ways to account for the multiplicity of primary endpoints in assessing replicability in Section \[subsec-multiplicity\]. We regard this as an extension since the emphasis, and the new contribution, of this paper is the introduction of the $r$-value into the meta-analysis conclusions. [99]{} Higgins, J. and Green, S. (editors). The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 \[updated March 2011\]. , [www.cochrane-handbook.org](www.cochrane-handbook.org). Anzures-Carbera, J. and Higgins, J. (2010). Graphical displays for meta-analysis: An overview with suggestions for practice. ,1: 66–80. Bax, L. and Yu, L. and Ikeda, N. and Tsuruta, H. and Moons, K. (2006). Development and validation of Mix: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. ,6 (50). Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. , 57 (1): 289–300. Benjamini, Y. and Heller, R. and Yekutieli, D. (2009). Selective inference in complex research. , 367: 4255–4271. Benjamini, Y. and Heller, R. (2008). Screening for partial conjunction hypotheses. , 64:1215–1222. Bogomolov, M. and Heller, R. (2013). Discovering findings that replicate from a primary study of high dimension to a follow-up study. , 108(504):1480–1492. Heller, R., Bogomolov, M., and Benjamini, Y. (2014). Deciding whether follow-up studies have replicated findings in a preliminary large-scale ’omics’ study. . Heller, R. (2011). Discussion of “Multiple Testing for Exploratory Research” by J. J. Goeman and A. Solari , 26 (4): 598–600. IntHout, J. and Ioannidis, J. and Borm, G. (2014). The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. , 14(25). Examples for the influenza domain {#app-influenza} ================================= Our first example is based on a meta-analysis in review CD001269, analyzed by the authors as a random effect meta-analysis, which is non-sensitive and thus has a small $r$-value. The objective of Review CD001269 was to assess the effects of vaccines against influenza in healthy adult. Four studies were significant (all favoured treatment), and the remaining twelve studies had non-significant effects at the .05 significance level (seven favoured the treatment, five favoured the control). When combined in a meta-analysis the evidence was significant, and the review conclusion was that the placebo arm had a higher risk of Influenza-like illness than the vaccine arm, see the left panel of Figure \[fig-Influenza-like illness\]. Even after removing each significant study (in particular the most influential: study number 9) there was still a significant effect in the meta-analysis at the 0.05 level, see the right panel of Figure \[fig-Influenza-like illness\]. The $r$-value is 0.0014. The significant meta-analytic conclusion can therefore be accompanied by a statement that the replicability claim is established at the .05 level of significance. This is a stronger scientific claim than that of the meta-analysis, and it is supported by the data in this example. We suggest accompanying the original forest plot with this $r$-value, see Figure \[fig-Influenza-like illness-orig\]. Note that although the referred meta-analysis is significant and the replicability claim is established at the .05 level of significance, in the main results of Review CD001269 the authors write : “The overall effectiveness of parenteral inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI) is limited, corresponding to a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128)”. to this, we suggest adding the following information: “This result was replicated in more than one study ($r$-value = 0.0014)". The replicability claim is relevant even in the presence of a limited effect size: at least two studies showed that there is a (possibly limited) effect of parenteral inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI) is limited. ![The forest plot in Review CD001269 (Left) and excluding study 9 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.0014. The sensitivity interval, \[0.75,0.96\], is the confidence interval excluding study 9 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (very small) left tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Influenza-like illness"}](1ALL.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in Review CD001269 (Left) and excluding study 9 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.0014. The sensitivity interval, \[0.75,0.96\], is the confidence interval excluding study 9 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (very small) left tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Influenza-like illness"}](1no9.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in the original Review CD001269 including the $r$-value, which was 0.0014. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.[]{data-label="fig-Influenza-like illness-orig"}](1original_2.png){width="100.00000%" height="0.6\textheight"} Our second example, also from the influenza domain, is based on a meta-analysis in review CD001269, analyzed by the authors as a random effects meta-analysis. In this example the random effect meta-analysis was sensitive. The objective of Review CD008965 was to describe the potential benefits and harms of Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza in all age groups. In the meta-analysis a significant finding was discovered, see the left panel of Figure \[fig-Neuraminidase inhibitors\]. Note that only one study was significant and the remaining seven studies were not significant (with large confidence intervals). After removing study number 1,there was no longer a significant effect in the meta-analysis, see the right panel of Figure \[fig-Neuraminidase inhibitors\]. The $r$-value was 0.1206 based on the random effect meta-analysis computations as suggested in [@Higgins11], and 0.0661 based on the meta-analysis computations as suggested in [@IntHout14]. The replicability claim was not established at the .05 level of significance. This lack of replicability, quantified by the $r$-value, cautions practitioners that the significant meta-analysis finding may depend critically on a single study. We suggest accompanying the original forest plot with this $r$-value, see Figure \[fig-Neuraminidase inhibitors-orig\]. In the main results of Review CD008965 the authors write “In adults treatment trials, Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.9)” ; To this, we suggest adding the following information: “We cannot rule out the possibility that this result is based on a single study ($r$-value = 0.1206)“. Note that the conclusion was not that complication were reduced, but this was due to lack of diagnostic definitions. The authors’ conclusion in this review was that ”treatment trials with oseltamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions". ![The forest plot in Review CD008965 (Left) and excluding study 1 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.1206. The sensitivity interval, \[0.24, 1.13\], is the confidence interval excluding study 1 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (small) right tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Neuraminidase inhibitors"}](7ALL.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in Review CD008965 (Left) and excluding study 1 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.1206. The sensitivity interval, \[0.24, 1.13\], is the confidence interval excluding study 1 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (small) right tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.[]{data-label="fig-Neuraminidase inhibitors"}](7no1.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"} ![The forest plot in the original Review CD008965 including the $r$-value, which was 0.1206. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.[]{data-label="fig-Neuraminidase inhibitors-orig"}](7original_2.png){width="100.00000%" height="0.5\textheight"} Sensitivity analysis computation details {#app-computations} ======================================== Let $p^L_{i_1,\ldots,i_k}$ and $p^R_{i_1,\ldots,i_k}$ be, respectively, the left- and right- $p$-values from a meta-analysis on the subset $(i_1,\ldots,i_k)\subset \{1,\ldots,N\}$ of the $N$ studies in the full meta-analysis, $k<N$. Let $\Pi(k)$ denote the set of all possible subsets of size $k$. The $r$-value computation {#app-subsec-rvalue} ------------------------- For a meta-analysis based on $N$ studies, a replicability claim is a claim that the conclusion remains significant (e.g., rejection of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect) using a meta-analysis of each of the $\binom{N}{u-1}$ subsets of $N-u+1$ studies, where $u=2,\ldots, N$ is a parameter chosen by the investigator. Specifically, for $u=2$, a replicability claim is a claim that the conclusion remains significant using a meta-analysis of each of the $N$ subsets of $N-1$ studies. The $r$-value for replicability analysis, where we claim replicability if the conclusion remains significant using a meta-analysis of each of the $\binom{N}{u-1}$ subsets of $N-u+1$ studies is computed as follows. For left- sided alternative, the $r$-value is $$r^L = \max_{(i_1,\ldots,i_{N-u+1})\in \Pi(N-u+1)} p^L_{i_1,\ldots,i_{N-u+1}}.$$ For right- sided alternative, the $r$-value is $$r^R = \max_{(i_1,\ldots,i_{N-u+1})\in \Pi(N-u+1)} p^R_{i_1,\ldots,i_{N-u+1}}.$$ For two-sided alternavies, the $r$-value is $$r = 2\min(r^L,r^R).$$ Sensitivity analysis for confidence intervals --------------------------------------------- The sensitivity interval is the union of all the meta-analysis confidence intervals using the $\binom{N}{u-1}$ subsets of $N-u+1$ studies. The upper limit of the $(1-\alpha)$ sensitivity interval is the upper limit of the $(1-\alpha)$ confidence interval from the meta-analysis on $(i_1^L, \ldots, i^L_{N-u+1})$, where $(i_1^L, \ldots, i^L_{N-u+1})$ is the subset that achieves the maximum $p$-value for the left-sided $r$-value computation. Similarly, the lower limit of the $(1-\alpha)$ sensitivity interval is the lower limit of the $(1-\alpha)$ confidence interval from the meta-analysis on $(i_1^R, \ldots, i^R_{N-u+1})$, where $(i_1^R, \ldots, i^R_{N-u+1})$ is the subset that achieves the maximum $p$-value for the right-sided $r$-value computation. The meta-analysis is non-sensitive (at the desired value of $u$) if and only if the sensitivity interval does not contain the null hypothesis value. This follows from the following argument. To see this, note that $r\leq \alpha$, if and only if $r^L\leq \alpha/2$ or $r^R\leq \alpha/2$. Since $r^L\leq \alpha/2$ if and only if the upper limit of all the meta-analysis $1-\alpha$ confidence intervals of subsets of size $N-u+1$ is below the null value, and $r^R\leq \alpha/2$ if and only if the lower limit of all the meta-analysis $1-\alpha$ confidence intervals of subsets of size $N-u+1$ is above the null value, the result follows. Leave-one-out sensitivity procedure ----------------------------------- For meta-analysis with N studies and significant effect size $\theta < \theta_{0}$ ,where $\theta_{0}$ is the null effect ,e.g., 1 for HR (two- sided alternative): 1) Compute meta-analysis of each of the $\binom{N}{u-1}$ subsets of $N-u+1$ studies. 2) Choose the $N-u+1$ subset of studies that achieves the maximum $p$-value for the left-sided $r$-value computation: $(i_1^L, \ldots, i^L_{N-u+1})$. 3) Compute the two-sided $r$-value : $$r = 2\min(r^L,r^R).$$ 4) If the $r$-value $\leq$ 0.05, the replicability is established in at lease $u$ studies. Otherwise, the replicability is established in at most $u-1$ studies (for $u$=2 , $r$-value $>$ 0.05 means that the finding is not replicable). For meta-analysis with N studies and significant effect size $\theta > \theta_{0}$ ,where $\theta_{0}$ is the null effect ,e.g., 1 for HR (two- sided alternative): 1) Compute meta-analysis of each of the $\binom{N}{u-1}$ subsets of $N-u+1$ studies. 2) Choose the $N-u+1$ subset of studies that achieves the maximum $p$-value for the right-sided $r$-value computation: $(i_1^R, \ldots, i^R_{N-u+1})$. 3) Compute the two-sided $r$-value : $$r = 2\min(r^L,r^R).$$ 4) If the $r$-value $\leq$ 0.05, the replicability is established in at lease $u$ studies. Otherwise, the replicability is established in at most $u-1$ studies (for $u$=2 , $r$-value $>$ 0.05 means that the finding is not replicable). Random effects meta analysis simulation {#app-sim} ======================================= Using the following simulation we demonstrate that a significant random effect meta-analysis is not equivalent to replicability. Meaning, random effect meta-analysis can be significant even though the effect is greater than zero in only one study out of $N$. We show that the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis with a single outlying study can be as high as 6 times the nominal level using the meta-analysis computations of [@Higgins11], and as high as 3 times the nominal level using the more conservative approach of [@IntHout14]. For $N \in \{3,5,7,9,20 \}$ studies, we sampled $N-1$ effects $\mu_{i}, i=1,..,N-1 $ from the distribution $N(0,\tau^2)$, where $\tau^2\in \{0.01,0.04, 0.09,0.25,0.49,1\}$. For the $N$th study, the effect was $\mu_n \in \{0, 0.05, 0.1, \ldots ,4.5 ,5\}$. For each study $i \in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, we sampled observed effects $ \hat \theta_i$ from the normal distribution with mean $\mu_i$ and standard deviation 0.01. We computed the random effect meta-analysis one-sided p-value using the computations suggested in [@Higgins11], i.e., using the $z$-test on the average observed effects, as well as using the $t$-test on the sample of observed effects. We estimated the probability of rejection the null hypothesis of zero mean based on $10^4$ iterations. Figures \[fig-ztest\] and \[fig-ttest\] show the resulting estimated probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. The random effect meta-analysis is significant in more than 5% of the iterations for all $N$ in values of $\mu_N>0$ that are not too large relative to the value of $\tau$. The larger the value of $\tau^2$, the greater the range of $\mu_N>0$ for which the nominal level of significance is not maintained. In [@Higgins11], the normal distribution is used for the random effect meta-analysis $p$-value, instead of the $t$-distribution with $N-1$ degrees of freedom which in our simulation (with equal study weights) results in an exact $\alpha=0.05$ level test when $\mu_N=0$. We see that the usage of the $z$-test instead of the $t$-test results in a type I error rate substantially greater than 5% under the null hypothesis (i.e. $\mu_N = 0 $) and in a higher rejection rate of the null hypothesis for $\mu_N > 0 $ in comparison to the fraction of rejections using the $t$-test when there is no replicability. ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $z$-test detailed in page 74 of [@Higgins11]: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is above $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s, ranging from about $\leq 12\%$ for $N=3$ and decreasing to $0.055$ for $N=20$. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.26$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ and with $N$. Even if the $z$-test is acceptable for meta-analysis when the number of studies is large enough, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ztest"}](SN_dist_tau_0_1.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $z$-test detailed in page 74 of [@Higgins11]: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is above $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s, ranging from about $\leq 12\%$ for $N=3$ and decreasing to $0.055$ for $N=20$. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.26$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ and with $N$. Even if the $z$-test is acceptable for meta-analysis when the number of studies is large enough, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ztest"}](SN_dist_tau_0_2.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $z$-test detailed in page 74 of [@Higgins11]: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is above $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s, ranging from about $\leq 12\%$ for $N=3$ and decreasing to $0.055$ for $N=20$. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.26$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ and with $N$. Even if the $z$-test is acceptable for meta-analysis when the number of studies is large enough, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ztest"}](SN_dist_tau_0_3.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $z$-test detailed in page 74 of [@Higgins11]: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is above $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s, ranging from about $\leq 12\%$ for $N=3$ and decreasing to $0.055$ for $N=20$. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.26$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ and with $N$. Even if the $z$-test is acceptable for meta-analysis when the number of studies is large enough, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ztest"}](SN_dist_tau_0_5.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $z$-test detailed in page 74 of [@Higgins11]: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is above $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s, ranging from about $\leq 12\%$ for $N=3$ and decreasing to $0.055$ for $N=20$. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.26$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ and with $N$. Even if the $z$-test is acceptable for meta-analysis when the number of studies is large enough, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ztest"}](SN_dist_tau_0_7.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $z$-test detailed in page 74 of [@Higgins11]: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is above $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s, ranging from about $\leq 12\%$ for $N=3$ and decreasing to $0.055$ for $N=20$. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.26$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ and with $N$. Even if the $z$-test is acceptable for meta-analysis when the number of studies is large enough, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ztest"}](SN_dist_tau_1.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $t$-test: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.15$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ as well as with $N$. Even though the $t$-test controls the probability of type I error for meta-analysis, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ttest"}](t_dist_tau_0_1.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $t$-test: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.15$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ as well as with $N$. Even though the $t$-test controls the probability of type I error for meta-analysis, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ttest"}](t_dist_tau_0_2.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $t$-test: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.15$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ as well as with $N$. Even though the $t$-test controls the probability of type I error for meta-analysis, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ttest"}](t_dist_tau_0_3.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $t$-test: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.15$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ as well as with $N$. Even though the $t$-test controls the probability of type I error for meta-analysis, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ttest"}](t_dist_tau_0_5.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $t$-test: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.15$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ as well as with $N$. Even though the $t$-test controls the probability of type I error for meta-analysis, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ttest"}](t_dist_tau_0_7.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"} ![The average fraction of rejections at the 0.05 level, using the $t$-test: (a) $\tau^2 = 0.01$; (b) $\tau^2 = 0.04$; (c) $\tau^2 = 0.09$; (d) $\tau^2 = 0.25$; (e) $\tau^2 = 0.49$; (f) $\tau^2 = 1$. The probability of the type I error is $0.05$ for all $N$s and $\tau$s. The maximum fraction of rejections is $0.15$ for $N=3$ and $\tau^2=0.01$, and decreases for increasing $N$ and $\tau$. The range of values of $\mu_N$ for which it is above 5% increases with $\tau^2$ as well as with $N$. Even though the $t$-test controls the probability of type I error for meta-analysis, we still have a problem with lack of replicability.[]{data-label="fig-ttest"}](t_dist_tau_1.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%" height="0.35\textheight"}

--- abstract: 'The properties of $(d-1)$-dimensional $s$-wave holographic superconductor in the presence of power-Maxwell field is explored. We study the probe limit in which the scalar and gauge fields do not backreact on the background geometry. Our study is based on the matching of solutions on the boundary and on the horizon at some intermediate point. At first, the case without external magnetic field is considered, and the critical temperature is obtained in terms of the charge density, the dimensionality, and the power-Maxwell exponent. Then, a magnetic field is turned on in the $d$-dimensional bulk which can influence the $(d-1)$-dimensional holographic superconductor at the boundary. The phase behavior of the corresponding holographic superconductor is obtained by computing the upper critical magnetic field in the presence of power-Maxwell electrodynamics, characterized by the power exponent $q$. Interestingly, it is observed that in the presence of magnetic field, the physically acceptable phase behavior of the holographic superconductor is obtained for $q={d}/{4}$, which guaranties the conformal invariance of the power-Maxwell Lagrangian. The case of physical interest in five spacetime dimensions ($d=5$, and $q=5/4$) is considered in detail, and compared with the results obtained for the usual Maxwell electrodynamics $q=1$ in the same dimensions.' address: | $^1$ Physics Department and Biruni Observatory, College of Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71946, Iran\ $^2$ Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM), P.O. Box 55134-441, Maragha, Iran author: - 'A. Sheykhi$^{1,2}$[^1], F. Shamsi$^{1}$, and S. Davatolhagh$^1$[^2]' title: 'The upper critical magnetic field of holographic superconductor with conformally invariant power-Maxwell electrodynamics' --- Introduction ============ The correspondence between the gravity in a $d$-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime and the conformal field theory (CFT) residing on the ($d-1$)-dimensional boundary of this spacetime, provides a powerful tool for studying strongly coupled systems [@maldacena]. The gauge/gravity duality, which relates strongly interacting gauge theories to theories of gravity in higher dimensions, has opened a new window to study many different strongly interacting condensed matter systems [@Hart]. In Ref. [@hartnol], a model for dual description of a holographic superconductor was proposed. The model was shown to exhibit a critical point $T_c$ at which the system goes into a superconducting phase. The properties of this phase have been thoroughly studied [@Hart; @hartnol], showing a strong resemblance with those of a Type II superconductor. Till date, a number of attempts have been made, mostly numerical, in order to understand various properties of holographic superconductors in the framework of the usual Maxwell electromagnetic theory [@hartnol; @G; @gregory; @S.A; @zeng; @H; @cai; @Q; @rg; @Horowitz; @How; @Pan; @Cai1; @Pan2]. It is important to investigate the issue of response to an external magnetic field in the context of holographic superconductors [@Albash], which also is of central significance in the general field of superconductivity. It is observed that when immersed in an external magnetic field, ordinary superconductors expel the magnetic flux lines thereby exhibiting perfect diamagnetism when the temperature is lowered through $ T_{c} $, which is called the Meissner effect [@Tinkham]. In fact depending on their behavior in the presence of an external magnetic field, the superconductors are classified into two general categories, namely type I and type II superconductors. In type I superconductors, when the external magnetic field $B$ reaches a critical value $B_c $ there occurs an abrupt (first order) phase transition from the superconducting phase to the normal phase. On the other hand, in type II superconductors that are directly relevant to our discussion, there happens to be a continuous (second order) phase transition and the material ceases to superconduct for $ B > B_{\rm c2} $, where $ B_{\rm c2}$ is called the upper critical field of type II superconductor. In the case of the continuous phase transition in type II superconductor, the order parameter is small near $B_{\rm c2}$ and vanishes continuously as $B\rightarrow B_{\rm c2}$. For the holographic superconductor in the probe limit, we neglect the backreaction of the scalar field on the background geometry. As a result, the holographic superconductor is not able to repel the background magnetic field, which holds a strong resemblance with type II superconductor in its mixed phase. Instead the scalar condensate adjusts itself such that it only fills a finite strip in the plane, thus reducing the total magnetic field passing through it. In other words, the effect of the external magnetic field is such that it always tries to reduce the condensate. The numerical studies indicate that the superconducting phase disappears above an upper critical value of the applied magnetic field $B > B_{\rm c2} $ [@Albash; @Nakano]. It is well known that the properties of holographic superconductor depend on the behavior of the electromagnetic field coupled with the charged scalar field. The effects of nonlinear electrodynamics on the critical temperature and condensation parameters of $s$-wave holographic superconductors have been investigated in [@Shey; @Zh; @GanBI]. Motivated by the recent studies [@Albash2; @Roy1; @Gan; @Xue; @Lala; @SS; @Roy2], and the fact that within the framework of AdS/CFT correspondence a different electromagnetic action is expected to modify the dynamics of the dual theory, in this paper we investigate the behavior of holographic superconductor with power-Maxwell field in the background of a $d$-dimensional Schwarzschild AdS black hole, bearing in mind that in $ d$-dimensional spacetime the energy-momentum tensor of conformally invariant Maxwell field is traceless provided we take $q={d}/{4} $ where $q$ is the power parameter of the power-Maxwell electrodynamics [@PowerM; @SheyPM]. In the absence of external magnetic field, and in the background of $d$-dimensional AdS black hole, the properties of $s$-wave holographic superconductors coupled to power-Maxwell electrodynamics have been explored in [@SSM; @PM; @PMb]. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the holographic dual of $d$-dimensional Schwarzschild AdS black hole by introducing a complex charged scalar field coupled with the power Maxwell field and explore the relation between critical temperature and charge density. In Sec. III, the magnetic field effect on holographic superconductor with power Maxwell electrodynamics is considered. The paper is concluded with a discussion and summary in section IV. Holographic superconductor with power Maxwell field =================================================== We consider the $d$-dimensional action of Einstein gravity in the presence of power-Maxwell field and a charged complex scalar field which is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{metric} S=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{-g}\bigg[R-2\Lambda-\beta(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})^q- |\nabla_{\mu}\psi - i q A_{\mu} \psi|^{2} - m^{2}|\psi|^{2}\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar, $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field tensor, $ A_{\mu} $ and $ \psi $ are the gauge and scalar field, $ \beta $ is the coupling constant, $ q$ is the power parameter of the power-Maxwell field, and the cosmological constant is $$\Lambda=-\frac{(d-1)(d-2)}{2 l^2},$$ where $l$ is the AdS radius of spacetime. For $ \beta = 1/4 $ and $ q = 1 $ the power-Maxwell Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}=-\beta(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})^q$ reduces to the usual Maxwell Lagrangian. Besides, for $q=d/4$, the energy-momentum tensor of the power-Maxwell Lagrangian is traceless in all dimensions [@PowerM]. It is also easy to check that, under a conformal transformation which acts on the fields as $g_{\mu\nu}\rightarrow \Omega^2 g_{\mu\nu}$ and $A_{\mu}\rightarrow A_{\mu}$, the power-Maxwell Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}=-\beta(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})^q$ remains unchanged provided $q=d/4$ [@PowerM]. The metric of a planar Schwarzschild AdS black hole in $d$-dimensional spacetime is $$\begin{aligned} ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2dx_{i}dx^{i},\end{aligned}$$ where $$f(r)=r^2\bigg(1-\frac{r_{+}^{d-1}}{r^{d-1}}\bigg),$$ $r_{+} $ is the horizon radius, and we have taken the AdS radius equal to one, i.e. $ l = 1 $. The Hawking temperature is given by $$\label{T} T=\frac{f'(r_+)}{4\pi}=\frac{(d-1)r_{+}}{4\pi}.$$ We consider the following ansatz for the gauge and the scalar fields, respectively [@hartnol] $$\begin{aligned} A_{\mu}=\phi(r)dt, \quad \quad \psi=\psi(r).\end{aligned}$$ From the action in Eq. (\[metric\]), the equations of motion are given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{phir} \phi''+\bigg(\frac{d-2}{2q-1}\bigg)\frac{\phi'}{r}+\frac{\phi \psi^2 \phi'^{2-2q}}{(-2)^{q}\beta q(2q-1) f}=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{psir} \psi''+\bigg(\frac{f'}{f}+\frac{d-2}{r}\bigg)\psi'+\bigg(\frac{\phi^2}{f^2}-\frac{m^2}{f}\bigg)\psi=0,\end{aligned}$$ where the prime denotes derivative with respect to $r$. At the event horizon of the black hole $ r = r_{+} $, the regularity gives the boundary conditions for $ \psi(r) $ and $ \phi(r) $ as [@hartnol] $$\label{ph} \phi(r_{+})=0, \ \ \ \ \ \psi(r_{+})=\frac{(d-1)r_{+}}{m^2}\psi'(r_{+}).$$ At the asymptotic AdS boundary ($ r\rightarrow \infty $), the solutions of Eqs. (\[phir\]) and (\[psir\]) behave like $$\psi\approx\frac{\psi_{-}}{r^{\lambda_{-}}}+\frac{\psi_{+}}{r^{\lambda_{+}}},$$ $$\phi\approx\mu-\frac{\rho^{\frac{1}{2q-1}}}{r^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1}},$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \lambda_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2}\bigg[(d-1)\pm\sqrt{(d-1)^2+4m^2}\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $ \mu $ and $ \rho $ are interpreted as the chemical potential and charge density in the dual field theory, respectively [@hartnol]. By changing the variable $ z={r_{+}}/{r}$, the equations of motion (\[phir\]) and (\[psir\]) become $$\begin{aligned} \label{phiz} \phi''+\left(\frac{4q-d}{2q-1}\right)\frac{\phi'}{z}+\frac{\phi \psi^2 \phi'^{2-2q} r_{+}^{2q} }{2^{q} (-1)^{3q}\beta q (2q-1)f z^{4q}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{psiz} \psi''+\left(\frac{f'}{f}-\frac{d-4}{z}\right)\psi'+\frac{r_{+}^2}{z^4}\bigg(\frac{\phi^2}{f^2}-\frac{m^2}{f}\bigg)\psi=0,\end{aligned}$$ where the prime now indicates the derivative with respect to the new coordinate $z$. The asymptotic boundary conditions for the scalar field $ \psi(z) $ and the scalar potential $ \phi(z) $ now become $$\label{m} \phi=\mu-\frac{\rho^{\frac{1}{2q-1}}}{r_{+}^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1}}z^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1},$$ $$\label{J} \psi=J_{-}z^{\lambda_{-}}+J_{+}z^{\lambda_{+}}.$$ Following [@hartnol; @S.A], we can impose the boundary condition that either $ J_{+} $ or $ J_{-} $ vanishes. Hereafter, we consider the case with $ J_{+}=0 $. The case with $ J_{-}=0 $ was already studied in [@Roy2], although their final expression for critical magnetic field seems to be in error. Now, anticipating the matching technique [@gregory; @zeng; @Q; @Barc; @kanno; @xiao], first we consider the solutions of the gauge field $ \phi(z) $ and the scalar field $ \psi(z) $, using the boundary conditions from Eqs. (\[ph\]) and (10) near the horizon ($ z = 1 $). Both $ \psi(z) $ and $ \phi(z) $ are Taylor expanded near the horizon ($z=1$) as $$\begin{aligned} \label{taylorphi} \phi(z) &=& \phi(1)-\phi'(1) (1-z)+\frac{1}{2} \phi''(1) (1-z)^2+ ... \nonumber \\ &\thickapprox& -\phi'(1) (1-z)+\frac{1}{2} \phi''(1) (1-z)^2,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{taylorpsi} \psi(z)=\psi(1)-\psi'(1)(1-z)+\frac{1}{2}\psi''(1)(1-z)^2+...,\end{aligned}$$ where without loss of generality we choose $ \phi'(1)<0$ and $ \psi(1)>0 $. On the other hand, near horizon $(z = 1 )$ from Eqs.(\[phiz\]) and (\[psiz\]), and using $ f'(1)=-(d-1)r_{+}^2 $ and $ f''(1)=6r_{+}^2-(d-3)(d-4)r_{+}^2 $, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{phi1} \phi''(1)=\bigg(\frac{d-4q}{2q-1}\bigg)\phi'(1)+\frac{\psi^2(1) r_{+}^{2q-2}}{(-1)^{3q}2^q\beta q(2q-1)(d-1)} [\phi'(1)]^{3-2q},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{psi1} \psi''(1)=\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)\psi(1)-\frac{\phi'^2(1) \psi(1)}{2 r_{+}^2(d-1)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eqs. (\[phi1\]) and (\[psi1\]) in Eqs.(\[taylorphi\]) and (\[taylorpsi\]), we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{1} \phi(z)\approx-\phi'(1)(1-z)+\frac{1}{2}\Bigg\{ \frac{d-4q}{2q-1} +\frac{\psi^2(1)[\phi'(1)]^{2-2q} r_{+}^{2q-2}}{(-1)^{3q}2^q\beta q (2q-1)(d-1)} \Bigg\}\phi'(1)(1-z)^2,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{2} \psi(z)\approx \left(1+\frac{m^2}{d-1}\right)\psi(1)-\frac{m^2}{d-1}z\psi(1)+\frac{1}{2}\Bigg\{\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)-\frac{\phi'^2(1)}{2 r_{+}^2(d-1)^2}\Bigg\} \psi(1)(1-z)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Now by matching these two sets of asymptotic solutions at some intermediate point $ z = z_{m} $, namely matching Eqs. (\[m\]) and (\[J\]), respectively, with Eqs. (\[1\]) and (\[2\]), we arrive at the following set of equations, $$\begin{aligned} \mu-\frac{\rho^{\frac{1}{2q-1}}}{r_{+}^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1}}z_{m}^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1} =\omega(1-z_{m})-\frac{1}{2}\Bigg\{\frac{d-4q}{2q-1}+\frac{\alpha^2(-\omega)^{2-2q} r_{+}^{2q-2}}{(-1)^{3q}2^q\beta q (2q-1)(d-1)} \Bigg\}\omega(1-z_{m})^2,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{J-} J_{-}z_{m}^{\lambda_{-}}=\bigg(1+\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg)\alpha-\frac{m^2}{d-1} z_{m}\alpha+\frac{1}{2}\Bigg\{\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)-\frac{\omega^2}{2 r_{+}^2(d-1)^2}\Bigg\}\alpha(1-z_{m})^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\alpha\equiv\psi(1)$ and $ \omega\equiv-\phi'(1) $ ($ \alpha, \omega > 0 $). Note that according to the matching method, not only functions $\phi(z)$ and $\psi(z)$ should match at $z_m$, but their derivatives must also match at intermediate point $z_m$. The latter implies that we have the following two equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{mu} \left({\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1}\right)\frac{\rho^{\frac{1}{2q-1}}}{r_{+}^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1}} z_{m}^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-2}=\omega-\Bigg\{\frac{d-4q}{2q-1} +\frac{\alpha^2(-\omega)^{2-2q} r_{+}^{2q-2}}{(-1)^{3q}2^q\beta q (2q-1)(d-1)} \Bigg\}\omega(1-z_{m}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{J-zm} \lambda_{-}J_{-}z_{m}^{\lambda_{-}-1}=-\frac{m^2}{d-1}\alpha-\Bigg\{\frac{m^2} {d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)-\frac{\omega^2}{2 r_{+}^2(d-1)^2}\Bigg\}\alpha(1-z_{m}).\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[mu\]), after using Eq. (\[T\]), we find $$\begin{aligned} \label{alpha2} \alpha^2=\frac{(-1)^{5q-1}2^{q}q \beta (d-1)}{(1-z_{m})\tilde{\omega}^{2(1-q)}} \left[(z_{m}-1)d-1+(6-4z_{m})q\right]\left(\frac{T_{c}}{T}\right)^{(\frac{d-2}{2q-1})} \left[1-\bigg(\frac{T}{T_c}\bigg)^{(\frac{d-2}{2q-1})}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $ \tilde{\omega}={\omega}/{r_{+}} $, and $ T_{c} $ is obtained as $$\label{Tc} T_{c}=\kappa \rho^{\frac{1}{d-2}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{kappa} \kappa=\frac{(d-1)z_m^{\frac{d-4q}{d-2}}}{4\pi\tilde{\omega}^{\frac{2q-1}{d-2}}}\bigg[\frac{(d-2q-1)} {(z_{m}-1)d-1+(6-4z_{m})q}\bigg]^{\frac{2q-1}{d-2}}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[J-\]) and (\[J-zm\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\omega}=\sqrt{m^4+\frac{2(d-1)}{(1-z_{m})(2z_{m}+\lambda_{-}(1-z_{m}))}\bigg[ m^2\bigg(\lambda_{-} (z_{m}^2-4z_{m}+3)-2z_{m}(z_{m}-2)\bigg)+2\lambda_{-}(d-1)\bigg]},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{J1} J_{-}=\frac{2(d-1)+m^2(1-z_{m})}{z_{m}^{(\lambda_{-}-1)}(d-1)(2z_{m}+\lambda_{-}(1-z_{m}))}\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Near the critical point $ T \sim T_{c} $, after using Eq.(\[alpha2\]) and the definition of distance parameter $ t\equiv1-{T}/{T_c} $, we get $$\label{alpha} \alpha=\sqrt{\mathcal{A}}\sqrt{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}t},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}=\frac{(-1)^{5q-1}2^{q}q \beta (d-1)}{(1-z_{m})\tilde{\omega}^{2(1-q)}} \bigg[(z_{m}-1)d-1+(6-4z_{m})q\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Finally, combining Eqs. (\[T\]), (\[J1\]), and (\[alpha\]) near the critical temperature, the condensation operator can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned} <\mathcal{O}_{-}>=\sqrt{2}r_{+}J_{-}=\gamma T_{c}\sqrt{1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \gamma=\frac{4\sqrt{2}\pi\sqrt{\mathcal{A}}}{(d-1)^2}\sqrt{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}} \frac{2(d-1)+m^2(1-z_{m})}{{z_{m}^{(\lambda_{-}-1)}[2z_{m}+\lambda_{-}(1-z_{m})]}}.\end{aligned}$$ $ d $ $ q $ $\kappa $ ------- ------- ----------- $4$ 1 0.142 $5$ 5/4 0.197 $6$ 6/4 0.231 $7$ 7/4 0.259 $8$ 2 0.285 \ Table $1$: The values of $ \kappa={T_c}/{\rho^{1/(d-2)}} $ for different values of power parameter $ q={d}/{4} $, with $ z_m=0.5 $ and $ m^2=-2 $. \[tab1\] We see from Table $ 1 $ that the critical temperature increases with increasing power parameter $ q =d/4$, or dimensions $ d $, that is consistent with the general theory of critical phenomena. There are two cases of physical interest in Table 1. The case of $d=4$ corresponds to the $(2+1)$-dimensional holographic superconductor in the usual Maxwell field $q=1$. The other case of physical interest is $d=5$, which corresponds to a $(3+1)$-dimensional holographic superconductor with conformally invariant power-Maxwell field $q=5/4$. Effect of external magnetic field ================================= According to the gauge/gravity duality, the asymptotic value of magnetic field in the bulk, corresponds to the magnetic field in the boundary field theory: $ B(x) = F_{xy} (x, z \rightarrow 0) $ [@Albash; @Albash2]. Considering the fact that near the upper critical magnetic field of the continuous phase transition $ B_{\rm c2}$, the condensate order parameter is small, we can therefore consider the scalar field $ \psi $ as a small perturbation near $ B_{\rm c2} $. This allows us to adopt the following ansatz for the gauge field and the scalar field [@Albash; @Albash2; @Roy1; @Roy2] $$\begin{aligned} A_{t}=\phi(z), \quad A_{y}=B x, \quad \psi=\psi(x,z).\end{aligned}$$ With this, the equation for the scalar field $ \psi $ becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{psixz} \psi''(x,z)&+&\bigg(\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}-\frac{d-4}{z}\bigg) \psi'(x,z)-\frac{m^2 r_{+}^2 \psi(x,z)}{z^4 f(z)} + \frac{r_{+}^2 \phi^2(z)\psi(x,z)}{z^4 f^2(z)}+ \frac{1}{z^2 f(z)}\left(\partial_{x}^2\psi - B^2 x^2 \psi\right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ In order to solve Eq. (\[psixz\]), we take the following separable form $$\label{3} \psi(x,z)=X(x) R(z).$$ Substituting Eq. (\[3\]) into Eq. (\[psixz\]), we arrive at $$\begin{aligned} z^2 f(z)\bigg[\frac{R''}{R}+\bigg(\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}-\frac{d-4}{z}\bigg)\frac{R'}{R}+\frac{r_{+}^2\phi^2}{z^4f^2}-\frac{m^2 r_{+}^2}{z^4 f}\bigg]-\bigg[-\frac{X''}{X}+B^2x^2\bigg]=0.\end{aligned}$$ $ X (x) $ is governed by the equation of a harmonic oscillator with frequency determined by $ B $: $$\begin{aligned} -X''(x)+B^2x^2X(x)=\lambda_{n} B X(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $ \lambda_n= 2n + 1 $. For $n=0$, $ R(z) $ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \label{Rz} R''(z)+\bigg(\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}-\frac{d-4}{z}\bigg) R'(z)-\frac{m^2 r_{+}^2 R(z)} {z^4 f(z)}+\frac{r_{+}^2\phi^2(z)R(z)}{z^4f^2(z)}=\frac{BR(z)}{z^2 f(z)}.\end{aligned}$$ Now at the horizon $ z = 1 $, and using Eq. (\[Rz\]), $ \phi(1)=0 $, $ f'(1)=-(d-1)r_{+}^2 $, and $ f''(1)=6r_{+}^2-(d-3)(d-4)r_{+}^2 $, we obtain $$\label{R'} R'(1)=-\bigg(\frac{B}{(d-1)r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg)R(1),$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{R''} R''(1)=\Bigg\{\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{B}{(d-1) r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)+\frac{B^2}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^4}-\frac{\phi'^2(1)}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^2}\Bigg\}R(1).\end{aligned}$$ In the asymptotic region ($ z\rightarrow 0 $), the solution behaves as $$\label{5} R(z)=J_{-}z^{\lambda_{-}}+J_{+}z^{\lambda_{+}}.$$ In the presence of external magnetic field, we use the matching method and the Taylor expansion of $ R(z) $ near the horizon $$\begin{aligned} \label{R(z)} R(z)=R(1)-R'(1)(1-z)+\frac{1}{2}R''(1)(1-z)^2+ \cdots\ .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eqs. (\[R’\]) and (\[R”\]) in Eq. (\[R(z)\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{4} R(z)&\thickapprox& R(1)+(1-z)\bigg(\frac{B}{(d-1)r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg)R(1) \nonumber\\&&+\frac{1}{2} \bigg[\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{B}{(d-1) r_{+}^2} +\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)+\frac{B^2}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^4}-\frac{\phi'^2(1)}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^2}\bigg]R(1)(1-z)^2 .\end{aligned}$$ The two solutions given in Eq. (\[5\]) and Eq. (\[4\]) are connected smoothly at an intermediate point $ z_m $. Thus, we find that $$\begin{aligned} J_{-}z_{m}^{\lambda_{-}}&=& R(1)+(1-z_{m})\bigg(\frac{B}{(d-1)r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg)R(1) \nonumber+\frac{1}{2} \Bigg\{\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{B}{(d-1) r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)\\&&+\frac{B^2}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^4}-\frac{\phi'^2(1)}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^2}\Bigg\} R(1)(1-z_{m})^2,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \lambda_{-}J_{-}z_{m}^{\lambda_{-}-1}&=&-\bigg(\frac{B}{(d-1)r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg)R(1) \nonumber- \Bigg\{\frac{m^2}{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{B}{(d-1) r_{+}^2}+\frac{m^2}{2(d-1)}\bigg)\\&&+\frac{B^2}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^4}-\frac{\phi'^2(1)}{2(d-1)^2 r_{+}^2}\Bigg\}R(1)(1-z_{m}).\end{aligned}$$ From the above equations, we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{B2} B^2+2nr_{+}^2B+pr_{+}^4-\phi'^2(1)r_{+}^2=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} n=m^2+2(d-1)\Bigg\{\frac{\lambda_{-} (1-z_{m})+z_{m}}{(1-z_{m})\left[(2-\lambda_{-})z_{m}+\lambda_{-}\right]}\Bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} p=m^4+\frac{2(d-1)\left[2\lambda_{-}(d-1)+m^2\left((3-4z_{m}+z_{m}^2)\lambda_{-}-2z_{m}(z_{m}-2)\right)\right]}{(1-z_{m}) \left[(2-\lambda_{-})z_{m}+\lambda_{-}\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that Eq. (\[B2\]) has a solution $$\label{B} B=\sqrt{\phi'^2(1)r_{+}^2+r_{+}^4(n^2-p)}-nr_{+}^2.$$ Now consider the case for which the value of the external magnetic field is very close to the upper critical value, i.e. $ B \sim B_{\rm c2} $. This implies a vanishingly small condensate, and therefore we can ignore all the quadratic terms in $ \psi $. With this approximation, from Eq. (\[phiz\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \phi''(z)-\frac{1}{z}\bigg(\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-2\bigg)\phi'(z)=0.\end{aligned}$$ From the above equation and using Eq. (\[m\]), we arrive at $$\begin{aligned} \label{phi} \phi'^2(1)r_{+}^2=\frac{\rho^{\frac{2}{2q-1}}}{r_{+}^{\frac{2(d-2)}{2q-1}}}r_{+}^4 \bigg(\frac{d-2}{2q-1}-1\bigg)^2.\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[Tc\]) and (\[kappa\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{rho} \rho=\frac{\left[4\pi T_{c}(0)\right]^{(d-2)} \tilde{\omega}^{2q-1}} {z_{m}^{(d-4q)}(d-1)^{(d-2)}\bigg[\frac{d-2q-1}{(z_{m}-1)d-1+(6-4z_{m})q}\bigg]^{2q-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ On substituting Eqs. (\[phi\]) and (\[rho\]) into Eq. (\[B\]), we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bc} \frac{B_{\rm c2}(T)}{T_{c}^2(0)}&=&\frac{16\pi^2}{(d-1)^2}\left(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\right)^{\frac{4q-d}{2q-1}} \nonumber \Bigg\{\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{\omega}^2\left[(z_{m}-1)d-1+(6-4z_{m})q\right]^2}{(2q-1)^2z_{m}^{\frac{2(d-4q)} {2q-1}}}+(n^2-p)\left(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\right)^{\frac{2d-4}{2q-1}}} \\&&-n\left(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\right)^{\frac{d-2}{2q-1}}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ This result makes clear the dependence of the upper critical field on the temperature and the power parameter of the power-Maxwell electrodynamics. The phase diagram given by Eq. (\[Bc\]) is plotted in Figs. 1 and 2 for different values of dimensionality $ d $ (or power parameter $q=d/4$) and different $m^2$, respectively. It is clear from Figs. 1 and 2 that, consistent with the phenomenology and the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity, $B_{\rm c2}(T)$ vanishes linearly as $T\rightarrow T_c(0)$. Figure 3 shows the behavior of $B_{\rm c2}$ as a function of $T$ for different values of $T_c(0)$, i.e. the transition temperature in absence of magnetic field. It is evident from Fig. 3 that $B_{\rm c2}(0)$ increases with $T_c(0)$, which is again consistent with the phenomenology of superconductivity. It is worth noting that the reasonable behavior of $B_{\rm c2}$ in Figs. 1-3, which is consistent with the phenomenology of superconductors, is observed provided we take $q=d/4$. For example in $d=5$ dimensions that corresponds to a (3+1)-dimensional holographic superconductor, we should take $q=5/4$ in order to have reasonable $B_{\rm c2}$ in the range of $T\leq T_c(0)$. This implies that among all power-Maxwell theories with various parameters $q$, those which are conformally invariant lead to the magnetic field behavior of physical interest for holographic superconductors. This may be understood as follows. For the conformally invariant power-Maxwell theory, not only the energy-momentum tensor is traceless, but also the electromagnetic fields in higher dimensions have the same behavior as in the (well established) case of (2+1)-dimensional holographic superconductor dual of 4-dimensional gravity [@SheyPM]. For example, for the usual Maxwell field in $d$ dimensions, the electric field of charged point-like particle behaves as $E(r)\sim 1/r^{d-2}$, while for the conformally invariant power-Maxwell field in $d$-dimensional spacetime, the electric field of point charge is independent of the dimensionality and varies as $E(r)\sim 1/r^{2}$, exactly like in four dimensions [@SheyPM]. In other words, for conformally invariant Maxwell field, the magnetic field in the $d$-dimensional bulk and on its $(d-1)$-dimensional boundary has the same behavior as in the usual holographic superconductor in $d=4$ spacetime. ![The behavior of $ B_{\rm c2}/T_{c}^2(0)$ in terms of $T/T_{c}(0)$ for different values of $q$ and $ d $, with $ z_m=0.5 $ and $ m^2=-2 $.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1) ![The behavior of $ B_{\rm c2}/T_{c}^2(0)$ in terms of $T/T_{c}(0)$ for different values of $m^2$ and $ z_m=0.5 $, with $ d=5$ and $ q=5/4$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2) ![The upper critical field $ B_{c2}$ as a function of temperature $T $ for different values of $ T_c(0) $, with $ z_m=0.5 $, $ d=5 $, $ q=5/4 $, and $ m^2=-2 $.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3) ![The behavior of $ B_{\rm c2}/T_{c}^2(0)$ in terms of $T/T_{c}(0)$ for different values of $m^2$ and $ z_m=0.5 $, with $ d=5 $ and $q=1 $.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4) ![The behavior of $ B_{c2}/T_{c}^2(0)$ in terms of $T/T_{c}(0) $ for different non-zero boundary conditions $ J_{-} $ and $ J_{+} $, with $ z_m=0.5 $, $ d=5 $, $ q=5/4 $, and $ m^2=-2 $ .[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5) In order to clarify the above argument, let us have a closer look at expression (\[Bc\]). For conformally invariant case $q=d/4$, the critical magnetic field in $d$-dimensions reduces to $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bc2} \frac{B_{\rm c2}(T)}{T_{c}^2(0)}=\frac{16\pi^2}{(d-1)^2} \bigg[\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}^2+(n^2-p)\bigg(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\bigg)^{4}}-n\bigg(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\bigg)^{2}\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that in this case the functional dependence of $B_{\rm c2}(T)$ is the same as that of four-dimensional Maxwell case. This is an expected result since for conforamally invariant Maxwell field, the magnetic field in all dimensions has the same behavior as in four dimensions. For $d=5$, expression (\[Bc2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bc3} \frac{B_{\rm c2}(T)}{T_{c}^2(0)}=\pi^2 \Bigg\{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}^2+(n^2-p)\bigg(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\bigg)^{4}}-n\bigg(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\bigg)^{2}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand if we consider the Maxwell case ($q=1$) in five dimensions $(d=5)$, then Eq. (\[Bc\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bc4} \frac{B_{\rm c2}(T)}{T_{c}^2(0)}=\pi^2\left(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\right)^{-1} \Bigg\{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}^2+(n^2-p)\bigg(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\bigg)^{6}}-n\bigg(\frac{T}{T_{c}(0)}\bigg)^{3}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ The main difference between expressions of critical magnetic field given in Eq. (\[Bc3\]) for the conformally invariant Maxwell field ($ d=5,\, q=5/4$) and the usual Maxwell field ($d=5,\,q=1$) given by Eq. (\[Bc4\]), is the appearance of the $\left[{T}/{T_{c}(0)}\right]^{-1}$ term in the latter case. Clearly this term diverges as $\left[{T}/{T_{c}(0)}\right]\rightarrow0$. The behavior of $B_{\rm c2}$ in terms of ${T}/{T_{c}}(0)$ for $q=1$ and $d=5$ is shown in Fig. 4. From this figure, it is obvious that the critical magnetic field diverges as $T\rightarrow 0$. This behavior is unacceptable and as we mentioned only the conformally invariant Lagrangian with $q=d/4$ leads to the desired form of critical magnetic field consistent with the phenomenology of superconductors. Finally, Fig. 5 shows the phase diagrams obtained by imposing the different boundary conditions of non-zero $ J_- $, as expressed by Eq. (\[Bc\]), and non-zero $ J_+ $, also considered in Ref. [@Roy2]. Conclusions =========== In this paper, the properties of ($d-1$)-dimensional $s$-wave holographic superconductor in the presence of conformally invariant power-Maxwell correction to the usual Einstein-Maxwell action, were investigated. It must be noted that the power-Maxwell Lagrangian in $d$ dimensions is invariant under conformal transformation, i.e. $ g_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow \Omega^2g_{\mu\nu}$ and $A_\mu \rightarrow A_\mu $, provided we take the power parameter as $ q= d/4 $. In the absence of external magnetic field, we have found the critical temperature $T_c$ to vary as $ \rho^{{1}/{(d-2)}}$ for all values of the power parameter $q$, with a proportionality constant $\kappa$ that increases with $q$ or the dimensionality $d$, as expected. The variation of order parameter with the temperature is found to be $ <\mathcal{O}> \propto \sqrt{1-\frac{T}{T_c}} $ with a critical exponent $\beta={1}/{2} $, which is characteristic of systems with mean field behavior, the prime examples of which are the superconductors. Furthermore, an analytic investigation of the effects of an external magnetic field was made by employing the matching technique. We considered the probe limit in which the scalar and gauge fields do not affect the background metric. The phase behavior of the ($d-1$)-dimensional holographic superconductor was obtained by computing the upper critical magnetic field in the presence of conformally invariant power-Maxwell electrodynamics. It was found that consistent with the phenomenology and Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity, the upper critical field $B_{\rm c2}(T)$ vanishes linearly as $T\rightarrow T_c(0)$. Also, it became evident that $B_{\rm c2}(0)$ increases with $T_c(0)$, which is again consistent with the phenomenology of superconductors. The case of physical interest in $d=5$ spacetime dimensions, corresponding to (3+1)-dimensional holographic superconductor, was considered in detail with both the conformally invariant $q=5/4$ and the usual power-Maxwell parameter $q=1$, and plotted in the figures. Interestingly enough, we observed that in the presence of power-Maxwell electrodynamics, the critical magnetic field $B_{\rm c2}$ has reasonable behavior consistent with the phenomenology of superconductors provided we consider the conformally invariant case, i.e. $q=d/4$. This may be due to the fact that for the conformally invariant power-Maxwell theory, the electromagnetic fields in higher dimensions have the same behavior as in the four-dimensional gravity dual of the well established (2+1)-dimensional holographic superconductor [@SheyPM]. In particular, we found that for $q=1$ and $d=5$, the critical magnetic field $B_{\rm c2}$ diverges as $T\rightarrow 0$. This behavior is physically unacceptable and comes from the fact that in the case $q=1$ and $d=5$, the power-Maxwell Lagrangian is not conformally invariant. This point, however, deserves further investigation. [99]{} J. M. Maldacena, *The large-N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity*, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998), \[arXiv:hep-th/9711200\]. S. A. Hartnoll, *Lectures on holographic methods for condensed matter physics*, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{}.22 224002(2009), \[arXiv:hep-th/0903.3246\];\ C. P. Herzog, *Lectures on holographic superfluidity and superconductivity*, J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 343001 (2009), \[arXiv:hep-th/0904.1975\]. S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, *Building a holographic superconductor*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 031601 (2008), \[arXiv:hep-th/0803.3295\]. G. Siopsis and J. Therrien, *Analytic calculation of properties of holographic superconductors*, JHEP [**05**]{}, 013 (2010), \[arXiv:hep-th/1003.4275\]. R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, *Holographic superconductors with higher curvature corrections*, JHEP [**0910**]{}, 010 (2009), \[arXiv:hep-th/0907.3203\]. S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, *Holographic superconductors*, JHEP [**12**]{}, 015 (2008), \[arxiv:hep-th/0810.1563\]. H. B. Zeng, X. Gao, Y. Jiang, and H. S. Zong, *Analytical computation of critical exponents in several holographic superconductors*, JHEP [**1105**]{}, 002 (2011), \[arXiv:hep-th/1012.5564\]. H. F. Li, R. G. Cai, and H. Q. Zhang, *Analytical studies on holographic superconductors in Gauss-Bonnet gravity*, JHEP [**04**]{} 028 (2011), \[arXiv:1103.2833\]. R. G. Cai, H. F. Li, and H. Q. Zhang, *Analytical studies on holographic insulator/superconductor phase transitions*, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 126007 (2011), \[arXiv:hep-th/1103.5568\]. Q. Y. Pan, B. Wang, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Oliveira, and A. Pavan, *Holographic Superconductors with various condensates in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity*, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{},106007 (2010), \[arXiv:hep-th/0912.2475\]. R. G. Cai, H. Zhang, *Holographic superconductors with Horava-Lifshitz black holes*, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 066003 (2010), \[arXiv:hep-th/0911.4867\]. G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, *Holographic superconductors with various condensates*, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 126008 (2008), \[arXiv:hep-th/0810.1077\]. G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, *Zero temperature limit of holographic superconductors*, JHEP [**0911**]{} 015 (2009), \[arXiv:hep-th/0908.3677\]. Q. Pan, J. Jing, and B. Wang, *Analytical investigation of the phase transition between holographic insulator and superconductor in Gauss-Bonnet gravity*, JHEP [**1111**]{}, 088 (2011), \[arXiv:hep-th/1105.6153\]. R. G. Cai, Z. Y. Nie, H. Q. Zhang, *Holographic p-wave superconductors from Gauss-Bonnet gravity*, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 066007 (2010), \[arXiv:hep-th/1007.3321\]. Q. Pan and B. Wang, *General holographic superconductor models with Gauss-Bonnet corrections*, Phys. Lett. B [**693**]{}, 159 (2010), \[arXiv:hep-th/1005.4743\]. T. Albash and C. V. Johnson, *A holographic superconductor in an external magnetic field*, JHEP [**09**]{}, 121 (2008), \[arXiv:hep-th/0804.3466\]. M. Tinkham, *Introduction to Superconductivity*, 2nd edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1996. E. Nakano and Wen-Yu Wen, *Critical magnetic field in AdS/CFT superconductor*, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 046004 (2008),\[arXiv:0804.3180\]. A. Sheykhi, F. Shaker, *Analytical study of holographic superconductor in Born-Infeld electrodynamics with backreaction*, Phys. Lett. B [**754**]{}, 281 (2016), \[arXiv:1601.05817\]. Z. Zhao, Q. Pan, S. Chen and J. Jing, *Notes on holographic superconductor models with the nonlinear electrodynamics*, Nucl. Phys. B [**871**]{}, 98 (2013), \[arXiv:1212.6693\]. S. Gangopadhyay, D. Roychowdhury, *Analytic study of properties of holographic superconductors in Born-Infeld electrodynamics*, JHEP [**05**]{}, 002 (2012), \[arXiv:1201.6520\]. T. Albash and C. V. Johnson, *Phases of Holographic Superconductors in an External Magnetic Field*, \[arXiv:0906.0519\]. D. Roychowdhury, *Effect of external magnetic field on holographic superconductors in presence of nonlinear corrections*, Phys.Rev. D, [**86**]{}, 106009 (2012), \[arXiv:1211.0904\]. S. Gangopadhyay, *Holographic superconductors in Born-Infeld electrodynamics and external magnetic field*, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**29**]{}, 1450088 (2014), \[arXiv:1311.4416\]. S. L. Cui, Z. Xue, *"Critical magnetic field in a holographic superconductor in Gauss-Bonnet gravity with Born-Infeld electrodynamics*, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 107501 (2013), \[arXiv:1306.2013\]. S. Dey, A. Lala,*Holographic s-wave condensation and Meissner-like effect in Gauss-Bonnet gravity with various non-linear corrections*, Annals of Physics [**354**]{}, 165 (2015), \[arXiv:1306.5137\]. A. Sheykhi, F. Shamsi, *Holographic Superconductors with Logarithmic Nonlinear Electrodynamics in an External Magnetic Field*, \[arXiv:1603.02678\]. D. Roychowdhury, *AdS/CFT superconductors with Power Maxwell electrodynamics: reminiscent of the Meissner effect*, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 1089 (2013), \[arXiv:hep-th/1211.1612\]. M. Hassaine and C. Martinez, *Higher-dimensional black holes with a conformally invariant Maxwell source*, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 027502 (2007), \[arXiv:hep-th/0701058\];\ H. A. Gonzalez, M. Hassaine and C. Martinez, *Thermodynamics of charged black holes with a nonlinear electrodynamics source*, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 104008 (2009), \[arXiv:hep-th/0909.1365\]. A. Sheykhi, *Higher-dimensional charged f(R) black holes*, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 024013 (2012) \[arXiv:1209.2960\]. A. Sheykhi, H. R. Salahi and A. Montakhab, *Analytical and numerical study of Gauss-Bonnet holographic superconductors with Power-Maxwell field,* JHEP [**04**]{}, 058 (2016) \[arXiv:1603.00075\];\ H. R. Salahi, A. Sheykhi and A. Montakhab, *Effects of Backreaction on Power-Maxwell Holographic Superconductors in Gauss-Bonnet Gravity*, \[ arXiv:1608.05025\]. J. Jing, Q. Pan, S. Chen, *Holographic superconductors with Power-Maxwell field*, JHEP [**11**]{}, 045 (2011), \[ arXiv:1106.5181\]. J. Jing, L. Jiang and Q. Pan, *Holographic superconductors for the Power-Maxwell field with backreactions*, Class. Quantum Grav. [**33**]{}, 025001 (2016). L. Barclay, R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and P. Sutcliffe, *Gauss-Bonnet Holographic Superconductors*, JHEP [**1012**]{}, 029 (2010) \[arXiv:hep-th/1009.1991\]. S. Kanno, *A note on Gauss-Bonnet holographic superconductors*, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{},127001, (2011), \[arXiv:hep-th/1103.5022\]. Xiao-Mei Kuang, Wei-Jia Li, and Yi Ling, *Holographic superconductors in quasi-topological gravity*, JHEP [**12**]{}, 069 (2010), \[arXiv:hep-th/1008.4066\]. [^1]: asheykhi@shirazu.ac.ir [^2]: davatolhagh@susc.ac.ir

--- abstract: | In this expository paper, we mainly study orthogonal arrays (OAs) of strength two having a row that is repeated $m$ times. It turns out that the Plackett-Burman bound ([@PB]) can be strengthened by a factor of $m$ for orthogonal arrays of strength two that contain a row that is repeated $m$ times. This is a consequence of a more general result due to Mukerjee, Qian and Wu [@Muk] that applies to orthogonal arrays of arbitrary strength $t$. We examine several proofs of the Plackett-Burman bound and discuss which of these proofs can be strengthened to yield the aforementioned bound for OAs of strength two with repeated rows. We also briefly discuss related bounds for $t$-designs, and OAs of strength $t$, when $t > 2$. author: - | Douglas R. Stinson[^1]\ David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science\ University of Waterloo\ Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada\ [dstinson@uwaterloo.ca]{} title: Bounds for orthogonal arrays with repeated rows --- Introduction ============ Balanced incomplete block designs (BIBDs) with repeated blocks have been studied for many years. A classical result due to Mann [@Mann] in 1969 says that a BIBD having a block of multiplicity $m$ satisfies the inequality $b \geq mv$, where $b$ is the number of blocks and $v$ is the number of points. This is of course a generalization of Fisher’s inequality, which states that $b \geq v$ in any BIBD. In this expository paper, we mainly study the corresponding problem for orthogonal arrays (OAs) of strength two. Here, the analog of Fisher’s inequality is the Plackett-Burman bound [@PB], and it turns out that this bound can be strengthened by a factor of $m$ for orthogonal arrays of strength two that contain a row that is repeated $m$ times. This is in fact a consequence of a more general result due to Mukerjee, Qian and Wu [@Muk] that applies to orthogonal arrays of arbitrary strength $t$ (see Theorem \[muk.thm\]). Aside from being an interesting theoretical question, there is also some practical motivation for studying this problem. In a recent paper, Culus and Toulouse [@CT] discuss an application where it is beneficial to construct orthogonal arrays with an $m$-times repeated row, where $m$ is as large as possible. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[OA2.sec\], we present a standard proof of the Plackett-Burman bound and show how it can be easily modified to yield the desired inequality for OAs having repeated rows (this is Theorem \[repeated.thm\]). In Section \[other.sec\], we examine several other proofs of the Plackett-Burman bound and discuss which of these proofs can be strengthened to yield the aforementioned bound for OAs of strength two with repeated rows. In Section \[t&gt;2.sec\], we discuss related bounds for OAs of strength $t$, when $t > 2$. Finally, in Section \[t-designs.sec\], we consider related bounds for balanced incomplete block designs (BIBDs) and $t$-designs. This paper is exclusively concerned with proving bounds. A follow-up paper [@CSV] investigates constructions for orthogonal arrays of strength two, having an $m$-times repeated row, that meet the bound proven in Theorem \[repeated.thm\] with equality. Orthogonal arrays of strength 2 {#OA2.sec} =============================== Let $k \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. An *orthogonal array* ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (k,n)$ is a $\lambda n^2 $ by $k$ array, $A$, with entries from a set $X$ of cardinality $n$ such that, within any two columns of $A$, every ordered pair of symbols from $X$ occurs in exactly $\lambda$ rows of $A$. We often denote the number of rows, $\lambda n^2$, by $N$. For much information on orthogonal arrays, see [@HSS]. We first give a standard combinatorial proof of the classical Plackett-Burman bound from 1946. This proof is similar to the original proof of Fisher’s inequality [@Fisher]. The proof technique is sometimes called the “variance method”. \[PB.thm\] Let $k \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. If there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(k,n)$, then $$\lambda \geq \frac{k(n-1)+1}{n^2}.$$ Relabel the symbols in each column of the OA so the last row of $A$ is $1 \: 1\: \cdots \: 1$. For $1 \leq i \leq N-1$, let $a_i$ denote the number of “$1$”s in row $i$ of $A$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \sum _{i=1}^{N-1} a_i &=& k(\lambda n - 1), \\ \sum _{i=1}^{N-1} a_i(a_i-1) &=& k(k-1)(\lambda - 1), \quad \text{and} \\ \sum _{i=1}^{N-1} {a_i}^2 &=& k(k(\lambda - 1) + \lambda(n-1)) .\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\overline{a} = \frac{k(\lambda n - 1)}{N-1}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} 0 & \leq & \sum _{i=1}^{N-1} (a_i - \overline{a})^2 \\ &=& \sum _{i=1}^{N-1} {a_i}^2 - 2 \overline{a} \sum _{i=1}^{N-1} a_i + \overline{a}^2 (N-1) \\ &=& k(k(\lambda - 1) + \lambda(n-1)) - \frac{k^2(\lambda n -1)^2}{\lambda n^2 - 1}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$k (\lambda n - 1)^2 \leq (\lambda n^2 - 1)(k(\lambda - 1) + \lambda(n-1)).$$ This simplifies to yield $$k \leq \frac{\lambda n^2 - 1}{n-1}.$$ Equivalently, $$\lambda \geq \frac{k(n-1)+1}{n^2}.$$ Using the identical proof technique, we also have the following theorem. \[repeated.thm\] Let $k \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. If there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(k,n)$ containing a row that is repeated $m$ times, then $$\lambda \geq \frac{m(k(n-1)+1)}{n^2}.$$ Reorder the rows so the last $m$ rows are identical. Then relabel the symbols in each column so the last $m$ rows of $A$ are $1 \: 1\: \cdots \: 1$. For $1 \leq i \leq N-m$, let $a_i$ denote the number of “$1$”s in row $i$ of $A$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \sum _{i=1}^{N-m} a_i &=& k(\lambda n - m), \\ \sum _{i=1}^{N-m} a_i(a_i-1) &=& k(k-1)(\lambda - m), \quad \text{and} \\ \sum _{i=1}^{N-m} {a_i}^2 &=& k(k(\lambda - m) + \lambda(n-1)) .\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\overline{a} = \frac{k(\lambda n - m)}{N-m}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} 0 & \leq & \sum _{i=1}^{N-m} (a_i - \overline{a})^2 \\ &=& \sum _{i=1}^{N-m} {a_i}^2 - 2 \overline{a} \sum _{i=1}^{N-m} a_i + \overline{a}^2 (N-m) \\ &=& k(k(\lambda - m) + \lambda(n-1)) - \frac{k^2(\lambda n -m)^2}{\lambda n^2 - m}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$k (\lambda n - m)^2 \leq (\lambda n^2 - m)(k(\lambda - m) + \lambda(n-1)).$$ This simplifies to yield $$k \leq \frac{\lambda n^2 - m}{m(n-1)}.$$ Equivalently, $$\lambda \geq \frac{m(k(n-1)+1)}{n^2}.$$ The following corollary is immediate. \[repeated.cor\] Let $k \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. If there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(k,n)$ containing a row that is repeated $m$ times, then $$m \leq \frac{\lambda n^2}{k(n-1)+1}.$$ The total number of rows in the orthogonal array is $N = \lambda n^2$. Thus the inequality from Corollary \[repeated.cor\] can also be written as $$m \leq \frac{N}{k(n-1)+1}.$$ Suppose we take $n=2$, $k=4$ and $\lambda = 2$ in Corollary \[repeated.cor\]. Then $$m \leq \frac{8}{4(2-1)+1} = \frac{8}{5}.$$ Since $m$ is an integer, an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_2(4,2)$ cannot have any repeated rows. If we take $n=2$, $k=4$ and $\lambda = 3$ in Corollary \[repeated.cor\], then we see that $$m \leq \frac{12}{4(2-1)+1} = \frac{12}{5}.$$ Since $m$ is an integer, an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_3(4,2)$ cannot contain a row that is repeated three times. An ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_3(5,3)$ is presented in [@CT Table 2]. This orthogonal array contains a row that is repeated twice. If we take $n=3$, $k=5$ and $\lambda = 3$ in Corollary \[repeated.cor\], we see that $$m \leq \frac{27}{5(3-1)+1} = \frac{27}{11}.$$ Therefore, an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_3(5,3)$ cannot contain a row that is repeated three times. We close this section by observing that the case of equality in the bound proven in Theorem \[repeated.thm\] can easily be characterized. \[abar.lem\] Let $k \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. Suppose there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(k,n)$, say $A$, containing a row $1 \; 1 \cdots 1$ that is repeated $m$ times, where $m = \lambda n^2/(k(n-1)+1).$ Then every other row of $A$ contains exactly $$\label{a.eq} \overline{a} = \frac{k(\lambda n - m)}{\lambda n^2-m}$$ occurrences of the symbol $1$. In the proof of Theorem \[repeated.thm\], in order to obtain equality in the resulting bound, we must have $$\sum _{i=1}^{N-m} (a_i - \overline{a})^2 = 0,$$ so $\overline{a} = a_i$ for all $i$. Some other proofs {#other.sec} ================= In this section, we consider other proofs of the Plackett-Burman bound and investigate whether they can be modified to prove Theorem \[repeated.thm\]. Constant weight codes --------------------- It is not hard to see that the Plackett-Burman bound and Theorem \[repeated.thm\] can be both derived as an immediate corollary of a 1962 bound of Johnson [@Johnson Theorem 3] for constant-weight binary codes. Johnson defines $R(\ell,r,\mu)$ to be the maximum number of $0-1$ vectors of length $\ell$ and weight $w$ such that the inner product of any two of the vectors is at most $\mu$. Then he proves the following bound. [@Johnson Theorem 3] \[johnson.thm\] If $w^2 > \ell \mu$, then $$R(\ell,w,\mu) \leq \frac{\ell(w - \mu)}{w^2 - \ell \mu} .$$ We describe how to derive Theorem \[repeated.thm\] as a corollary of Theorem \[johnson.thm\]. Suppose that $A$ is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(k,n)$ in which the last $m$ rows are $1 \: 1\: \cdots \: 1$. Delete these $m$ rows and replace every symbol other than $1$ by $0$. Consider the resulting set of $k$ column vectors of length $\lambda n^2 - m$. Each of these vectors has weight $\lambda n - m$ and the inner product of any two of these vectors is equal to $\lambda - m$. From Theorem \[johnson.thm\], we see that $$k \leq \frac{(\lambda n^2 - m)\lambda(n-1)}{(\lambda n - m)^2 - (\lambda n^2 - m)(\lambda - m)} =\frac{\lambda n^2 - m}{m(n-1)}.$$ The above derivation might appear to be simpler than the one we gave in the proof of Theorem \[repeated.thm\]. But this is illusory, as the proof of Theorem \[johnson.thm\] relies on the computation of a quadratic sum analogous to the one considered in the proof of Theorem \[repeated.thm\]. Transversal designs {#TD.sec} ------------------- Another way to prove the Plackett-Burman bound involves constructing the incidence matrix, $M$, of the associated transversal design. (For the definition of a transversal design, and a description of how to transform an orthogonal array into a transversal design, see [@Stinson §6.6].) The incidence matrix $M$ has $kn$ columns (corresponding to the $kn$ points in the transversal design) and $k + \lambda n^2$ rows (where the first $\lambda n^2$ rows correspond to the rows of the OA, and the last $k$ rows are associated with the groups of the transversal design). It is fairly straightforward to show that the rows of $M$ span a real $kn$-dimensional vector space, whence $k + \lambda n^2 \geq kn$. Then we can observe that one of the rows of $M$ is spanned by the remaining rows, so the inequality can be strengthened to $k + \lambda n^2 -1 \geq kn$, which is just the Plackett-Burman bound. Here are the details required to fill in the proof. Let the transversal design be $(X,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}})$ where $$\begin{aligned} X &=& \{1, \dots , n\} \times \{1, \dots , k\},\\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}&=& \{G_1, \dots , G_k\},\\ G_j &=& \{1, \dots , n\} \times \{j\}, \text{for $1 \leq j \leq k$, and}\\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}&=& \{B_1, \dots , B_{N}\}, \text{where $N = \lambda n^2$.}\end{aligned}$$ Members of $X$ are termed *points*, members of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}$ are called *groups* and members of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ are referred to as *blocks*. The incidence matrix $M$ is defined as follows. A row of $M$ is indexed by a block or a group and a column of $M$ is indexed by a point $x$. The corresponding entry of $M$ is “1” if $x$ is a member of the given block or group, and “0” otherwise. Each row of the incidence matrix $M$ is a $0-1$ vector of length $kn$. We thus obtain $k + N$ vectors, which we will denote by $\mathbf{B_i}$ ($1 \leq i \leq N$) and $\mathbf{G_j}$ ($1 \leq j \leq k$). For any point $x \in X$, let $\mathbf{x}$ denote the standard basis vector that has a “1” in the co-ordinate corresponding to $x$. The all-ones vector will be denoted by $\mathbf{u}$. We list a few obvious equations: $$\label{eq1} \sum _{i = 1}^{N} \mathbf{B_i} = \lambda n \mathbf{u}.$$ $$\label{eq2} \sum _{j = 1}^{k} \mathbf{G_j} = \mathbf{u}.$$ For any $x \in G_j$, it holds that $$\label{eq3} \lambda \mathbf{G_j} + \sum _{\{i : x \in B_i\}} \mathbf{B_i} = \lambda \mathbf{u} + (\lambda n)\mathbf{x}.$$ From (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq3\]), it is easy to see that $$\mathbf{x} \in \mathsf{Span} (\mathbf{B_1}, \dots , \mathbf{B_N}, \mathbf{G_1}, \dots , \mathbf{G_k})$$ for any $x \in X$. Then, using (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]), it follows that $$\mathbf{G_k} \in \mathsf{Span} (\mathbf{B_1}, \dots , \mathbf{B_N}, \mathbf{G_1}, \dots , \mathbf{G_{k-1}}).$$ Therefore, $$\mathbf{x} \in \mathsf{Span} (\mathbf{B_1}, \dots , \mathbf{B_N}, \mathbf{G_1}, \dots , \mathbf{G_{k-1}})$$ for any $x \in X$. This immediately implies $k + N -1 \geq kn$, and the Plackett-Burman bound is proven. The above proof is obviously motivated by a similar proof of Fisher’s inequality, which can be found, for example, in [@Stinson Theorem 1.33]. This basic method, as far as I can determine, was first used by Ray-Chaudhuri and Wilson in the proof of [@RCM Theorem 1]. \[weak.rem\] Interestingly, there does not seem to an obvious way to modify this proof to yield Theorem \[repeated.thm\]. Cleary, if the OA contains $m$ identical rows, then the associated incidence matrix contains $m$ identical rows. Suppose we delete $m-1$ of the $m$ identical rows in $M$, producing a matrix $M'$. The span of the rows of $M'$ is identical to the span of the rows of $M$, from which it immediately follows that $k + N - m \geq kn$. But this is a much weaker inequality than the one proven in Theorem \[repeated.thm\]. Evaluating a determinant ------------------------ We consider a slightly modified incidence matrix: 1. Transpose the $N+ k$ by $nk$ matrix $M$ defined in Section \[TD.sec\]. 2. Adjoin an additional row to the resulting matrix, which contains 0’s in the first $N$ columns (which are labelled by blocks) and 1’s in the last $k$ columns (which are labelled by groups). 3. Multiply all elements in the last $k$ columns by $\sqrt{\lambda}$. Call the resulting $nk+1$ by $N+k$ matrix $\tilde{M}$. The following result can be easily verified. The matrix $\tilde{M}$, as defined above, satisfies the matrix equation $$\tilde{M}\tilde{M}^T = \lambda J + \mathsf{diag}(\lambda n , \dots , \lambda n , (k-1)\lambda),$$ where $J$ is the all-ones matrix and $\mathsf{diag}()$ is a matrix with the specified entries on the diagonal and 0’s elsewhere. The Plackett-Burman bound follows by proving that $\det (\tilde{M}\tilde{M}^T) > 0$. (There are various ways to do this, but we do not go into the details here.) Then, because $\tilde{M}\tilde{M}^T$ is an $nk+1$ by $nk+1$ matrix, we have $$nk+1 = \mathsf{rank}(\tilde{M}\tilde{M}^T) \leq \mathsf{rank}(\tilde{M}) \leq \min \{ nk+1,N+k\} \leq N+k.$$ This proof is again a modification of a familiar proof of Fisher’s inequality, namely, the proof given by Bose [@Bose]. It might in fact be possible to extend this proof to derive Theorem \[repeated.thm\], by employing Connor’s inequalities [@Connor]. Orthogonal vectors ------------------ The last proof of the Plackett-Burman bound that we present is a specialization of a standard proof of the Rao bound for orthogonal arrays of arbitrary strength $t$. Assume that $A$ is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(k,n)$ defined on the symbol set ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_n$. Let the columns of $A$ be denoted $C_1, \dots , C_k$. Let $C_0$ be the column vector of “$0$”s. For $1 \leq m \leq n-1$, construct $m C_j$ from $C_j$ by multiplying every entry by $m$ (modulo $n$). Let $\omega = e^{2 \pi i / n}$ (a complex $n$th root of 1) and define $\phi : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_n \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ by the rule $\phi (s) = \omega ^s$. Now consider the set of $1 + k(n-1)$ vectors $$\mathcal{D} = \{ \phi(C_0)\} \cup \{ \phi(m C_j) : 1 \leq m \leq n-1, 1 \leq j \leq k \} .$$ It can be shown easily that $\langle C,D \rangle = 0$ for all $C,D \in \mathcal{D}$, $C \neq D$, where $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle $ denotes the hermitian inner product of two (complex-valued) vectors. (This uses the fact that the sum of the complex $n$th roots of $1$ equals $0$.) Since $\mathcal{D}$ consists of mutually orthogonal vectors, they are linearly independent. Hence, we have a set of $1 + k(n-1)$ linearly independent vectors in $\mathbb{C}^N$, and it follows that $1+ k(n-1) \leq N (= \lambda n^2)$. There does not seem to be any obvious way to modify this proof to obtain Theorem \[repeated.thm\]. But it is possible to obtain by this method the weaker bound stated in Remark \[weak.rem\]. Suppose that the last $m$ rows of $A$ are all $0$’s. Then, in any vector in $\mathcal{D}$, the last $m$ coordinates are identical. Suppose that we delete the last $m-1$ co-ordinates of each of these vectors, and then multiply the last (remaining) co-ordinate by $\sqrt{m}$. This will have the effect of preserving the condition $\langle C,D \rangle = 0$ for all the shortened vectors. We end up with $1 + k(n-1)$ linearly independent vectors in $\mathbb{C}^{N-m+1}$. Therefore, $1+ k(n-1) \leq N-m+1$ and hence $k + N - m \geq kn$. OAs of strength $t > 2$ {#t>2.sec} ======================= We now consider a generalization. Let $t \geq 2$ be a parameter called the *strength*, and as before let $k\geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. An *orthogonal array* ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (t,k,n)$ is a $\lambda n^t $ by $k$ array, $A$, with entries from a set $X$ of cardinality $n$ such that, within any $t$ columns of $A$, every $t$-tuple of symbols from $X$ occurs in exactly $\lambda$ rows of $A$. Observe that an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (2,k,n)$ is the same thing as an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (k,n)$. One main bound for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (2,k,n)$ is the Rao bound from 1947. \[rao.thm\] Let $k \geq 2$, $t \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. If there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(t, k,n)$, then $$\lambda n^t \geq \begin{cases} 1+ \sum_{i=1}^{t/2} \binom{k}{i}(n-1)^i & \mbox{if $t$ is even}\\ 1+ \sum_{i=1}^{(t-1)/2} \binom{k}{i}(n-1)^i + \binom{k-1}{(t-1)/2}(n-1)^{(t+1)/2} & \mbox{if $t$ is odd.} \end{cases}$$ The Plackett-Burman bound (Theorem \[PB.thm\]) is just the special case of the Rao bound with $t=2$. We are of course interested in the situation where the orthogonal array contains a row that is repeated $m$ times. We might expect that the Rao bound could be improved by a multiplicative factor of $m$ in this case. Indeed, a more general result of Mukerjee, Qian and Wu [@Muk] yields the desired inequality. The paper [@Muk] defines a [*nested orthogonal array*]{}, which refers to an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (t,k,n)$ that contains a subset of rows that is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda'} (t,k,n')$. If $n' = 1$ and $\lambda' = m$, then we just have an $m$-times repeated row in the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda} (t,k,n)$. A necessary condition for the existence of nested orthogonal arrays is proven in [@Muk Theorem 1]. Specializing this result to orthogonal arrays that contain an $m$-times repeated row, we obtain the following: \[muk.thm\] Let $k \geq 2$, $t \geq 2$, $n \geq 2$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ be integers. If there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{OA}}}_{\lambda}(t, k,n)$ containing a row that is repeated $m$ times, then $$\lambda n^t \geq \begin{cases} m\left(1+ \sum_{i=1}^{t/2} \binom{k}{i}(n-1)^i\right) & \mbox{if $t$ is even}\\ m\left(1+ \sum_{i=1}^{(t-1)/2} \binom{k}{i}(n-1)^i + \binom{k-1}{(t-1)/2}(n-1)^{(t+1)/2}\right) & \mbox{if $t$ is odd.} \end{cases}$$ The proof of the Rao bound (Theorem \[rao.thm\]) is not difficult. Unfortunately, the proof of [@Muk Theorem 1] is much more complicated. It is remarked in [@Muk] that there is no obvious way to generalize the standard proof of the Rao bound to nested orthogonal arrays. BIBDs and $t$-designs {#t-designs.sec} ===================== So far, we have concentrated on bounds for orthogonal arrays. It may be of interest to look at “analogous” inequalities for BIBDs (i.e., $2$-designs) and $t$-designs for general values of $t\geq 2$. In our discussion, $b$ will denote the number of blocks in a $t$-$(v,k,\lambda)$-design. The following summarizes some of the main known results. 1. Fisher’s inequality for $2$-designs (proven in 1940; see [@Fisher]) states that if a $2$-$(v,k,\lambda)$-design exists with $v \geq k+1$, then $b \geq v$. There are by now many proofs of this inequality, several of which have been mentioned in Sections \[OA2.sec\] and \[other.sec\]. 2. The Ray-Chaudhuri and Wilson inequality [@RCM] asserts that if a $t$-$(v,k,\lambda)$-design exists with $t\geq 2s$ and $v \geq k+s$, then $b \geq \binom{v}{s}$. (This result of course generalizes Fisher’s inequality, and we also remark that the case $t=4$ was first proven by Petrenjuk [@Pet], who conjectured the inequality proven by Ray-Chaudhuri and Wilson.) As we mentioned earlier, the proof given in [@RCM] uses a technique similar to the one in Section \[TD.sec\]. Some other proofs can be found in [@Wil2 Theorem 1], [@Godsil Theorem 1.4.1] and [@MS Theorem 3.4]. 3. Mann’s inequality [@Mann], which was proven in 1969, states that if a $2$-$(v,k,\lambda)$-design with $v \geq k+1$ has a block that is repeated $m$ times, then $b \geq mv$. (The special case $m=1$ is just Fisher’s inequality). Mann’s proof was an application of the variance method. Interestingly, a slightly weaker inequality was proven a few years earlier, using the same method, by Stanton and Sprott [@StSp]. For another proof of Mann’s inequality, see [@vLR]. It is also well-known that Mann’s inequality can be derived as a consequence of Connor’s inequalities [@Connor], which were proven in 1952; see, for example, Brouwer [@Brouwer p. 700]. 4. Finally, Wilson ([@Wil2 Corollary 3] and [@Wil Corollary 4]) proved that if there exists a $t$-$(v,k,\lambda)$-design with $t\geq 2s$ and $v \geq k+s$, which has a block that is repeated $m$ times, then $b \geq m\binom{v}{s}$. Wilson’s proofs use methods of orthogonal projections. For another proof of this result, based on the so-called “cone condition”, see [@DD]. This result of course immediately implies the three previous results. However, its proofs are substantially more complicated than the proofs of the three previous results. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== I would like to thank Sophie Toulouse for bringing this problem to my attention. Thanks also go to the referees for helpful comments and suggestions. [X]{} R.C. Bose. A note on Fisher’s inequality for balanced incomplete block designs. [*Annals of Mathematical Statistics*]{} [**20**]{} (1949), 619–620. C.J. Colbourn, D.R. Stinson and S. Veitch. Constructions of optimal orthogonal arrays with repeated rows. Preprint. A.E. Brouwer. [*Block Designs*]{}. Chapter 14 in “Handbook of Combinatorics”, R.L. Graham, ed., North Holland, 1995. W.S. Connor, Jr. On the structure of balanced incomplete block designs. [*Annals of Mathematical Statistics*]{} [**23**]{} (1952), 57–71. J.-F. Culus and S. Toulouse. How far from a worst solution a random solution of a $k$ CSP instance can be? [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{} [**10979**]{} (2018), 374–386 (IWOCA 2018). P.J. Dukes and R.M. Wilson. The cone condition and $t$-designs. [*European J. Combin.*]{} [**28**]{} (2007), 1610–1625. R.A. Fisher. An examination of the different possible solutions of a problem in incomplete blocks. [*Annals of Eugenics*]{} [**10**]{} (1940), 52–75. C.D. Godsil. [*Linear Algebra and Designs*]{}. Lecture notes, 1995. A.S. Hedayat, N.J.A. Sloane and John Stufken. [*Orthogonal Arrays, Theory and Applications.*]{} Springer, 1999. S.M. Johnson. A new upper bound for error-correcting codes. [*IRE Transactions on Information Theory*]{} [**8**]{} (1962), 203–207. H.B. Mann. A note on balanced incomplete-block designs. [*Ann. Math Statist.*]{} [**40**]{} (1969), 679–680. W.J. Martin and D.R. Stinson. A polynomial ideal associated to any $t$-$(v, k, \lambda)$ design. <arXiv:1803.05004>. Rahul Mukerjee, Peter Qian and Jeff Wu. On the existence of nested orthogonal arrays. [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**308**]{} (2008), 4635–4642. A.Ja. Petrenjuk. On Fisher’s inequality for tactical configurations (Russian), [*Mat.Zametki*]{} [**4**]{} (1968), 417–425. R.L. Plackett and J.P. Burman. The design of optimum multifactorial experiments. [*Biometrika*]{} [**33**]{} (1946), 305–325. C.R. Rao. Factorial experiments derivable from combinatorial arrangements of arrays. [*J. Royal Statist. Soc. (Suppl.)*]{} [**9**]{} (1947), 128–139. D.K. Ray-Chaudhuri and R.M. Wilson. On $t$-designs. [*Osaka Journal of Mathematics*]{} [**12**]{} (1975), 737–744. R.G. Stanton and D.A. Sprott. Block intersections in balanced incomplete block designs. [*Canadian Math. Bulletin*]{} [**7**]{} (1964), 539–548. D.R. Stinson. [*Combinatorial Designs, Constructions and Analysis*]{}, Springer, 2004. J.H. van Lint and H.J. Ryser. Block designs with repeated blocks. [*Discrete Mathematics*]{} [**3**]{} (1972), 381–396. R.M. Wilson. Incidence matrices of $t$-designs. [*Linear Algebra and its Applications*]{} [**46**]{} (1982), 73–82. R.M. Wilson. Inequalities for $t$-designs. [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory A*]{} [**34**]{} (1983), 313–324. [^1]: The author’s research is supported by NSERC discovery grant RGPIN-03882.

--- abstract: 'Recent studies have provided new experimental information on the very neutron-rich nucleus $^{135}$Sb. We have performed a shell-model calculation for this nucleus using a realistic effective interaction derived from the CD-Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential. This gives a very good description of the observed properties of $^{135}$Sb. We show that the anomalously low position of the first excited state, $J^{\pi}=5/2^{+}$, and the strongly hindered $M1$ transition to the ground state have their origin in the effective neutron-proton interaction.' author: - 'L. Coraggio' - 'A. Covello' - 'A. Gargano' - 'N. Itaco' title: 'Shell-model structure of exotic $^{135}$Sb' --- The nucleus $^{135}$Sb has been investigated through the $\beta$ decay of $^{135}$Sn in two recent studies [@korg01; @sher02]. The former, performed at OSIRIS/STUDSVIK, has produced $^{135}$Sn via fast neutron fission of a $^{238}$U target inside a special ion source, while the latter, at ISOLDE/CERN, has made use of $^{135-137}$Sn nuclei isolated by selective laser ionization. Motivated by astrophysical interest, these studies aimed to acquire new data on the decay properties of Sn isotopes beyond doubly magic $^{132}$Sn, which are of great interest for the $r$ process modeling. It is not of minor interest, however, to access exotic nuclei, as Sb isotopes with $N>82$, in order to explore for possible changes in nuclear structure properties when moving towards the neutron drip line. Actually, in [@korg01; @sher02] the level structure of $^{135}$Sb has been studied. This nucleus, with a $N/Z$ ratio of 1.65, is at present the most exotic nucleus beyond $^{132}$Sn for which information exists on excited states. A level scheme of $^{135}$Sb, whose ground state has $J^{\pi}=7/2^{+}$, was firstly proposed in [@bhat98], where, using prompt fission from $^{248}$Cm, four excited states at an energy of 707, 1118, 1343, and 1973 keV were identified and given spin-parity assignment $J^{\pi}= 11/2^{+}$, $15/2^{+}$, $19/2^{+}$, and $23/2^{+}$, respectively. A shell-model calculation [@bhat98] with an empirical two-body interaction interpreted the first three states as originating from the $\pi g_{7/2} (\nu {f_{7/2}})^{2}$ configuration while the $23/2^{+}$ state was attributed to the $\pi g_{7/2} \nu f_{7/2} h_{9/2}$ configuration. In [@sher02] several new excited states have been identified, three of them having also been observed in [@korg01]. In particular, both these studies have found a first excited state at 282 keV and assigned to it spin and parity $5/2^{+}$. None of the other states has received in [@korg01; @sher02] spin-parity assignment. In the very recent work of Ref. [@sher05a], tentative spin and parity attribution has been proposed for some of these states and the position of new levels has been established, including the $J^{\pi}=3/2^{+}$ and $9/2^{+}$ yrast states at 440 and 798 keV, respectively. Looking at the systematics of the lowest-lying $5/2^{+}$ state in odd Sb isotopes, it appears that this state falls down in energy in $^{135}$Sb. The authors of Ref. [@sher02] suggest that the $5/2^{+}$ state retains more single-particle character than the $7/2^{+}$ ground state, based on their estimates of $\log ft$ values. In this context, the low position of the $5/2^{+}$ state is quite unexpected and is viewed as a downshift of the $d_{5/2}$ proton level relative to the $g_{7/2}$ one, as a consequence of a more diffuse nuclear surface produced by the two neutrons beyond the 82 shell closure. In [@sher02] results of a shell model calculation for $^{135}$Sb are also presented. We shall comment on them later. In the very recent work of Refs. [@mach05; @korbe] the nature of the $5/2^{+}$ state in $^{135}$Sb has been further investigated. In particular, at OSIRIS/STUDSVIK the Advanced Time-Delayed $\beta \gamma \gamma$($t$) method has been used to measure the lifetime of this state. A very small upper limit for the $B(M1)$ was found, thus evidencing a strongly hindered transition. This was seen as a confirmation of the single-particle nature of the $5/2^{+}$ state. In this paper we report on a shell-model study of $^{135}$Sb employing matrix elements of the two-body effective interaction derived from a modern nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) potential. It is our main aim to verify to what extent a realistic shell-model calculation can account for the properties of $^{135}$Sb, with special attention to the $5/2^{+}$ state, and try understand if there is a real need of shell structure modifications to explain the experimental data. We assume that $^{132}$Sn is a closed core and let the valence neutrons occupy the six levels $0h_{9/2}$, $1f_{7/2}$, $1f_{5/2}$, $2p_{3/2}$, $2p_{1/2}$, and $0i_{13/2}$ of the 82-126 shell, while for the proton the model space includes the five levels $0g_{7/2}$, $1d_{5/2}$, $1d_{3/2}$, $2s_{1/2}$, and $0h_{11/2}$ of the 50-82 shell. The two-body matrix elements of the effective interaction are derived from the CD-Bonn $NN$ potential [@mac01]. The strong short-range repulsion of the latter is renormalized by means of the new approach of Ref. [@bog02], which has proved to be an advantageous alternative to the usual $G$-matrix method [@bog02; @gm]. In this approach, a smooth potential, $V_{\rm low-k}$, is constructed by integrating out the high-momentum components, i.e. above a certain cut-off momentum $\Lambda$, of the bare $NN$ potential $V_{NN}$. The $V_{\rm low-k}$ preserves the physics of $V_{NN}$ up to $\Lambda$ and can be used directly in the calculation of shell-model effective interactions. In the present paper, we have used for $\Lambda$ the value 2.2 fm$^{-1}$. Once the $V_{\rm low-k}$ is obtained, the calculation of the effective interaction is carried out within the framework of the $\hat {Q}$-box plus folded diagram method. A description of this method can be found in [@ei]. Here, we only mention that the $\hat{Q}$ box is calculated including diagrams up to second order in $V_{\rm low-k}$. The computation of these diagrams is performed within the harmonic-oscillator basis using intermediate states composed of all possible hole states and particle states restricted to the five shells above the Fermi surface. The oscillator parameter used is $\hbar \omega = 7.88$ MeV and for protons the Coulomb force has been explicitly added to the $V_{\rm low-k}$ potential. As regards the single-particle (SP) energies, they have been taken from experiment. In particular, the spectra [@nndc] of $^{133}$Sb and $^{133}$Sn have been used to fix the proton and neutron SP energies, respectively. The only exceptions are the the proton $\epsilon_{s_{1/2}}$ and neutron $\epsilon_{i_{13/2}}$, whose corresponding levels are still missing. Their values have been taken from Refs. [@and97] and [@cor02], respectively, where it is discussed how they are determined. For the sake of completeness, the adopted SP energies relative to $^{132}$Sn are reported in Table I. -------------- ------------ --------------- ------------ $\pi(n,l,j)$ $\epsilon$ $\nu (n,l,j)$ $\epsilon$ $0g_{7/2}$ -9.66 $1f_{7/2}$ -2.45 $1d_{5/2}$ -8.70 $2p_{3/2}$ -1.60 $2d_{3/2}$ -7.22 $0h_{9/2}$ -0.89 $0h_{11/2}$ -6.87 $2p_{1/2}$ -0.80 $2s_{1/2}$ -6.86 $1f_{5/2}$ -0.45 $0i_{13/2}$ 0.24 -------------- ------------ --------------- ------------ : Proton and neutron single-particle energies (in MeV). The needed mass excesses are taken from [@foge99]. We now present the results of our calculations, which have been carried out by using the OXBASH shell-model code [@oxba]. Let us start with the binding energy of the ground state. Our calculated value is $16.411 \pm0.074$ MeV, which compares very well with the experimental one, $16.585 \pm 0.104$ MeV [@audi03]. Note that the error on the calculated value arises from the experimental errors on the proton and neutron separation energies of $^{133}$Sb and $^{133}$Sn [@foge99]. The experimental [@sher05a; @nndc] and calculated spectrum of $^{135}$Sb are compared in Fig. 1, where we have reported the experimental yrast levels which have received spin-parity assignment and the calculated yrast states with the same spin and parity. We see that the agreement between theory and experiment is very good, the largest discrepancy, about 300 keV, occurring for the $23/2^{+}$ state. It is worth noting that our calculation overestimates the observed $5/2^{+}$ state by only 100 keV. This result becomes more relevant if we consider the outcome of the previous shell-model calculations of Refs. [@sher02] and [@sark04]. In these two calculations different two-body matrix elements have been used: in [@sark04] an empirical interaction was obtained by modifying the CW5082 interaction of Chou and Warburton [@chou92], while in Ref. [@sher02] the effective interaction was derived from the CD-Bonn $NN$ potential by means of a $G$-matrix folded-diagram method including diagrams up to third order. Both calculations, however, predict the $5/2^{+}$ state at about 300 keV above the experimental one. To overcome this difficulty, in [@sher02] a down-shift of the proton $d_{5/2}$ energy was proposed.  It is worth mentioning that in the preliminary calculations [@mach05; @korg05] we too could not account for the low-lying $5/2^+$ state in $^{135}$Sb, our result coming close to that of [@sher02]. Actually, the effective interaction used in the present calculation differs from that of [@mach05; @korg05] in that a larger number of intermediate states is used in its derivation. More precisely, in [@mach05; @korg05] the computation of the $\hat Q$-box diagrams was performed including intermediate states composed of particle and hole states restricted to two major shells above and below the Fermi surface. Furthermore, the Coulomb interaction was not considered and a smaller value of the cutoff momentum ($\Lambda =2.1$ fm$^{-1}$) was used. In a future publication we shall discuss the connection between the dimension of the intermediate-state space and the optimal value of $\Lambda$. We have verified that while the present effective interaction is generally not very different from the old one, significant changes occur in some neutron-proton matrix elements. In particular, this is the case of those of the $\pi f_{7/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ and $\pi d_{5/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ configurations, which, as we shall see later, play a crucial role in the structure of the $5/2^{+}$ state of $^{135}$Sb. In this connection, it is worth noting that a direct test of these matrix elements is provided by $^{134}$Sb. We have found that that our present effective interaction yields energies of all the members of the $\pi f_{7/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ configuration which are in very good agreement with the eight lowest observed states [@sher05]. Note that with our previous interaction the agreement was not of the same quality [@garg04]. As for the $\pi d_{5/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ multiplet, only two members have been identified, the $1^{-}$ and $2^{-}$ states at 0.885 and 0.935 MeV excitation energy, respectively. Both of them are very well reproduced by our calculation. Let us now come back to $^{135}$Sb. Our wave functions for the ground state and the first excited $5/2^{+}$ state are $$|\frac{7}{2}^{+} \rangle = 0.87 | \pi g_{7/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2} \rangle + \cdots ,\\$$ $$|\frac{5}{2}^{+} \rangle = 0.67 | \pi d_{5/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2} \rangle + 0.48 | \pi g_{7/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2} \rangle +\cdots,$$ where we have omitted components having a weight less than $5\%$. We see that the $5/2^+$ state has a large weight of the $\pi d_{5/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}$ configuration. It is important to point out, however, that this does not arise, as it would be expected, from the pairing correlation between the two like nucleons. Rather, it is a consequence of the neutron-proton interaction. In fact, we have verified that switching off this interaction the $5/2^{+}$ state is dominated by the $\pi g_{7/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}$ configuration. This is because the neutron-neutron interaction in the $ (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}_{J^{\pi}=2^{+}}$ state is very attractive, the difference with the $ (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}_{J^{\pi}=0^{+}}$ matrix element being smaller than the $\epsilon_{d_{5/2}}-\epsilon_{g_{7/2}}$ spacing. This is confirmed by the low excitation energy of the $2^{+}$ state observed in $^{134}$Sn. The neutron-proton interaction largely increases the weight of the $\pi d_{5/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}$ configuration in the $5/2^{+}$ state since it is on the average more attractive in the $\pi d_{5/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}$ than in the $\pi g_{7/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}$ configuration. Of course, for the latter no contribution comes from the states $(\pi g_{7/2} \nu f_{7/2})_{J^{\pi}=0^{+},7^{+}}$, as they cannot couple to the $f_{7/2}$ neutron to give $J^{\pi}=5/2^{+}$. We show in Table II the diagonal matrix elements of the effective interaction for these two configurations. ----- --------------------------- --------------------------- $J$ $\pi f_{7/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ $\pi d_{5/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ 0 -0.58 1 -0.59 -0.49 2 -0.21 -0.26 3 -0.22 -0.11 4 -0.04 -0.19 5 -0.16 -0.04 6 0.04 -0.59 7 -0.31 ----- --------------------------- --------------------------- : Diagonal matrix elements of the neutron-proton effective interaction (in MeV) for the $\pi f_{7/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ and $\pi d_{5/2} \nu g_{7/2}$ configurations. It may be also of interest to see how the effective interaction affects the centroids of the $g_{7/2}$ and $d_{5/2}$ proton strengths. Our calculated values are -10.06 and -9.35 MeV for the former and the latter, respectively, both of them relative to the calculated ground-state energy of $^{134}$Sn. In this way, the displacements from the input values -9.66 and -8.70 MeV (see Table I) can be directly related to the proton-neutron effective interaction. We find, therefore, that the spacing between the two centroids is 0.71 MeV to be compared to the proton SP splitting, 0.96 MeV. Note that in [@sher02] the effective interaction produced an increase in such spacing of about 100 keV. As already mentioned, a decrease of the $d_{5/2} - g_{7/2}$ splitting of 0.300 MeV was therefore called for in [@sher02]. We now discuss our prediction for the $5/2^{+} \rightarrow 7/2^{+}$ $M1$ transition. As shown in (2), our wave function for the $5/2^{+}$ state contains a sizeable component of the $\pi g_{7/2} (\nu f_{7/2})^{2}$ configuration, which on the other hand dominates the $7/2^{+}$ ground state. This makes the theoretical $B(M1; 5/2^{+} \rightarrow 7/2^{+})$ larger than the experimental value when the free $M1$ operator is used. From the measured half-life of the $5/2^{+}$ level, $T_{1/2}=6.0(7)$ ns, an upper limit of $0.29\cdot10^{-3} \, \mu_{N}^{2}$ was deduced for the $B(M1)$ transition rate [@mach05; @korg05]. Our calculated value, $25 \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mu_{N}^{2}$, is about 100 times larger. However, as is well known, the magnetic operator in the nucleus may be significantly different from the free operator owing to core-polarization effects and mesonic exchange currents. Here, we have calculated the matrix elements of effective $M1$ operator taking into account first order diagrams in $V_{\rm low-k}$. Using these matrix elements, the transition rate for the $5/2^{+}$ state turns out to be $4 \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mu_{N}^{2}$, which is only an order of magnitude larger than the experimental value. The reason for this decrease is that we now have a non-zero off-diagonal matrix element between the $d_{5/2}$ and $g_{7/2}$ proton levels which is opposite in sign to the diagonal $g_{7/2}$ matrix element. In other words, both components of the $5/2^{+}$ state contribute to the $B(M1)$ value and their contributions partially compensate each other. The balance between these two components is a delicate one, being very sensitive to small changes in the wave functions of the involved states or in the effective $M1$ operator. In this connection, it should be pointed out that in our calculation we do not consider any meson-exchange correction. We may therefore consider that the agreement between the experimental and calculated $B(M1)$ values is quite satisfactory. It is important to note that the experimental magnetic moment of the $7/2^{+}$ ground state is $3.0 \, \mu_{N}$, to be compared to the calculated value $1.7 \, \mu_{N}$ when the free operator is used and to $2.5 \, \mu_{N}$ with the effective $M1$ operator. In summary, our realistic shell-model calculation gives a very good description of the observed spectroscopic properties of exotic $^{135}$Sb. This is obtained by employing an effective interaction derived from the CD-Bonn $NN$ potential within a folded-diagram method including diagrams up to second order in $V_{\rm low-k}$. A crucial role is played by the proton-neutron interaction, whose effects have been tested on the proton-neutron nucleus $^{134}$Sb. In particular, we have found that this interaction makes the $5/2^{+}$ state in $^{135}$Sb of admixed nature, which can explain its low excitation energy as well the highly hindered $5/2^{+} \rightarrow 7/2^{+}$ $M1$ transition. We have shown that in our shell-model calculation there is no need to introduce an [*ad-hoc*]{} decrease of the proton $d_{5/2}$ SP energy, the effective interaction properly accounting for the observed effects. This work was supported in part by the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR). [9]{} A. Korgul, H. Mach, B. Fogelberg, W. Urban, W. Kurcewicz, and V. I. Isakov, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{}, 021302(R) (2001). J. Shergur [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 034313 (2002). P. Bhattacharyya [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**3**]{}, 109 (1998). J. Shergur [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 024305 (2005). H. Mach [*et al.*]{}, in [*Key Topics in Nuclear Structure*]{}, Proceedings of the Eighth International Spring Seminar on Nuclear Physics, Paestum, 2004, edited by A. Covello (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), p. 205. A. Korgul [*et al.*]{} (to be published). R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 024001 (2001). S. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, L. Coraggio, A. Covello, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 051301 (2002). A. Covello, L. Coraggio, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, and T. T. S. Kuo, in [*Challenges of Nuclear Structure*]{}, Proceedings of the Seventh International Spring Seminar on Nuclear Physics, Maiori, 2001, edited by A. Covello (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002), p. 139. T. T. S. Kuo and E. Osnes, [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{}, Vol. 364, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990). Data extracted using the NNDC On-line Data Service from the ENSDF database, file revised as of July 11, 2005. F. Andreozzi, L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, T. T. S. Kuo, and A. Porrino, Phys. Rev. C [**56**]{}, R16 (1997). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 051306(R) (2002). B. Fogelberg, K. A. Mezilev, H. Mach, V. I. Isakov, and J. Slivova Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1823 (1999). B. A. Brown, A. Etchegoyen, and W. D. M. Rae, The computer code OXBAH, MSU-NSCL, Report No. 534. G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra, and C. Thibault, Nucl. Phys. [**A729**]{}, 337 (2003). S. Sarkar and M. S. Sarkar, Eur. Phys. J. A [**21**]{}, 61 (2004). W. T. Chou and E. K. Warburton, Phys. Rev. C [**45**]{}, 1720 (1992). A. Korgul [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A direct (2005). J. Shergur [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 064321 (2005). A. Gargano, Eur. Phys. J. A [**20**]{}, 103 (2004).

--- abstract: 'We present a complete architecture for scalable quantum computation with ultracold atoms in optical lattices using optical tweezers focused to the size of a lattice spacing. We discuss three different two-qubit gates based on local collisional interactions. The gates between arbitrary qubits require the transport of atoms to neighboring sites. We numerically optimize the non-adiabatic transport of the atoms through the lattice and the intensity ramps of the optical tweezer in order to maximize the gate fidelities. We find overall gate times of a few $100\,\mu$s, while keeping the error probability due to vibrational excitations and spontaneous scattering below $10^{-3}$. The requirements on the positioning error and intensity noise of the optical tweezer and the magnetic field stability are analyzed and we show that atoms in optical lattices could meet the requirements for fault-tolerant scalable quantum computing.' author: - 'Christof Weitenberg$^{1}$' - 'Stefan Kuhr$^{1,2}$' - 'Klaus Mølmer$^{3}$' - 'Jacob F. Sherson$^{3}$' bibliography: - 'References.bib' date:    title: A quantum computation architecture using optical tweezers --- =1 I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered} =============== Neutral atoms in periodic optical potentials have long been considered a promising candidate for scalable quantum computation due to long coherence times of internal state qubits and their excellent controllability. However, a great challenge in these systems remains to tailor interactions for the two-qubit gates. One approach is to use dipole-dipole interactions [@Brennen:1999], most prominently among Rydberg atoms [@Jaksch:2000], realized recently with individual atoms in separate dipole traps [@Isenhower:2010; @Wilk:2010]. A different approach uses ground state collisions either within the same trapping potential [@Jaksch:1999; @Calarco:2000; @Briegel:2000; @Negretti:2005] or mediated by tunneling [@Pachos:2003; @Strauch:2008]. In optical lattices, two-qubit gates have been implemented on many pairs of atoms in parallel [@Mandel:2003; @Anderlini:2007] but they have, so far, not been realized on a single pair of atoms. The main challenge is to attain sufficient resolution to manipulate single lattice sites. Several proposals to overcome the diffraction limit have been made to achieve this goal [@You:2000; @Schrader:2004; @Saffman:2004; @Cho:2007], and recently single-site manipulation by an optical tweezer in a short-period optical lattice has been realized [@Weitenberg:2011] and could now be exploited for the implementation of single- and two-qubit gates. In this work, we propose and investigate an architecture for scalable quantum computation in optical lattices. Using tightly focussed optical tweezers, atomic qubits are transported around in the lattice and merged into single lattice sites in order to implement collisional quantum gates. We adapt the $\sqrt{\rm swap}$ gate, proposed in Ref.[@Hayes:2007] and realized in Ref.[@Anderlini:2007] to our tweezer-based optical-lattice architecture. By moving the atoms non-adiabatically, our transport and two-bit gate times become much faster than, *e.g.*, the tunneling gate proposed in Ref.[@Pachos:2003]. Similar to work in Ref.[@DeChiara:2008], we numerically optimize the ramp-up of the tweezer intensity and the transport, but due to the difference in the available control parameters, we obtain smaller errors, and arrive at total gate times of a few hundred microseconds with error probability $10^{-3}$ arising from non-adiabatic excitations and spontaneous scattering. This scheme can in principle allow for thousands of operations within the coherence time of the qubit. We also investigate the requirements for the stability of the position and intensity of the tweezer as well as the effect of magnetic field noise. ![ Optical tweezer-based architecture. a) A tightly focused optical tweezer locally perturbs the optical lattice potential. b) The atoms can be shuttled around by moving the tweezer. c) The quantum register is initialized with an atomic pattern with empty rows and columns to permit unhindered transport of atoms within the lattice. The two-qubit gates utilize the collisional interactions between atoms positioned at the same site. With multiple tweezers in use, several gates can be performed in parallel.[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](fig1small.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} The paper is organized as follows. SectionII introduces the scalable architecture, including the quantum register initialization, the single-qubit gates and the readout. SectionIII investigates the non-adiabatic transport of atoms through the lattice, which is required for the collisional two-qubit gates. In SectionIV, we present three different gates and discuss their respective advantages including the role of coherence times of the qubit states used. In sectionV, the different errors introduced by spontaneous scattering and by fluctuations of tweezer position and intensity are discussed and compared to the threshold for fault-tolerant quantum computing. II. Scalable architecture {#ii.-scalable-architecture .unnumbered} ========================= In this section, we present our scalable architecture for quantum computing using optical tweezers for addressing and transport in optical lattices. The differential light shift of a tweezer on selected atoms can be exploited for single-qubit gates (SectionII.C), while moving tweezers can bring arbitrary pairs of atoms together for collisional two-qubit gates. Single-qubit rotations form a universal set of gates in combination with either the two-qubit phase gate [@Mandel:2003] or the $\sqrt{\rm swap}$ gate [@Loss:1998]. Together with the initialization (SectionII.B) and the readout capability (SectionII.D), the system therefore fulfills the requirements for scalable quantum computation [@DiVincenzo:2000]. A. General setup {#a.-general-setup .unnumbered} ---------------- Throughout this paper we assume a 3D optical lattice of ${^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}$ atoms formed by three pairs of counter-propagating near-infrared laser beams (wavelength ${\lambda_\mathrm{lat}}=1064\,$nm), realizing a lattice with spacing ${a_\mathrm{lat}}={\lambda_\mathrm{lat}}/2$. We assume the ability to prepare a single 2D system and the availability of an imaging system with a resolution such that all individual sites can be detected [@bakr:2010; @sherson:2010] and individually addressed [@Weitenberg:2011; @Zhang:2006]. We will assume a lattice depth in all directions of ${V_\mathrm{lat}}=50\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$, where ${E_\mathrm{r}}=h^2/(2m{\lambda_\mathrm{lat}})$ is the recoil energy and $m$ is the mass of a ${^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}$ atom. This yields a trapping frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{trap}}\approx 2\pi\cdot30\,\mathrm{kHz}$, a two-particle interaction energy ${U_\mathrm{int}}/h\approx2\,\mathrm{kHz}$, and a tunnel coupling $J/h\approx0.06\,\mathrm{Hz}$. The qubit will be composed of two ground state hyperfine levels of ${^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}$ but unlike in Ref. [@Weitenberg:2011] we will assume the atoms to be addressed by a tweezer close to the 5S-6P transition at $\lambda_{1/2}=421.555 ~\mathrm{nm}$ and $\lambda_{3/2}=420.1733 ~\mathrm{nm}$. Tuning the wavelength between these two transitions yields a differential light shift which we will exploit for spin-dependent transport. We describe the optical tweezer by a Gaussian beam profile with a $1/e^2$ waist radius of $w_o={a_\mathrm{lat}}/2$, which can be reached with an imaging system of numerical aperture 0.68. Unless otherwise stated the maximum light shift of the optical tweezer is ${V_\mathrm{t}}=500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$. For the gate in SectionIV.C, two tweezers are needed, and many tweezers are required for the parallelization of gates. These can be created and quickly controlled using acousto-optic deflectors [@Zimmermann:2011]. B. Quantum register initialization {#b.-quantum-register-initialization .unnumbered} ---------------------------------- A major advantage of ultracold atoms in optical lattices over other systems lies in the possibility of creating large scale quantum registers. This can be done by preparing the system in a Mott insulating state [@Greiner:2002; @bakr:2010; @sherson:2010], which pins the occupation of the lattice sites to integer values due to the on-site interaction between atoms and can thus realize unity occupation. When the lattice is sufficiently deep, deviations from unity filling are only thermally activated and depend on the position in the external confinement. In the center of the Mott insulating domain, the deviations can be very small and current experiments reach $P_{n\neq 1}\approx 3\cdot10^{-3}$ [@sherson:2010]. Different purification schemes have been proposed to circumvent residual thermal defects. They involve either illumination and subsequent recooling of all atoms [@Weiss:2004], many-body dynamics [@Popp:2006; @Ho:2009; @Bernier:2009; @Doria2011], or algorithmic cooling schemes [@Sherson:2010b]. Recent experiments have demonstrated a number-selective removal of atoms with an efficiency of 86%[@Bakr:2011]. Starting from the Mott insulator with unity filling, we remove every second column and additionally one row so that they can be used as a channel for shuttling atoms between different sites \[Fig.\[fig:setup\]c)\]. The removal can be performed by transferring selected atoms to a different hyperfine ground state and subsequently removing them with a resonant laser illuminating the entire sample [@Weitenberg:2011]. C. Single-qubit gates {#c.-single-qubit-gates .unnumbered} --------------------- A single-qubit gate can be realized using either microwave radiation or optical two-photon Raman transitions between two selected ground state hyperfine levels. In the former case, the differential light shift of a tightly focused tweezer or a magnetic field gradient shifts selected atoms into resonance with a global microwave field driving the transition. In the latter case, the rotation is driven by two tightly focussed laser beams in a Raman configuration with zero two-photon detuning. Raman-based gates have been demonstrated in single optical dipole traps and reached a $\pi/2$ gate time of 183ns[@Yavuz:2006] and 37ns[@Jones:2007] with a next-neighbor residual rotation at the level of $10^{-3}$[@Yavuz:2006]. A theoretical analysis for the performance in a large spacing optical lattice yields an achievable error of $10^{-4}$ for Rb [@Saffman:2005] and $10^{-5}$ for Cs [@Beals:2008]. Microwave-based gates were realized in a 1D lattice using a magnetic field gradient, reaching a $\pi/2$ gate time of $8\,\mu$s [@Schrader:2004]. In 2D, single spin manipulation was demonstrated using the local light shift due to a focused laser beam and Landau-Zener microwave sweeps [@Weitenberg:2011]. A theoretical analysis suggests that gate times of $100\,\mu$s can be reached with an error probability of ending in the wrong state below $10^{-4}$ at a lattice spacing of $10\,\mu$m[@Beals:2008] and with an error $<10^{-3}$ at a spacing of $425\,$nm[@Zhang:2006]. Recently an error of $1.4 \cdot 10^{-4}$ per global microwave-based single-qubit gate of $30\,\mu$s gate time was demonstrated for Rb atoms in an optical lattice[@Olmschenk:2010] using randomized benchmarking [@Knill:2008]. Comparing the approaches, it is obvious that the Raman-based gates are much faster. However, since even the slower microwave-based gates are comparable with the two-qubit gate time discussed in SectionIV faster single-qubit rotations will not significantly speed up the overall computation. The drawback of the Raman-based gate is that is extremely difficult to avoid cross-talk at the small lattice spacings envisaged here. On the other hand, the microwave-based gate restricts the choice of the qubit states to magnetic field-sensitive states, which have shorter coherence times, but which are anyway required for some two-qubit gates, such as the one discussed in SectionIV.B. D. Readout {#d.-readout .unnumbered} ---------- As the final step, the spin state of several qubits has to be read out. For this, we can transfer one of the two qubit spin states into the neighboring free shuttling areas using the spin-dependent transport discussed in SectionIV.B, followed by spatially resolved fluorescence imaging [@Nelson:2007; @bakr:2009; @sherson:2010]. In the case of magnetic field-insensitive qubit states, one can remove one of the spin states and detect the qubit state by the presence or absence of an atom in the fluorescence image. III. Non-adiabatic transport of atoms {#iii.-non-adiabatic-transport-of-atoms .unnumbered} ===================================== Our proposal is based on the collisional interaction of atoms brought to the same lattice site, and high-fidelity transport of atoms through the lattice is therefore crucial. The transport of a single atom to an empty lattice site is illustrated in Fig.\[fig:setup\]b). The optical tweezer is first focussed on the site containing the atom and its power is ramped up. Then its position is translated to the destination site and the power is ramped down. Since collisional gates are sensitive to the vibrational state, it is crucial to avoid vibrational excitation in each step. In the following we first review the free-space harmonic oscillator theory and subsequently numerically model the process in the presence of the lattice potential. We show that dynamics during the ramp-up is essentially unchanged, whereas the fidelity of non-adiabatic transport is significantly reduced by the presence of the lattice potential. We then numerically optimize the parameters controlling the transport and thereby regain high fidelity transport. A. Optical tweezer ramp-up {#a.-optical-tweezer-ramp-up .unnumbered} -------------------------- In the harmonic oscillator approximation, the vibrational excitations during ramp-up of the optical tweezer power can be treated analytically [@Zhang:2007]. Because the matrix elements of the corresponding Hamiltonian vanish between states with opposite parity, the change of the trapping frequency can only induce excitations to the second excited state. In the low-excitation limit, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is then solved in the Hilbert space consisting of only the ground state ${\left|\phi_g\right>}$ and the second excited state ${\left|\phi_e\right>}$, separated by the energy gap $\Delta E_{ge}=2\hbar\omega$. The adiabaticity criterion for a change in the trap frequency is $$\label{eq:adiabaticity-rampup} \hbar \left|\frac{\mathrm{d} \omega(t)}{\mathrm{dt}}\right|=\xi\frac{(\Delta E_{ge})^2} {\left|{\left<\phi_e\right|}\frac{\partial H}{\partial \omega}{\left|\phi_g\right>}\right|}~,$$ where $\left|{\left<\phi_e\right|}\frac{\partial H}{\partial \omega}{\left|\phi_g\right>}\right|=\hbar/\sqrt{2}$ with the Hamiltonian $H$ of an harmonic oscillator with varying trap frequency $\omega(t)$. If we keep the adiabaticity factor $\xi\ll1$ constant, the above differential equation determines the shape of the power ramp-up. The total ramp-up time ${T_\mathrm{r}}$ from an initial trap frequency $\omega_o$ to a final trap frequency $\omega_f$ is related to the adibaticity factor via [@Zhang:2007] $$\label{eq:rampTime} {T_\mathrm{r}}=\frac{1-\frac{\omega_o}{\omega_f}}{4\sqrt{2}\xi\omega_o},$$ and the excitation probability is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Pexc-rampup} {P_\mathrm{e}}^{\rm harm}(t) &=& {P_\mathrm{e}}^0 \cdot\sin ^2\left[\frac{\sqrt{2 \xi ^2+\frac{1}{2}}\cdot \log\left[1-4\sqrt{2}t\xi\omega_o\right]}{4\xi}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The excitation probability displays an oscillatory behavior with an envelope ${P_\mathrm{e}}^0=4\xi^2/(1+4\xi^2)$. The oscillatory factor in Eq.(\[eq:Pexc-rampup\]) predicts that with an appropriate timing, the ramp-up can be done non-adiabatically with in principle unity fidelity. The existence of minima in the non-adiabatic excitation probabilities have been demonstrated experimentally using a cloud of atoms in a dipole trap with a longitudinally translated focus [@Couvert:2008]. ![Excitation probability versus the total ramp-up time ${T_\mathrm{r}}$ of an optical tweezer centered on a lattice site to a depth of 500${E_\mathrm{r}}$ according to Eq.(\[eq:adiabaticity-rampup\]). The inset shows the trapping frequency of the potential well as a function of time.[]{data-label="fig:rampup1"}](fig2.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} Since realistic lattice potential wells are not fully harmonic, we have studied the ramp-up of a Gaussian-shaped optical tweezer potential superimposed on a cosine lattice potential. We numerically solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation as the depth of the tweezer is increased from zero to 500 ${E_\mathrm{r}}$ according to the adiabaticity condition of Eq.(\[eq:adiabaticity-rampup\]). The resulting excitation probability $P_e^{\rm full}({T_\mathrm{r}})$ as a function of the total ramp-up time ${T_\mathrm{r}}$ (solid line) decreases for larger ramp-up times illustrating the transition from non-adiabatic to adiabatic dynamics (Fig.\[fig:rampup1\]). For comparison, we also show the envelope of the harmonic oscillator approximation ${P_\mathrm{e}}^0$ with $\xi$ calculated from the given total ramp time ${T_\mathrm{r}}$ via Eq.(\[eq:rampTime\]) (dashed line in Fig.\[fig:rampup1\]) and observe a decent but not exact agreement with the numerical result. The small disagreement is due to the anharmonicity of the lattice potential and we have verified that it diminishes as the optical tweezer is made tighter. Our calculation also shows that very small excitation errors can be reached with carefully chosen ramp timing. For example, errors below $P_e^{\rm full}=10^{-3}$ are realized at the first minimum at a ramp-up time of ${T_\mathrm{r}}=11\,\mu$s. B. Atom transport {#b.-atom-transport .unnumbered} ----------------- Atoms are transported in the lattice by shifting the position $x_o$ of the optical tweezer. Again, we are interested in the excitation probability during this process and we first discuss the transport of atoms in a harmonic potential without the presence of the lattice, which can be solved analytically. The effects of non-adiabaticity can be calculated by replacing $\omega$ with $x_o$ in Eq. (\[eq:adiabaticity-rampup\]) and using $\Delta E_{ge}=\hbar\omega$, as $\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_o}$ shifts the parity of states. In the harmonic approximation $\left|{\left<\phi_e\right|}\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_o}{\left|\phi_g\right>}\right|=\hbar \omega/(\sqrt{2}\sigma_o)$, where $\sigma_o=\sqrt{\hbar/(m\omega)}$ is the harmonic oscillator length. Again, we start with a translation profile which keeps the adiabaticity parameter $\xi$ constant. This requires a displacement with a constant velocity $v_o=\frac{\mathrm{d} x_o}{\mathrm{dt}}=\xi \sqrt{2} \sigma_o \omega$ and yields the excitation probability $$\label{eq:Pexc-transport} {P_\mathrm{e}}^{\rm{harm}}(t)= {P_\mathrm{e}}^0 \cdot \sin^2 \left[\sqrt{1+4 \xi ^2}\omega t/2\right],$$ with ${P_\mathrm{e}}^0$ as defined above. To estimate the time for an adiabatic transport over one lattice site, we consider the adiabaticity parameter $\xi=0.016$ for which the envelope $P_e^{0}$ of the excitation probability has dropped to $10^{-3}$. For a potential depth of $500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$ of the optical tweezer (${\omega_\mathrm{trap}}\approx 2\pi\cdot90\,$kHz, $\sigma_o=36\,$nm), this yields a velocity of $v_o=0.45\,\mu$m/ms or a transport time of $T_t=v_0 \cdot {a_\mathrm{lat}}=1.2\,$ms over the distance of a single lattice spacing. We now include the lattice and the Gaussian profile of the optical tweezer and investigate to which extent non-adiabatic transport can be realized. Fig.\[fig:transport\]a) shows our numerical solution of the excitation probability $P_e^{\rm full}$ for a translation of the tweezer position over one lattice site at a constant speed as a function of the total transport time $T_t$. Again, we observe an oscillatory behavior and a good agreement of the upper envelope curves. However, the numerical results do not reach zero excitation probability during the oscillations. An enlarged view of one of the minima at short transport times shows that the excitation probability stays quite high (Fig.\[fig:transport\]b)). ![Excitation probability versus transport time. a) Linear displacement of the optical tweezer. Numerical result ${P_\mathrm{e}}^{\rm full}$ for the excitation probability including the influence of the lattice and the profile of the tweezer (solid line) and envelope ${P_\mathrm{e}}^0$ of the result for the transport of an harmonic oscillator potential without a lattice (dashed line). b) Zoom into the second minimum in a). Numerical result for the linear displacement (dashed line) and an optimized ramp shape (solid line). The optimization reduces the excitation probability to below $10^{-4}$. The inset shows the displacement curve of the linear ramp (dotted line) and the optimized ramp (solid line) including harmonics up to the fifth order.[]{data-label="fig:transport"}](fig3.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} To improve this, we parameterize the translation profile as a linear ramp plus a number of harmonics and optimize their weights using a standard simplex algorithm [@Nelder:1965]. Using only five harmonics dramatically improves the fidelity \[solid curve in Fig.\[fig:transport\]b)\]. As can be seen in the inset, the translation profile is only slightly modified compared to the linear profile and the dominant component is a single harmonic with a period corresponding to the duration of the displacement. We have investigated how the error accumulates as the qubit is transported for longer distances across multiple sites. We have simply repeated the optimal single-site displacement found above with $T_t=25\,\mu$s per lattice site up to 100 times. We find that the error after multi-site transport does not accumulate with the number of sites. Instead, it oscillates with a period of approximately eight lattice sites and is bound by a maximal error of only a few times the error of a transport over a single lattice site. Thus, fast shutteling of atoms within the quantum register should be feasible with total excitation probabilities well below $10^{-3}$. For the transport tweezer we would choose a wavelength red detuned compared to both excited state levels (D1 and D2 line) such that both qubit states are transported simultaneously. If the polarization is chosen to be linear, both states experience the same light shift and do not undergo a differential phase evolution (the residual differential light shift drops below $10^{-3}$ for a detuning of $\Delta=4\,$nm). The effect of the transport beam on the neighboring sites can be neglected [@Zhang:2006]. IV. Two-qubit gates {#sec:2-qubit-gates .unnumbered} =================== In the section above we have described how we can position two selected atoms in neighboring sites as a starting point for a two-qubit gate. The gate can be accomplished by collisional interactions between atoms in the same well, and we will analyze three distinct proposals based on controlled atomic collisions, utilizing either the spin-dependent interaction, spin-dependent transport or spin-exchange interactions. The quantum bit is encoded in a pair of atomic states, one from each hyperfine split ground state manifold in ${^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}$. We denote the upper and lower states ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ and ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$, and in the following two subsections we show how a pair of atoms can acquire a phase evolution depending on the states of the two qubits, ${\left|jk\right>}\rightarrow e^{iU_{jk}t/\hbar}{\left|jk\right>}$, for $j,k=\uparrow,\downarrow$, and how the interaction strengths $U_{jk}$ can be suitably controlled. A. Merging two qubits into a single well {#a.-merging-two-qubits-into-a-single-well .unnumbered} ---------------------------------------- For the first two-qubit gate we discuss, one merges the two atoms into the ground state of a single combined well. The atoms have the same wave function and the interaction energy is calculated from an integral over the fourth power of the wave function. For cold atoms, the short range interaction strength is proportional to the s-wave scattering length, and near a Feshbach resonance there can be a difference between the scattering lengths for different and identical spin states. For the states ${\left|F=1, m_F=+1\right>}\equiv{\left|\uparrow\right>}$ and ${\left|F=2, m_F=-1\right>}\equiv{\left|\downarrow\right>}$ of ${^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}$, the interaction strengths at a magnetic field of $B=9.12\,$G are given by $U_{\uparrow\uparrow}\approx U_{\downarrow\downarrow}\approx0.9\,U_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ [@Widera:2008]. Thus, by timing the merging and separation of the wells one can realize a phase gate. For an optical tweezer of potential depth $500{E_\mathrm{r}}$, as considered here, a differential phase of $\pi$ between the two hyperfine states is acquired in roughly 0.8ms. A major experimental limitation with this approach is that during the merging and splitting of the atoms, the atomic potential acquires the form of a double well with a sizable tunneling rate. The splitting must be performed slowly compared to the tunneling rate in order to ensure that one atom goes to each site. Note also that, in the absence of interaction between the atoms, one cannot map a doubly occupied state into two singly occupied orthogonal states. Thus, fast non-adiabatic merging and separation is not possible within this approach. B. Gate using spin-dependent transport {#b.-gate-using-spin-dependent-transport .unnumbered} -------------------------------------- To realize a faster gate, we propose to adapt the spin-dependent lattice transport process [@Mandel:2003] to our architecture by utilizing spin-dependent light shifts in such a way that only particular spin combinations are merged. By using ${\left|F=2,m_F=-2\right>}\equiv{\left|\uparrow\right>}$ and ${\left|F=1,m_F=-1\right>}\equiv{\left|\downarrow\right>}$ and an appropriate laser detuning between the two excited state fine structure levels ($420.86~\mathrm{nm}$) the light shift for the state ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$ cancels when using $\sigma^-$ polarized light. [^1] We propose to perform a quantum phase gate in five steps (Fig.\[fig:phaseGateScheme\]). We consider an atom in a superposition state of ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ and ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$. First, the ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ part of the wave function is moved to an empty row. Next, the ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ part of a neighboring qubit is moved to overlap with the remaining ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$ of the first atom. In this way, a controlled collision between these two spin states with an energy $U_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ takes place, while the other combinations of spin states undergo no interaction. The spin state thus acquires a phase shift $\phi$, which attains $\pi$ after a certain amount of time. Finally, the steps are reversed to restore the original configuration. Since each spin state resides in its own trapping potential during the collision, the two atoms can be rapidly separated after the collisional interaction. Unlike in the transport discussed in previous sections, the phase shift during merging and interaction is acquired by only one of the two-qubit spin state combinations. Since the phase depends deterministically on the intensity profile during transport and on the transport time, it can be calculated and corrected for. Choosing intensity and transport profiles where the light shift is symmetrical with respect to the center of the pulse sequence, a robust compensation can also be achieved by applying a $\pi$-pulse after half of the sequence to reverse the phase evolution and another $\pi$-pulse at the end to restore the correct populations. To optimize the speed of the collisional phase gate, we switch the optical tweezer to linear polarization after the merging to ramp up the tweezer for the other spin state and enhance the interaction strength. For a tweezer depth of $500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$ the interaction energy is $U=h\cdot 6\,$kHz and a phase shift of $\pi$ is acquired in $t_\pi\approx 83\,\mu$s. In Table \[tab:transportGate\] we summarize the times required for the individual steps, obtaining $t_\mathrm{gate}\approx(200+n \cdot 50)\mu$s, where $n$ is the transport distance in units of lattice sites. In a possible implementation, the transport of several atoms could be performed in parallel to keep the typical values of $n$ per gate low. Although this does not improve the individual gate error, it does decrease the effective time per gate and thus diminishes the effect of background decoherence effects. ![Phase gate using spin-dependent transport. a) The two atoms (blue and red) are in an arbitrary superposition between ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$ and ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ and are located at neighboring sites after the red atom has been transported. Here the tweezer is still at the full depth as used for the transport. The lattice site to the left of the pair is empty (Fig.\[fig:setup\]). b) While the tweezer on the right atom is switched to circular polarization acting only on the ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ component, a second tweezer with circular polarization is ramped up at the position of the left atom. c) The ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ components of both atoms are moved one lattice site to the left. d) The polarization of the right tweezer is switched to linear, effectively ramping up the potential for the ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$ component. The atoms in the central lattice site acquire a collisional phase $\phi$. Subsequently the steps are reversed to restore the original configuration.[]{data-label="fig:phaseGateScheme"}](fig4.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} step amount time -------------- ---------- -------------------- ramp-up/down 6 $11\,\mu$s transport $2(n+1)$ $25\,\mu$s phase gate 1 $83\,\mu$s overall - $(199+n 50)\,\mu$s : Time budget for the spin-dependent transport gate involving a transport over $n$ lattice sites.[]{data-label="tab:transportGate"} The figure of merit for the speed of a quantum gate is the ratio of the gate time to the coherence time of the qubit. The hyperfine states which allow spin-dependent potentials, such as ${\left|F=1,m_F=-1\right>}$ and ${\left|F=2,m_F=-2\right>}$ are sensitive to magnetic fields and it is therefore crucial to reduce the magnetic field noise to obtain reasonable coherence times. The dephasing time $T_c=h/\Delta E$ of the two states is given by their relative energy shift, $\Delta E=3/2 \mu_B B=h \cdot 2.1\,$kHz/mG. It is state of the art of active magnetic field stabilization to reach a short term stability at sub-milligauss level  [@Zibold:2007; @Gross:2010]. A magnetic field noise of $50\,\mu$G yields a coherence time of $T_c=10\,$ms and thus leads to a phase error of $10^{-2}$ within the gate time of $T_g\sim100\,\mu$s. An improvement to $5\,\mu$G is extremely challenging but could be realizable with existing technology [@Laurent:2006] and it would lead to an error of $10^{-3}$. C. Spin-exchange gate {#c.-spin-exchange-gate .unnumbered} --------------------- When using the clock states ${\left|F=1,m_F=-1\right>}$ and ${\left|F=2,m_F=+1\right>}$ of ${^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}$ as qubit states, coherence times of many seconds have been observed working at the ’magic’ magnetic field of 3.229G [@Deutsch:2010]. In the following we present a gate proposal based on atoms in these clock states. Spin-dependent potentials do not exist for the clock states, and we thus need to merge the atoms to the same potential. In contrast to the simple merging gate of SectionIV.A, we propose to transfer the two qubits into different vibrational states of the combined potential instead of merging them into the ground state. This separation in orthogonal spatial wave functions will allow more robust merging and separation of the two qubits. It can be done by mapping the left well qubit into the excited vibrational level of the combined well and the right well qubit into the ground vibrational level, while preserving the qubit state [@Anderlini:2007]. This mapping is described by: $$\begin{array}{ccc} \alpha{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{L}+\beta{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{L} & \to & \alpha{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}+\beta{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{e} \\ \tilde{\alpha}{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{R}+\tilde{\beta}{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{R} & \to & \tilde{\alpha}{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}+\tilde{\beta}{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}, \end{array}$$ where ${\left|\cdot\right>}_\mathrm{L}$ and ${\left|\cdot\right>}_\mathrm{R}$ designate the wave function of the left and right potential well and ${\left|\cdot\right>}_\mathrm{g}$, ${\left|\cdot\right>}_\mathrm{e}$ are the ground and first excited vibrational states in the right potential well. In the combined system the new eigenenergy basis is now formed by the singlet and the triplet states $$\begin{array}{ccl} {\left|s\right>} & = & {\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}- {\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}\\ {\left|t_0\right>} & = & {\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}+ {\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}\\ {\left|t_{-1}\right>} & = & {\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}\\ {\left|t_{+1}\right>} & = & {\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}~.\end{array}$$ For the $\sqrt{\rm swap}$ gate, we exploit the differential phase evolution between the singlet and the triplet states which stems from their different symmetry. As the singlet spin state ${\left|s\right>}$ is antisymmetric, the spatial wave function of bosonic particles must also be antisymmetric, while the symmetric triplet state ${\left|t\right>}$ leads to a symmetric wave function. In the antisymmetric wave function of ${\left|s\right>}$, the two atoms have essentially zero overlap, such that interactions play no role. In the symmetric wave function of state ${\left|t_0\right>}$, however, the collisional interaction energy has a finite value $U_{eg}$ and a corresponding phase is obtained. The value of $U_{eg}$ is related to the interaction energy $U_{gg}$ of two atoms in the ground state via integrals of the appropriate spatial distributions, and for harmonic oscillator states $U_{eg}=0.35\cdot U_{gg}$ [@Sherson:2010b]. The differential phase evolution between ${\left|s\right>}$ and ${\left|t_0\right>}$ results in spin-exchange oscillations between ${\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}$ and ${\left|\downarrow\right>}_\mathrm{g}{\left|\uparrow\right>}_\mathrm{e}$: $$\begin{array}{rl} \Psi(t=0) &= {\left|s\right>}+{\left|t_0\right>} \sim {\left|\uparrow\right>}_g {\left|\downarrow\right>}_e\\ \Psi(t) &= {\left|s\right>}+ e^{i U_{eg} t/\hbar} {\left|t_0\right>}\\ \Psi(t=T_{\rm swap}) &= {\left|s\right>}-{\left|t_0\right>} \sim {\left|\downarrow\right>}_g {\left|\uparrow\right>}_e\\ \Psi(t=T_{\rm swap}/2) &= {\left|s\right>}+i{\left|t_0\right>} \sim {\left|\uparrow\right>}_g {\left|\downarrow\right>}_e+i{\left|\downarrow\right>}_g {\left|\uparrow\right>}_e~.\\ \end{array}$$ After a time $T_{\rm swap}=\pi\hbar/U_{eg}$ [@Anderlini:2007] the states are swapped, while after $t=T_{\rm swap}/2$ an entangling $\sqrt{\rm swap}$ gate is realized. For the band mapping process, the two atoms for the two-qubit gate are transported to neighboring lattice sites \[see Fig.\[fig:bandmap\]a)-c)\]. The transport tweezer on the left atom starts at a depth of $V_{\rm start}=400\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$ and is linearly ramped down to zero in $75\,\mu$s while it is simultaneously moved to the right lattice site. We find that the performance of the band mapping is improved if we apply a second auxiliary tweezer on the right lattice site, which is kept at a constant depth of $V_{\rm aux}=200\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$. This configuration leads to a mapping of the left atom to the first band on the right lattice site \[Fig.\[fig:bandmap\]a)-c)\]. To optimize the fidelity of the band mapping, we refine the linear ramp shapes by adding harmonics of the ramp time to both the intensity and the position ramp of the transport tweezer. We solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and obtain the single-particle mapping fidelities as the overlap of the calculated wave function with the target states. We define the fidelity $F$ of the merging process as the product of the single-particle mapping fidelities of the two atoms. Fig.\[fig:bandmap\]d)-g) shows the resulting ramps and wave functions for an optimization including harmonics up to 15th order corresponding to a spatial period of $0.13\,{a_\mathrm{lat}}$, for which we obtain an infidelity of $1-F=2\cdot 10^{-4}$. A similar analysis for double-well lattices resulted in a saturation of the merging error of the order of $10^{-2}$ [@DeChiara:2008], which is significantly higher than our results. We attribute this to the difference in available control parameters[^2]. We have also included interactions into the simulations but the transfer is so fast that the effect on the overall band mapping fidelity is negligible. It is important to calculate the accumulated interaction phase during the band mapping as it contributes to the total gate phase. In the case illustrated in Fig.\[fig:bandmap\], the accumulated interaction phase during the mapping was $0.15\,$rad. After the band mapping, we wait for a time $T_{\rm swap}/2$ to perform the $\sqrt{\rm swap}$ gate before reversing the band mapping process. For comparison with the gate proposal discussed in Sec.IV B we introduce an $11\,\mu$s ramp up of the tweezer to $500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$, which results in a reduction of the swap time to $T_{\rm swap}/2=125\,\mu$s. In summary, the exchange gate requires four ramps of the tweezer power (each $\sim 11\,\mu$s), the transport ($25\,\mu$/site), the merging and splitting of the wells ($150\,\mu$s), and finally the phase gate ($125\,\mu$s) (see Tab.\[tab:exchangeGate\]). In total this gives a gate time $t_\mathrm{gate}\approx(300+n \cdot 50)\,\mu$s, where $n$ is the distance to the interaction site. The gate time is therefore more than $10^4$ times shorter than the decoherence time of the clock states. ![Band mapping for the exchange gate. a)-c) Schematics of the potential formed by the lattice and the two tweezers at three different times. While the transport tweezer is moved from the left to the right lattice site and simultaneously ramped down, the atom in the left well is mapped to the first excited state in the right site. d) and e) Depth and position of the transport tweezer as a function of time for the optimized ramp shapes. The auxiliary tweezer is kept at a fixed depth and position (not shown). f) and g) Density profile versus time for the transported atom f) and the stationary atom g). At the end of the sequence the atom starting in the left well is mapped to the first excited state and has a wave function with a node, while the atom starting in the right well is unchanged.[]{data-label="fig:bandmap"}](fig5.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} step amount time -------------- ------------ ------------------------- ramp-up/down 2 $11\,\mu$s transport $2\cdot n$ $25\,\mu$s phase gate 1 $125\,\mu$s merge/split 2 $75\,\mu$s overall - $(297+n\cdot 50)\,\mu$s : Time budget for the exchange gate.[]{data-label="tab:exchangeGate"} V. Discussion of errors {#v.-discussion-of-errors .unnumbered} ======================= In the following we discuss the contribution of error and decoherence sources other than the vibrational excitations considered so far. A. Spontaneous scattering {#a.-spontaneous-scattering .unnumbered} ------------------------- A fundamental source of error is the spontaneous scattering due to the off-resonant absorption of lattice and optical tweezer photons. Due to the large detuning, the absorption of lattice photons can be neglected. With a scattering rate of $\Gamma_{sc}\approx 4\cdot10^{-2}\,$Hz for all three lattice axes, the probability to scatter a photon during one gate time is $<10^{-6}$. For the optical tweezer, the spontaneous emission can be suppressed by choosing a large detuning. A detuning of 10nm requires a laser power of 1mW to reach the $500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$ potential depth. This yields a scattering rate of $\Gamma_{\rm sc}=0.1\,$Hz and a scattering probability during one gate time $T_g\sim300\,\mu$s of $P_{\rm sc}=\Gamma_{\rm sc} T_g=3\cdot10^{-5}$. In the case of spin-dependent transport, the detuning is much smaller since the wavelength of the optical tweezer has to lie between the two fine structure lines. At the chosen waist radius, the potential depth of $500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}$ is reached at a power of $70\,\mu$W yielding a spontaneous scattering rate of $\Gamma_{\rm sc}=1.5\,$Hz and a scattering probability of $P_{\rm sc}=4\cdot10^{-5}$ during one transport time. B. Pointing stability and intensity noise {#b.-pointing-stability-and-intensity-noise .unnumbered} ----------------------------------------- ![Band-mapping infidelity as a function of intensity noise of position errors. For the transport tweezer we introduce a positioning error and a scaling error in the amplitude. The contour lines show the multiples of an error of $10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:bandmapError"}](fig6.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} We now discuss the influence of experimental imperfections on the gate fidelity. For the present proposal the limitations are the pointing error and intensity fluctuations of the tweezer. In order to investigate these effects quantitatively, we assume only low-frequency noise due to shot-to-shot fluctuations. We calculated the gate infidelity in the presence of a constant offset in the pointing position and of a reduction or increase of the optical tweezer intensity by a constant factor. In particular, we included these errors into the simulation of the band mapping process discussed in Sec. IV C. As can be seen in Fig.\[fig:bandmapError\], both parameters have to be very well controlled in order to avoid a significant reduction of the fidelity. In order to keep the gate infidelity below $10^{-3}$, our scheme requires a relative intensity stability of $10^{-3}$ and pointing precision in the nm range. This intensity stability is definitely manageable whereas the required pointing stability is beyond the current state-of-the-art experiments, which achieve a pointing error of 50nm [@Weitenberg:2011], where full active pointing stabilization was, however, not implemented. It might be possible to find conditions under which the performance is less sensitive to errors in the input controls as it was done for transport of harmonic traps [@Murphy:2009]. Intensity noise causes additional dephasing in the spin-dependent two-qubit gate of SectionV.B, since the depth of $500\,{E_\mathrm{r}}=h\cdot 1\,$MHz implies a phase accumulation of several tens of $2\pi\,$rad during the interaction time. To keep the absolute dephasing error below $2\pi \cdot 10^{-3}\,$rad, the relative intensity noise has to be below $10^{-5}$. This is technically challenging but is possible as demonstrated in the LIGO project [@Nocera:2004], where the intensity noise is reduced to a fractional level of $10^{-8}$ over the relevant spectral band. C. Error threshold for fault-tolerance {#c.-error-threshold-for-fault-tolerance .unnumbered} -------------------------------------- We have argued that combined transport and gate errors at the $10^{-3}$ level can be reached with our proposal. With errors of this magnitude, error correcting codes may be applied to reach scalable fault tolerance, but only with a vast overhead in number of physical qubits and operations [@Steane:2003]. An alternative approach to fault tolerance uses stabilizer codes in a scheme where errors are not corrected, but error syndromes are forwarded to higher algorithmic levels, and here gate errors at the few percent level can be tolerated [@Knill:2005]. Fault tolerant quantum computing is a very active field of research, and very recent simulations show tolerance to percent level errors for a two-dimensional qubit structure on a lattice with only nearest neighbor interactions [@Wang:2011]. With our ability to move atoms around with low error, a simpler scheme with the same error threshold may well be possible. VI. Conclusion {#vi.-conclusion .unnumbered} ============== In conclusion, we have proposed a complete architecture for scalable quantum computing based on transport of atoms in an optical lattice by movable optical tweezers. We have presented explicit calculations of the errors occurring in the different processes of our proposals, and we have numerically optimized non-adiabatic ramps of the tweezer potentials to a vibrational excitation error below $10^{-3}$. Our analyses show that ultracold atoms in optical lattices are indeed a promising candidate for fault-tolerant scalable quantum computing. The authors thank Immanuel Bloch, Nicolaj Nygaard, and Uffe V. Poulsen for fruitful discussions and J.F.S. acknowledges support from the Danish Council for Independent Research $|$ Natural Sciences and EU (Marie Curie Individual Fellowship). [^1]: Also, using $\sigma^+$ polarized light, one can cancel the light shift of either of the states, but the ratio of light shift and scattering rate is worse in this case. [^2]: In Ref. [@DeChiara:2008] the control parameters are the overall power of the double well lattice, the ratio of horizontal to vertical power, and the phase between the two, which indirectly determine the position and relative depths of the two sides of the double well.

--- abstract: | In this article, we study the ramification of the Gauss map of complete minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$ and $ \mathbb R^4$ on annular ends. We obtain results which are similar to the ones obtained by Fujimoto ([@Fu1], [@Fu2]) and Ru ([@Ru1], [@Ru2]) for (the whole) complete minimal surfaces, thus we show that the restriction of the Gauss map to an annular end of such a complete minimal surface cannot have more branching (and in particular not avoid more values) than on the whole complete minimal surface. We thus give an improvement of the results on annular ends of complete minimal surfaces of Kao ([@Kao]).\ RESUME. Dans ce travail nous obtenons des théorèmes de ramification de l’application de Gauss de certaines classes de surfaces minimales complètes dans $\mathbb R^3$ et $ \mathbb R^4$. author: - Gerd Dethloff and Pham Hoang Ha title: | Ramification of the Gauss map\ of complete minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$ and $\mathbb R^4$\ on annular ends --- Introduction ============ Let $M$ be a non-flat minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3,$ or more precisely, a non-flat connected oriented minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3.$ By definition, the Gauss map $G$ of $M$ is a map which maps each point $p \in M$ to the unit normal vector $G(p) \in S^2$ of $M$ at $p.$ Instead of $G,$ we study the map $g:= \pi\circ G: M \rightarrow \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C))$, where $\pi : S^2 \rightarrow \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)$ is the stereographic projection. By associating a holomorphic local coordinate $z=u+\sqrt{-1}v$ with each positive isothermal coordinate system $(u, v),$ $M$ is considered as an open Riemann surface with a conformal metric $ds^2$ and by the assumption of minimality of $M,$ $g$ is a meromorphic function on $M.$ In 1988, H. Fujimoto ([@Fu1]) proved Nirenberg’s conjecture that if $M$ is a complete non-flat minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3,$ then its Gauss map can omit at most 4 points, and the bound is sharp. After that, he also extended that result for minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^m.$\ In 1993, M. Ru ([@Ru2]) refined these results by studying the Gauss maps of minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^m$ with ramification. But for our purpose, we here only introduce the case $m =3.$ To give that result, we recall some definitions.\ One says that $g: M \rightarrow \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)$ is [*ramified over a point*]{} $a=(a_0: a_{1}) \in \mathbb P^{1}(\mathbb C)$ [*with multiplicity at least*]{} $e$ if all the zeros of the function $ a_0g_1 - a_{1}g_{0}$ have orders at least $e,$ where $g =(g_0: g_{1})$ is a reduced representation. If the image of $g$ omits $a,$ one will say that $g$ is [*ramified over a with multiplicity* ]{}$\infty.$ Ru proved :\ [**Theorem A.** ]{} [*Let M be a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3.$ If there are $q\ (q > 4)$ distinct points $a^1, ... , a^q \in \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)$ such that the Gauss map of M is ramified over $a^j$ with multiplicity at least $m_j$ for each j, then $ \sum_{j=1}^q(1 - \frac{1}{m_j})\leq 4.$* ]{} To prove this result, he constructed a pseudo-metric with negative curvature with ramification and used the previous argument of Fujimoto. On the other hand, in 1991, S. J. Kao ([@Kao]) used the ideas of Fujimoto ([@Fu1]) to show that the Gauss map of an end of a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3$ that is conformally an annulus $\{ z : 0 < 1/r < |z| < r \}$ must also assume every value, with at most 4 exceptions. In 2007, L. Jin and M. Ru ([@JR]) extended Kao’s result to minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^m.$ Kao ([@Kao]) proved :\ [**Theorem B.** ]{} [*The Gauss map $g$ on an annular end of a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3$ assumes every value on the unit sphere infinitely often, with the possible exception of four values.*]{}\ A natural question is whether a result as in Theorem A for the ramification of the Gauss map still holds on an annular end of a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3$. In this paper we give an affirmative answer : \[T1\] Let $M$ be a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3$ and let $A \subset M$ be an annular end of $M$ which is conformal to $\{z : 0 < 1/r < |z| < r\}$, where $z$ is a conformal coordinate. If there are $q\ (q > 4)$ distinct points $a^1, ... , a^q \in \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)$ such that the restriction of the Gauss map of $M$ to $A$ is ramified over $a^j$ with multiplicity at least $m_j$ for each $j$, then $$\label{1} \sum_{j=1}^q(1 - \frac{1}{m_j})\leq 4.$$ Moreover, (\[1\]) still holds if we replace, for all $j=1,...,q$, $m_j$ by the limit inferior of the orders of the zeros of the function $ a_0^jg_1 - a_{1}^jg_{0}$ on $A$ (where $g =(g_0: g_{1})$ is a reduced representation and $a^j=(a^j_0:a^j_1)$) and in particular by $\infty$ if $g$ takes the value $a^j$ only a finite number of times on $A$. Theorem \[T1\] gives in particular the following generalization of Theorem B of Kao : \[C2\] [*If the Gauss map $g$ on an annular end of a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^3$ assumes four values on the unit sphere only finitely often, it takes any other value infinitely often without ramification.*]{} Moreover, we also would like to consider the Gauss map of complete minimal surfaces $M$ immersed in $\mathbb R^4,$ this case has been investigated by various authors (see, for example Osserman ([@Os]), Chen ([@Chen]), Fujimoto ([@Fu2]) and Kawakami ([@K])). In this case, the Gauss map of $M$ may be identified with a pair of meromorphic functions $g=(g^1, g^2)$ which is introduced in $\S 4$ (see also Osserman ([@Os]), Fujimoto ([@Fu2]) and Kawakami ([@K])). We shall prove the following result which again shows that the restriction of the Gauss map to an annular end cannot have more branching (and in particular not avoid more values) than on the whole complete minimal surface immersed in $\mathbb R^4$ : \[T2\] Suppose that $M$ is a complete non-flat minimal surface in $\mathbb R^4$ and $g=(g^1, g^2)$ is the Gauss map of $M.$ Let A be an annular end of $M$ which is conformal to $\{z : 0 < 1/r < |z| < r\}$, where $z$ is a conformal coordinate. Let $a^{11}, ... , a^{1q_1}$ respectively $a^{21}, ... , a^{2q_2}$ be $ q_1\ (q_1>2)$ respectively $q_2\ (q_2>2)$ distinct points in $ \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C).$\ (i) In the case $g^l\not\equiv constant\ (l=1,2),$ if $g^l$ is ramified over $a^{lj}$ with multiplicity at least $m_{lj}$ for each $j\ (l=1,2)$ on $A,$ then\ $ \gamma_1=\sum_{j=1}^{q_1}(1 - \frac{1}{m_{1j}})\leq 2,$ or $ \gamma_2=\sum_{j=1}^{q_2}(1 - \frac{1}{m_{2j}})\leq 2,$ or\ $$\dfrac{1}{\gamma_1 - 2} + \dfrac{1}{\gamma_2 - 2} \geq 1.$$ (ii) In the case where $g^1$ or $g^2$ is constant, say $g^2\equiv constant, $ if $g^1$ is ramified over $a^{1j}$ with multiplicity at least $m_{1j}$ for each $j,$ we have the following : $$\gamma_1=\sum_{j=1}^{q_1}(1 - \frac{1}{m_{1j}})\leq 3.$$ Moreover, the results still hold if we replace, for all $a^{lj}$ $(j=1,...,q_l; \:l=1,2)$ the $m_{lj}$ by the limit inferior of the orders of the zeros of the function $ a^{lj}_0g^l_1 - a^{lj}_{1}g^l_{0}$ on $A$ (where $g^l =(g^l_0: g^l_{1})$ are reduced representations and $a^{lj}=(a^{lj}_0:a^{lj}_1)$) and in particular by $\infty$ if $g^l$ takes the value $a^{lj}$ only a finite number of times on $A$. The main idea to prove the theorems is to construct a pseudo-metric with negative curvature with ramification on an annular end, which is a refinement of the ideas in Ru ([@Ru2]). After that we use arguments similar to those used by Kao ([@Kao]) and by Fujimoto ([@Fu1], [@Fu3]) to finish the proofs. Auxiliary lemmas ================ Let $f$ be a nonconstant holomorphic map of a disk $\Delta_R := \{z \in \mathbb C: |z| < R \}$ into $\mathbb P^1(\mathbb C),$ where $0 < R < \infty.$ Take a reduced representation $f = (f_0: f_1)$ on $\Delta_R$ and define $$||f||:= (|f_0|^2 + |f_1|^2)^{1/2}, W(f_0,f_1) =W_z(f_0, f_1):= f_0f_1' - f_1f_0',$$ where the derivatives are taken with respect to the variable $z$. Let $a^j\: ( 1\leq j \leq q )$ be $q$ distinct points in $\mathbb P^1(\mathbb C).$ We may assume $a^j=(a^j_0: a^j_1 )$ with $|a^j_0|^2 + |a^j_1|^2 = 1$ $( 1\leq j \leq q ),$ and set $$F_j:=a^j_0f_1 - a^j_1f_0 \ (1\leq j \leq q).$$ ([@Fu3 Proposition 2.1.6 and 2.1.7])\[W\].\ a) If $\xi$ is another local coordinate, then $W_{\xi}(f_0,f_1)= W_z(f_0,f_1) \cdot (\frac{dz}{d\xi})$.\ b) $W(f_0,f_1) \not\equiv 0$ (iff $f$is nonconstant). ([@Fu2 Proposition 2.1]). \[P1\] For each $\epsilon > 0$ there exist positive constants $C_1$ and $\mu$ depending only on $a^1, \cdots, a^q$ and on $\epsilon$ respectively such that $$\Delta \log \bigg( \dfrac{||f||^\epsilon}{\Pi_{j=1}^q\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}\bigg)\geq \dfrac{C_1||f||^{2q-4}|W(f_0,f_1)|^2}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^2\log^2(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}$$ \[L2\] Suppose that $q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j} > 0$ and that $f$ is ramified over $a^j$ with multiplicity at least $m_j$ for each $j$ $ (1\leq j \leq q).$ Then there exist positive constants $C$ and $\mu ( > 1)$ depending only on $a^j$ and $m_j$ $ (1\leq j \leq q)$ which satisfy the following : If we set $$v := \dfrac{C||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}}\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}$$ on $\Delta_R \setminus \{F_1\cdot ...\cdot F_q = 0\}$ and $v=0$ on $\Delta_R \cap \{F_1 \cdot ... \cdot F_q = 0\},$ then $v$ is continuous on $\Delta_R$ and satisfies the condition $$\Delta\log v \geq v^2$$ in the sense of distribution. First, we prove the continuousness of $v.$\ Obviously, $v$ is continuous on $\Delta_R \setminus \{F_1\cdot ...\cdot F_q = 0\}.$\ Take a point $z_0$ with $F_i(z_0) = 0$ for some $i.$ Then $F_j(z_0) \not= 0$ for all $j\not= i$ and $\nu_{F_i}(z_0) \geq m_i.$ Changing indices if necessary, we may assume that $f_0(z_0) \not= 0,$ then $a^i_0 \not= 0.$ Hence, we get $$\nu_W(z_0) = \nu_{ \dfrac{( a^i_0\frac{f_1}{f_0}-a^i_1 )'}{ a^i_0}}(z_0) =\nu_{ \dfrac{(F_i/f_0)'}{ a^i_0}}(z_0) = \nu_{F_i}(z_0) - 1.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \nu_{v\Pi_{j=1}^q\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}(z_0) &= \nu_W(z_0) - \sum_{j=1}^q(1-\frac{1}{m_j})\nu_{F_j}(z_0)\\ & = \nu_{F_i}(z_0) - 1 - (1 - \frac{1}{m_i})\nu_{F_i}(z_0)\\ & = \dfrac{\nu_{F_i}(z_0)}{m_i} - 1 \geq 0. \ (*)\end{aligned}$$ So, $\lim_{z\rightarrow z_0}v(z) = 0.$ This implies that $v$ is continuous on $\Delta_R.$\ Now, we choose constants $C$ and $\mu$ such that $C^2$ and $\mu$ satisfy the inequality in Proposition \[P1\] for the case $\epsilon = q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}.$ Then we have (by using that $|F_j| \leq ||f||$ $ ( 1\leq j \leq q )$) : $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\log v &\geq \Delta\log\dfrac{||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}}{\Pi_{j=1}^q\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)} \\ & \geq C^2\dfrac{||f||^{2q-4}|W(f_0,f_1)|^2}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^2\log^2(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}\\ & \geq C^2\dfrac{||f||^{2q-4-2\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}|W(f_0,f_1)|^2}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{2- \frac{2}{m_j}}\log^2(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}\\ &=v^2 .\end{aligned}$$ Thus Lemma \[L2\] is proved. (Generalized Schwarz’s Lemma ([@Ah])). \[L3\] Let $v$ be a nonnegative real-valued continuous subharmonic function on $\Delta_R.$ If $v$ satisfies the inequality $\Delta\log v \geq v^2$ in the sense of distribution, then $$v(z) \leq \dfrac{2R}{R^2 - |z|^2}\, .$$ \[L4\] For every $\delta$ with $q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j} > q\delta > 0 $ and $f$ which is ramified over $a^j$ with multiplicity at least $m_j$ for each $j$ $ (1\leq j \leq q),$ there exists a positive constant $C_0$ such that $$\dfrac{||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j} - q\delta}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}\leq C_0\dfrac{2R}{R^2 - |z|^2}\, .$$ By using an argument as in (\*) of the proof of Lemma \[L2\], the above inequality is correct on $\{F_1\cdot ... \cdot F_q = 0\}$ for every $C_0 > 0$ (the left hand side of the above inequality is zero).\ If $z \not\in \{F_1\cdot ...\cdot F_q = 0\}, $ using Lemma \[L2\] and Lemma \[L3\], we get $$\dfrac{C||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}}\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)} \leq \dfrac{2R}{R^2 - |z|^2}\, ,$$ where $C$ and $\mu$ are the constants given in Lemma \[L2\].\ On the other hand, for a given $\delta > 0, $ it holds that $$\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}x^{\delta}\log (\mu/x^2) < + \infty \, ,$$ so we can set $$\overline{C}:= \sup_{0<x\leq 1}x^{\delta}\log (\mu/x^2) ( < + \infty )\, .$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned} &\dfrac{||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j} - q\delta}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}\\ &= \dfrac{||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}}}\prod_{j=1}^q\bigg(\dfrac{|F_j|}{||f||}\bigg)^{\delta}\\ &=\dfrac{||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}}\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}\prod_{j=1}^q(\dfrac{|F_j|}{||f||})^{\delta}\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)\\ &\leq \dfrac{\overline{C}^q||f||^{q-2 -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{\Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}}\log(\mu||f||^{2}/|F_j|^2)}\\ &\leq \dfrac{\overline{C}^q}{C}\dfrac{2R}{R^2 - |z|^2}\, .\end{aligned}$$ This proves Lemma \[L4\]. We finally will need the following result on completeness of open Riemann surfaces with conformally flat metrics due to Fujimoto : ([@Fu3 Lemma 1.6.7]). \[L5\] Let $d\sigma^2$ be a conformal flat metric on an open Riemann surface $M$. Then for every point $p \in M$, there is a holomorphic and locally biholomorphic map $\Phi$ of a disk (possibly with radius $\infty$) $\Delta_{R_0} := \{w : |w|<R_0 \}$ $(0<R_0 \leq \infty )$ onto an open neighborhood of $p$ with $\Phi (0) = p$ such that $\Phi$ is a local isometry, namely the pull-back $\Phi^*(d\sigma^2)$ is equal to the standard (flat) metric on $\Delta_{R_0}$, and for some point $a_0$ with $|a_0|=1$, the $\Phi$-image of the curve $$L_{a_0} : w:= a_0 \cdot s \; (0 \leq s < R_0)$$ is divergent in $M$ (i.e. for any compact set $K \subset M$, there exists an $s_0<R_0$ such that the $\Phi$-image of the curve $L_{a_0} : w:= a_0 \cdot s \; (s_0 \leq s < R_0)$ does not intersect $K$). The proof of Theorem \[T1\] =========================== For convenience of the reader, we first recall some notations on the Gauss map of minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^3.$ Let $x =( x_1, x_2, x_3) : M \rightarrow \mathbb R^3$ be a non-flat complete minimal surface and $g: M \rightarrow \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)$ its Gauss map. Let $z$ be a local holomorphic coordinate. Set $\phi_i := \partial x_i / \partial z \ (i = 1, 2, 3 )$ and $\phi:= \phi_1-\sqrt{-1}\phi_2.$ Then, the (classical) Gauss map $g: M \rightarrow \mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)$ is given by $$g=\dfrac{\phi_3}{\phi_1 - \sqrt{-1}\phi_2},$$ and the metric on $M$ induced from $\mathbb R^3$ is given by $$ds^2= |\phi|^2(1 + |g|^2)^2|dz|^2 \text{ (see Fujimoto (\cite{Fu3}))}.$$ We remark that although the $\phi_i$, $(i=1,2,3)$ and $\phi$ depend on $z$, $g$ and $ds^2$ do not. Next we take a reduced representation $g = (g_0 : g_1)$ on $M$ and set $||g|| = (|g_0|^2 +|g_1|^2)^{1/2}.$ Then we can rewrite $$ds^2 = |h|^2||g||^4|dz|^2\,,$$ where $h:= \phi/g_0^2.$ In particular, $h$ is a holomorphic map without zeros. We remark that $h$ depends on $z$, however, the reduced representation $g=(g_0:g_1)$ is globally defined on $M$ and independent of $z$. Finally we observe that by the assumption that $M$ is not flat, $g$ is not constant. Now the proof of Theorem \[T1\] will be given in four steps : [**Step 1:**]{} We will fix notations on the annular end $A \subset M$. Moreover, by passing to a sub-annular end of $A \subset M$ we simplify the geometry of the theorem. Let $A \subset M$ be an annular end of $M,$ that is, $A = \{z : 0 < 1/r < |z| < r < \infty \},$ where $z$ is a (global) conformal coordinate of $A$. Since $M$ is complete with respect to $ds^2$, we may assume that the restriction of $ds^2$ to $A$ is complete on the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}$, i.e., the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}$ is at infinite distance from any point of $A$. Let $a^j\:( 1\leq j \leq q )$ be $q >4$ distinct points in $\mathbb P^1(\mathbb C).$ We may assume $a^j=(a^j_0: a^j_1 )$ with $|a^j_0|^2 + |a^j_1|^2 = 1$ $( 1\leq j \leq q ),$ and we set $G_j:=a^j_0g_1 - a^j_1g_0 \ (1\leq j \leq q)$ for the reduced representation $g = (g_0 : g_1)$ of the Gauss map. By the identity theorem, the $G_j$ have at most countable many zeros. Let $m_j$ be the limit inferior of the orders of the zeros of the functions $G_j$ on $A$ (and in particular $m_j = \infty$ if $G_j$ has only a finite number of zeros on $A$). All the $m_j$ are increasing if we only consider the zeros which the functions $G_j$ take on a subset $B \subset A$. So without loss of generality we may prove our theorem only on a sub-annular end, i.e. a subset $ A_t :=\{z : 0 < t \leq |z| < r < \infty \} \subset A$ with some $t$ such that $1/r < t<r$. (We trivially observe that for $c:=tr>1$, $s:= r/\sqrt{c}$, $\xi := z/ \sqrt{c}$, we have $A_t = \{\xi : 0 < 1/s \leq |\xi| < s < \infty \}$.) By passing to such a sub-annular end we will be able to extend the construction of a metric in step 2 below to the set $\{ z : |z|=1/r \}$, and, moreover, we may assume that for all $j=1,...,q$ : $$g\: {\rm omits}\: a^j\: (m_j=\infty)\: {\rm or} \:{\rm takes}\: a^j \:{\rm infinitely}\: {\rm often} \:{\rm with}\:{\rm ramification } $$ $$\label{ass1} 2 \leq m_j< \infty \:{\rm and}\: {\rm is}\: {\rm ramified}\: {\rm over}\: a^j\: {\rm with}\: {\rm multiplicity}\: {\rm at}\: {\rm least}\: m_j. $$ [**Step 2:**]{} On the annular end $A = \{z : 0 < 1/r \leq |z| < r < \infty \}$ minus a discrete subset $S \subset A$ we construct a flat metric $d\tau^2$ on $A \setminus S$ which is complete on the set $\{ z : |z| = r\} \cup S$, i.e., the set $\{ z : |z| = r\} \cup S $ is at infinite distance from any point of $A\setminus S$. We may assume that $$\label{ass2} \sum_{j=1}^q(1 - \frac{1}{m_j}) > 4,$$ since otherwise Theorem \[T1\] is already proved. Take $\delta$ with $$\dfrac{q -4-\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}{q} > \delta > \dfrac{q -4-\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}}{q +2},$$ and set $p = 2/ (q -2-\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}-q\delta).$ Then $$\label{3.4.1}0 < p < 1 , \ \frac{p}{1-p} > \frac{\delta p}{1-p} > 1 \ .$$ Consider the subset $$A_1 = A \setminus \{ z : W_z(g_0, g_1)(z) = 0 \}$$ of $A$. We define a new metric $$d\tau^2 = |h|^{\frac{2}{1-p}}\bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}{|W(g_0,g_1)|}\bigg)^{\frac{2p}{1-p}}|dz|^2 $$ on $A_1$ (where again $G_j := a^j_0g_1 - a^j_1g_0$ and $h$ is defined with respect to the coordinate $z$ on $A_1 \subset A$ and $W(g_0,g_1) = W_z(g_0,g_1)$) :\ First we observe that $d\tau$ is continuous and nowhere vanishing on $A_1.$ Indeed, $h$ is without zeros on $A$ and for each $z_0 \in A_1$ with $G_j(z_0) \not= 0$ for all $j=1,...,q$, $d\tau$ is continuous at $z_0.$\ Now, suppose there exists a point $z_0\in A_1$ with $G_j(z_0) = 0$ for some $j.$ Then $G_i(z_0) \not= 0$ for all $i\not= j$ and $\nu_{G_j}(z_0) \geq m_j \geq 2$. Changing the indices if necessary, we may assume that $g_0(z_0) \not= 0$, so also $a^j_0 \not= 0.$ So, we get $$\label{order} \nu_{W(g_0,g_1)}(z_0) = \nu_{ \dfrac{( a^j_0\frac{g_1}{g_0}-a^j_1 )'}{ a^j_0}}(z_0) =\nu_{ \dfrac{(G_j/g_0)'}{ a^j_0}}(z_0) = \nu_{G_j}(z_0) - 1 > 0.$$ This is in contradition with $z_0 \in A_1$. Thus, $d\tau$ is continuous and nowhere vanishing on $A_1.$\ Next, it is easy to see that $d\tau$ is flat.\ By Proposition \[W\] a) and the dependence of $h$ on $z$ and the independence of the $G_j$ of $z$, we also easily see that $d\tau$ is independent of the choice of the coordinate $z$. The key point is to prove the following claim : \[Cl1\] $d\tau$ is complete on the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}\cup \{z : W(g_0, g_1)(z) = 0\},$ i.e., the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}\cup \{z : W(g_0, g_1)(z) = 0 \}$ is at infinite distance from any interior point in $A_1.$ If $W(g_0, g_1)(z_0) = 0,$ then we have two cases :\ [*Case 1.*]{} $G_j(z_0) = 0$ for some $j \in \{1, 2, ..., q \}.$\ Then we have $G_i(z_0) \not= 0$ for all $i\not= j$ and $\nu_{G_j}(z_0) \geq m_j.$ By the same argument as in (\[order\]) we get that $$\nu_{W(g_0,g_1)}(z_0) = \nu_{G_j}(z_0) - 1.$$ Thus (since $m_j \geq 2$), $$\begin{aligned} \nu_{d\tau}(z_0) &= \dfrac{p}{1-p}((1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta)\nu_{G_j}(z_0)-\nu_{W(g_0,g_1)}(z_0))\\ & = \dfrac{p}{1-p}(1-(\frac{1}{m_j}+\delta)\nu_{G_j}(z_0)) \leq \dfrac{p}{1-p}(1-(\frac{1}{m_j}+\delta)m_j)\\ &\leq -\dfrac{2\delta p}{1-p}.\end{aligned}$$ [*Case 2.*]{} $G_j(z_0) \not= 0$ for all $ 1\leq j \leq q.$\ It is easily to see that $\nu_{d\tau}(z_0) \leq -\dfrac{p}{1-p}.$\ So, since $0<\delta<1$, we can find a positive constant $C$ such that $$|d\tau| \geq \dfrac{C}{ |z-z_0|^{\delta p/(1-p)}}|dz|$$ in a neighborhood of $z_0$. Combining with (\[3.4.1\]) we thus have that $d\tau$ is complete on $\{z : W(g_0,g_1)(z) = 0\}.$\ Now assume that $d\tau$ is not complete on $\{z: |z| = r \}.$ Then there exists $\gamma: [0, 1) \rightarrow A_1,$ where $\gamma (1) \in \{z : |z| = r \},$ so that $|\gamma| < \infty.$ Furthermore, we may also assume that $dist(\gamma (0); \{z : |z| = 1/r\}) > 2|\gamma|.$ Consider a small disk $\Delta$ with center at $\gamma (0).$ Since $d\tau$ is flat, $\Delta$ is isometric to an ordinary disk in the plane (cf. e.g. Lemma \[L5\]). Let $\Phi: \{|w| < \eta \}\rightarrow \Delta$ be this isometry. Extend $\Phi,$ as a local isometry into $A_1,$ to the largest disk $\{|w| < R\} = \Delta_R$ possible. Then $R \leq |\gamma|.$ The reason that $\Phi$ cannot be extended to a larger disk is that the image goes to the outside boundary $\{z : |z| = r\}$ of $A_1$ (it cannot go to points of $A$ with $W(g_0,g_1)=0$ since we have shown already the completeness of $A_1$ with respect to these points). More precisely, there exists a point $w_0$ with $|w_0| =R$ so that $\Phi(\overline{0,w_0}) = \Gamma_0$ is a divergent curve on $A.$\ The map $\Phi(w)$ is locally biholomorphic, and the metric on $\Delta_R$ induced from $ds^2$ through $\Phi$ is given by $$\label{3.3} \Phi^*ds^2 = |h \circ \Phi|^2||g \circ \Phi||^4|\frac{dz}{dw}|^2|dw|^2 \ .$$ On the other hand, $\Phi$ is isometric, so we have $$|dw| = |d\tau|= \bigg(\dfrac{|h| \Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta)p}}{|W(g_0,g_1)|^p}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{1-p}}|dz|$$ $$\Rightarrow |\dfrac{dw}{dz}|^{1-p} = \dfrac{|h| \Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta)p}}{|W(g_0,g_1)|^p}.$$ Set $f:= g(\Phi), f_0 := g_0(\Phi), f_1 := g_1(\Phi)$ and $F_j:= G_j(\Phi).$ Since $$W_w(f_0, f_1) = (W_z(g_0, g_1) \circ \Phi)\frac{dz}{dw},$$ we obtain $$\label{3.4} |\dfrac{dz}{dw}| = \dfrac{|W(f_0,f_1)|^p}{|h(\Phi)| \Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta)p}}$$ By (\[3.3\]) and (\[3.4\]) and by definition of $p$, therefore, we get $$\begin{aligned} \Phi^*ds^2& = \bigg( \dfrac{||f||^2|W(f_0,f_1)|^p}{ \Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta)p}}\bigg)^2|dw|^2\\ &= \bigg( \dfrac{||f||^{q-2-\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{1}{m_j}-q\delta}|W(f_0,f_1)|}{ \Pi_{j=1}^q|F_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}\bigg)^{2p}|dw|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Lemma \[L4\], we obtain $$\Phi^*ds^2 \leqslant C^{2p}_0.(\dfrac{2R}{R^2 -|w|^2})^{2p}|dw|^2.$$ Since $0 < p < 1,$ it then follows that $$d_{\Gamma_0} \leqslant \int_{\Gamma_0}ds = \int_{\overline{0,w_0}}\Phi^*ds \leqslant C^p_0. \int_0^R(\dfrac{2R}{R^2 -|w|^2})^{p}|dw| < + \infty,$$ where $d_{\Gamma_0}$ denotes the length of the divergent curve $\Gamma_0$ in $M,$ contradicting the assumption of completeness of $M.$ Claim \[Cl1\] is proved.\ To summarize, in step 2 we have constructed, for $A = \{z : 0 < 1/r \leq |z| < r < \infty \}$ and $S = \{ z : W_z(g_0, g_1)(z) = 0 \}$, a continuous and nowhere vanishing metric $d\tau^2$ on $A \setminus S$ which is flat, independent of the choice of coordinate $z$, and complete with respect to the points of $S$ and with respect to the (outside) boundary $\{ z : |z| = r\}$. [**Step 3:**]{} We will “symmetrize” the metric constructed in step 2 so that it will become a complete and flat metric on $Int(A) \setminus (S \cup \tilde{S})$ (with $\tilde{S}$ another discrete subset). We introduce a new coordinate $\xi (z) :=1/z$ . By Proposition \[W\] a) we have $S= \{ z : W_z(g_0, g_1)(z) = 0 \} = \{ z : W_{\xi}(g_0, g_1)(z) = 0 \} $ (where the zeros are taken with the same multiplicities) and since $d\tau^2$ is independent of the coordinate $z$, the change of coordinate $\xi (z) = 1/z$ yields an isometry of $A \setminus S$ onto the set $\tilde{A} \setminus \tilde{S}$, where $\tilde{A}:=\{z : 1/r < |z| \leq r \}$ and $\tilde{S}:= \{ z : W_z(g_0, g_1)(1/z) = 0 \}$. In particular we have (if still $\tilde{h}$ is defined with respect to the coordinate $\xi$) : $$d\tau^2 = |\tilde{h}(1/z)|^{\frac{2}{1-p}}\bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j(1/z)|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}{|W_{(1/z)}(g_0,g_1)(1/z)|}\bigg)^{\frac{2p}{1-p}}|d(1/z)|^2$$ $$= \bigg( |h(1/z)|^{\frac{2}{1-p}}\bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j(1/z)|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}{|W_z(g_0,g_1)(1/z)|}\bigg)^{\frac{2p}{1-p}} |\frac{dz}{d(1/z)}|^2 \bigg) |d(1/z)|^2$$ $$= |h(1/z)|^{\frac{2}{1-p}}\bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j(1/z)|^{1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta}}{|W_z(g_0,g_1)(1/z)|}\bigg)^{\frac{2p}{1-p}} |dz|^2$$ We now define $$\begin{aligned} d\tilde{\tau}^2&= \bigg(|h(z)h(1/z)| \cdot \dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^q|G_j(z)G_j(1/z)|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_j}-\delta)p}}{|W_z(g_0,g_1)(z) \cdot W_z(g_0,g_1)(1/z)|^p}\bigg)^{\frac{2}{1-p}}|dz|^2\\ &=\lambda^2(z)|dz|^2, \end{aligned}$$ on $\tilde{A}_1 := \{z : 1/r < |z| < r \} \setminus \{ z : W_z(g_0, g_1)(z)\cdot W_z(g_0, g_1)(1/z) = 0 \} $. Then $d\tilde{\tau}^2$ is complete on $\tilde{A}_1$ : In fact by what we showed above we have: Towards any point of the boundary $\partial \tilde{A}_1 := \{z : 1/r = |z| \} \cup \{z : |z| = r \} \cup \{ z : W_z(g_0, g_1)(z)\cdot W_z(g_0, g_1)(1/z) = 0 \} $ of $\tilde{A}_1$, one of the factors of $\lambda^2(z)$ is bounded from below away from zero, and the other factor is the one of a complete metric with respect of this part of the boundary. Moreover by the corresponding properties of the two factors of $\lambda^2(z)$ it is trivial that $d\tilde{\tau}^2$ is a continuous nowhere vanishing and flat metric on $\tilde{A}_1$. [**Step 4 :**]{} We produce a contradiction by using Lemma \[L5\] to the open Riemann surface $(\tilde{A}_1, d\tilde{\tau}^2)$ :\ In fact, we apply Lemma \[L5\] to any point $p \in \tilde{A}_1$. Since $d\tilde{\tau}^2$ is complete, there cannot exist a divergent curve from $p$ to the boundary $\partial \tilde{A}_1$ with finite length with respect to $d\tilde{\tau}^2$. Since $\Phi : \Delta_{R_0} \rightarrow \tilde{A}_1$ is a local isometry, we necessarily have $R_0 = \infty$. So $\Phi : {\mathbb C} \rightarrow \tilde{A}_1 \subset \{z : |z| <r\}$ is a non constant holomorphic map, which contradicts to Liouville’s theorem. So our assumption (\[ass2\]) was wrong. This proves the Theorem \[T1\]. The proof of Theorem \[T2\] ============================ For convenience of the reader, we first recall some notations on the Gauss map of minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^4$. Let $x=(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4) : M \rightarrow \mathbb R^4$ be a non-flat complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^4.$ As is well-known, the set of all oriented 2-planes in $\mathbb R^4$ is canonically identified with the quadric $$Q_2(\mathbb C):= \{(w_1:...: w_4) | w^2_1 + ... + w^2_4 = 0\}$$ in $\mathbb P^3(\mathbb C).$ By definition, the Gauss map $g : M \rightarrow Q_2(\mathbb C)$ is the map which maps each point $p$ of $M$ to the point of $Q_2(\mathbb C)$ corresponding to the oriented tangent plane of $M$ at $p.$ The quadric $Q_2(\mathbb C)$ is biholomorphic to $\mathbb P^1(\mathbb C)\times\mathbb P^1(\mathbb C) .$ By suitable identifications we may regard $g$ as a pair of meromorphic functions $g=(g^1, g^2)$ on $M.$ Let $z$ be a local holomorphic coordinate. Set $\phi_i := \partial x_i/dz$ for $i=1,...,4.$ Then, $g^1$ and $g^2$ are given by $$g^1 = \dfrac{\phi_3 + \sqrt{-1}\phi_4}{\phi_1 - \sqrt{-1}\phi_2},\ g^2 = \dfrac{-\phi_3 + \sqrt{-1}\phi_4}{\phi_1 - \sqrt{-1}\phi_2}$$ and the metric on $M$ induced from $\mathbb R^4$ is given by $$ds^2 =|\phi|^2(1 +|g^1|^2)(1+|g^2|^2)|dz|^2 ,$$ where $\phi:= \phi_1 - \sqrt{-1}\phi_2.$ We remark that although the $\phi_i$, $(i=1,2,3,4)$ and $\phi$ depend on $z$, $g=(g^1,g^2)$ and $ds^2$ do not. Next we take reduced representations $g ^l= (g^l_0 : g^l_1)$ on $M$ and set $||g^l|| = (|g^l_0|^2 +|g^l_1|^2)^{1/2}$ for $l=1,2.$ Then we can rewrite $$ds^2 = |h|^2||g^1||^2||g^2||^2|dz|^2 \,,$$ where $h:= \phi/(g^1_0g^2_0)$. In particular, $h$ is a holomorphic map without zeros. We remark that $h$ depends on $z$, however, the reduced representations $g^l=(g^l_0:g^l_1)$ are globally defined on $M$ and independent of $z$. Finally we observe that by the assumption that $M$ is not flat, $g$ is not constant. Now the proof of Theorem \[T2\] will be given in four steps : [**Step 1:**]{} This step is completely analogue to step 1 in the proof of Theorem \[T1\]. We get : By passing to a sub-annular end we may assume that the annular end is $A = \{z : 0 < 1/r \leq |z| < r < \infty \},$ where $z$ is a (global) conformal coordinate of $A$, that the restriction of $ds^2$ to $A$ is complete on the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}$, i.e., the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}$ is at infinite distance from any point of $A$, and, moreover, that for all $j=1,...,q_l$, $l=1,2$ (case (i)) respectively for all $j=1,...,q_1$, $l=1$ (case (ii)), we have : $$g^l\: {\rm omits}\: a^{lj}\: (m_{lj}=\infty)\: {\rm or} \:{\rm takes}\: a^{lj} \:{\rm infinitely}\: {\rm often} \:{\rm with}\:{\rm ramification}\: \: $$ $$\label{ass1'} 2 \leq m_{lj}< \infty \:{\rm and}\: {\rm is}\: {\rm ramified}\: {\rm over}\: a^{lj}\: {\rm with}\: {\rm multiplicity}\: {\rm at}\: {\rm least}\: m_{lj}. $$ From now on we separate the two cases (i) and (ii), dealing first with the case (i). [**Step 2 for the case (i):**]{} Our strategy is the same as for step 2 in the proof of Theorem \[T1\]. We may assume that $ \gamma_1=\sum_{j=1}^{q_1}(1 - \frac{1}{m_{1j}})> 2$, $\gamma_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{q_2}(1 - \frac{1}{m_{2j}})> 2,$ and $$\label{ass4} \dfrac{1}{\gamma_1 - 2} + \dfrac{1}{\gamma_2 - 2} < 1\,,$$ since otherwise case (i) of Theorem \[T2\] is already proved. Choose $\delta_0 (> 0)$ such that $\gamma_l - 2 - q_l\delta_0 > 0$ for all $l=1,2,$ and $$\dfrac{1}{\gamma_1 - 2 - q_1\delta_0} + \dfrac{1}{\gamma_2 - 2- q_2\delta_0} = 1.$$ If we choose a positive constant $\delta (< \delta_0)$ sufficiently near to $\delta_0$ and set $$p_l := 1/(\gamma_l - 2 - q_l\delta),(l=1, 2),$$ we have $$\label{4.2} 0 < p_1 + p_2 < 1, \ \dfrac{\delta p_l}{1-p_1-p_2} > 1 \:( l=1,2) \ .$$ Consider the subset $$A_2 = A \setminus \{ z : W_z(g^1_0, g^1_1)(z) \cdot W_z(g^2_0, g^2_1)(z) = 0 \}$$ of $A$. We define a new metric $$d\tau^2 = \bigg(|h|\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^{q_1}|G^1_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{1j}}-\delta)p_1}\Pi_{j=1}^{q_2}|G^2_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{2j}}-\delta)p_2}}{|W(g^1_0,g^1_1)|^{p_1}|W(g^2_0,g^2_1)|^{p_2}}\bigg)^{\frac{2}{1-p_1 -p_2}}|dz|^2 $$ on $A_2$ (where again $G^l_j := a^{lj}_0g^l_1 - a^{lj}_1g^l_0\: ( l= 1,2)$ and $h$ is defined with respect to the coordinate $z$ on $A_2 \subset A$ and $W(g^l_0,g^l_1) = W_z(g^l_0,g^l_1)$). It is easy to see that by the same arguments as in step 2 of the proof of Theorem \[T1\] (applied for each $l=1,2$), we get that $d\tau$ is a continuous nowhere vanishing and flat metric on $A_2$, which is moreover independant of the choice of the coordinate $z$. The key point is to prove the following claim : \[Cl2\] $d\tau^2$ is complete on the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}\cup \{z : \Pi_{l=1,2}W(g^l_0, g^l_1)(z) = 0 \},$ i.e., the set $\{ z : |z| = r\}\cup \{z : \Pi_{l=1,2}W(g^l_0, g^l_1)(z)=0 \}$ is at infinite distance from any interior point in $A_2$. It is easy to see that by the same method as in the proof of Claim \[Cl1\] in the proof of Theorem \[T1\], we may show that $d\tau$ is complete on $\{z : \Pi_{l=1,2}W(g^l_0, g^l_1)(z) = 0 \}.$ Now assume $d\tau$ is not complete on $\{z : |z| = r \}.$ Then there exists $\gamma: [0, 1) \rightarrow A_2,$ where $\gamma (1) \in \{z : |z| = r \}$, so that $|\gamma| < \infty.$ Furthermore, we may also assume that $dist(\gamma (0), \{z : |z| = 1/r\}) > 2|\gamma|.$ Consider a small disk $\Delta$ with center at $\gamma (0).$ Since $d\tau$ is flat, $\Delta$ is isometric to an ordinary disk in the plane. Let $\Phi: \{|w| < \eta \}\rightarrow \Delta$ be this isometry. Extend $\Phi$, as a local isometry into $A_2,$ to the largest disk $\{|w| < R\} = \Delta_R$ possible. Then $R \leq |\gamma|.$ The reason that $\Phi$ cannot be extended to a larger disk is that the image goes to the outside boundary $\{z : |z| = r\}$ of $A_2.$ More precisely, there exists a point $w_0$ with $|w_0| =R$ so that $\Phi(\overline{0,w_0}) = \Gamma_0$ is a divergent curve on $A.$\ The map $\Phi(w)$ is locally biholomorphic, and the metric on $\Delta_R$ induced from $ds^2$ through $\Phi$ is given by $$\label{4.3} \Phi^*ds^2 = |h \circ \Phi|^2||g^1 \circ \Phi||^2||g^2 \circ \Phi||^2|\frac{dz}{dw}|^2|dw|^2 \ .$$ On the other hand, $\Phi$ is isometric, so we have $$|dw| = |d\tau|= \bigg(|h|\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^{q_1}|G^1_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{1j}}-\delta)p_1}\Pi_{j=1}^{q_2}|G^2_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{2j}}-\delta)p_2}}{|W(g^1_0,g^1_1)|^{p_1}|W(g^2_0,g^2_1)|^{p_2}}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{1-p_1 -p_2}}|dz|$$ $$\Rightarrow |\dfrac{dw}{dz}|^{1-p_1-p_2} = |h|\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^{q_1}|G^1_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{1j}}-\delta)p_1}\Pi_{j=1}^{q_2}|G^2_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{2j}}-\delta)p_2}}{|W(g^1_0,g^1_1)|^{p_1}|W(g^2_0,g^2_1)|^{p_2}}.$$ For each $l=1,2,$ we set $f^l:= g^l(\Phi), f^l_0 := g^l_0(\Phi), f^l_1 := g^l_1(\Phi)$ and $F^l_j:= G^l_j(\Phi).$ Since $$W_w(f^l_0, f^l_1) = (W_z(g^l_0, g^l_1) \circ \Phi)\frac{dz}{dw}, (l=1,2),$$ we obtain $$\label{4.4} |\dfrac{dz}{dw}| = \dfrac{\Pi_{l=1,2}|W(f^l_0,f^l_1)|^{p_l}}{|h(\Phi)|\Pi_{l=1,2}\Pi_{j=1}^{q_l}|F^l_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{lj}}-\delta)p_l}}\ .$$ By (\[4.3\]) and (\[4.4\]), we get $$\begin{aligned} \Phi^*ds^2& = \bigg(\Pi_{l=1,2} \dfrac{||f^l||(|W(f^l_0,f^l_1)|)^{p_l}}{ \Pi_{j=1}^{q_l}|F^l_j|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{lj}}-\delta)p_l}}\bigg)^2|dw|^2\\ &= \Pi_{l=1,2}\bigg( \dfrac{||f^l||^{q_l-2-\sum_{j=1}^{q_l}\frac{1}{m_{lj}}-q_l\delta}|W(f^l_0,f^l_1)|}{ \Pi_{j=1}^q|F^l_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_{lj}}-\delta}}\bigg)^{2p_l}|dw|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Lemma \[L4\], we obtain $$\Phi^*ds^2 \leqslant C^{2(p_1+p_2)}_0.(\dfrac{2R}{R^2 -|w|^2})^{2(p_1+p_2)}|dw|^2.$$ Since $0 < p_1+p_2 < 1$ by (\[4.2\]), it then follows that $$d_{\Gamma_0} \leqslant \int_{\Gamma_0}ds = \int_{\overline{0,w_0}}\Phi^*ds \leqslant C^{p_1+p_2}_0. \int_0^R(\dfrac{2R}{R^2 -|w|^2})^{p_1+p_2}|dw| < + \infty,$$ where $d_{\Gamma_0}$ denotes the length of the divergent curve $\Gamma_0$ in $M,$ contradicting the assumption of completeness of $M.$ Claim \[Cl2\] is proved. [**Steps 3 and 4 for the case (i):**]{} These steps are analogue to the corresponding steps in the proof of Theorem \[T1\]. Define $d\tilde{\tau}^2 =\lambda^2(z) |dz|^2 \ $ on $$\tilde{A}_2 := \{ z : 1/r < |z| < r \} \setminus$$ $$\setminus \{ z : W_z(g^1_0, g^1_1)(z) \cdot W_z(g^2_0, g^2_1)(z) \cdot W_z(g^1_0, g^1_1)(1/z) \cdot W_z(g^2_0, g^2_1)(1/z)= 0 \} \, ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \lambda(z)& = \bigg(|h(z)|\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^{q_1}|G^1_j(z)|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{1j}}-\delta)p_1}\Pi_{j=1}^{q_2}|G^2_j(z)|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{2j}}-\delta)p_2}}{|W_z(g^1_0,g^1_1)(z)|^{p_1}|W_z(g^2_0,g^2_1)(z)|^{p_2}}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{1-p_1 -p_2}}\\ & \times \bigg(|h(1/z)|\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^{q_1}|G^1_j(1/z)|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{1j}}-\delta)p_1}\Pi_{j=1}^{q_2}|G^2_j(1/z)|^{(1-\frac{1}{m_{2j}}-\delta)p_2}}{|W_z(g^1_0,g^1_1)(1/z)|^{p_1}|W_z(g^2_0,g^2_1)(1/z)|^{p_2}}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{1-p_1 -p_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ By using Claim \[Cl2\], the continuous nowhere vanishing and flat metric $d\title{\tau}$ on $A_2$ is also complete. Using the identical argument of step 4 in the proof of Theorem \[T1\] to the open Riemann surface $(\tilde{A}_2, d\tilde{\tau})$ produces a contradiction, so assumption (\[ass4\]) was wrong. This implies case (i) of the Theorem \[T2\].\ We finally consider the case (ii) of Theorem \[T2\] (where $g^2 \equiv constant$ and $g^1 \not\equiv constant$). Suppose that $\gamma_1 > 3.$ We can choose $\delta$ with $$\dfrac{\gamma_1 - 3}{q_1} > \delta > \dfrac{\gamma_1 - 3}{q_1 +1},$$ and set $p = 1/ (\gamma_1 - 2 -q_1\delta).$ Then $$0 < p < 1 , \ \frac{p}{1-p} > \frac{\delta p}{1-p} > 1 .$$ Set $$d\tau^2 = |h|^{\frac{2}{1-p}}\bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{j=1}^{q_1}|G^1_j|^{1-\frac{1}{m_{1j}}-\delta}}{|W(g^1_0,g^1_1)|}\bigg)^{\frac{2p}{1-p}}|dz|^2 .$$ Using this metric, by the analogue arguments as in step 2 to step 4 of the proof of Theorem \[T1\], we get the case (ii) of Theorem \[T2\]. [**Acknowledgements.**]{} This work was completed during a stay of the authors at the Vietnam Institute for Advanced Study in Mathematics (VIASM). The research of the second named author is partially supported by a NAFOSTED grant of Vietnam. [10]{} L. V. Ahlfors, *An extension of Schwarz’s lemma*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **43** (1938), 359-364. C. C. Chen, *On the image of the generalized Gauss map of a complete minimal surface in $\mathbb R^4$*, Pacific J. Math. **102** (1982), 9-14. S. S. Chern and R. Osserman, *Complete minimal surface in euclidean n - space*, J. Analyse Math. **19** (1967), 15-34. H. Fujimoto, *On the number of exceptional values of the Gauss maps of minimal surfaces*, J. Math. Soc. Japan **40** (1988), 235-247. H. Fujimoto, *Modified defect relations for the Gauss map of minimal surfaces*, J. Differential Geometry **29** (1989), 245-262. H. Fujimoto, *Value Distribution Theory of the Gauss map of Minimal Surfaces in $\mathbb R^m$*, Aspect of Math. **E21**, Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 1993. L. Jin and M. Ru,*Values of Gauss maps of complete minimal surfaces in $R^m$ on annular ends,* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **359** (2007), 1547-1553. S. J. Kao, *On values of Gauss maps of complete minimal surfaces on annular ends*, Math. Ann. **291** (1991), 315-318. Y. Kawakami, *The Gauss map of pseudo - algebraic minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^4$*, Math. Nachr. **282** (2009), 211-218. X. Mo and R. Osserman, *On the Gauss map and total curvature of complete minimal surfaces and an extension of Fujimoto’s theorem*, J. Differential Geom. **31** (1990), 343-355. R. Osserman, *Global properties of minimal surfaces in $E^3$ and $E^n$*, Ann. of Math. **80** (1964), 340-364. R. Osserman and M. Ru, *An estimate for the Gauss curvature on minimal surfaces in $\mathbb R^m$ whose Gauss map omits a set of hyperplanes*, J. Differential Geom. **46** (1997), 578-593. M. Ru, *On the Gauss map of minimal surfaces immersed in $\mathbb R^n$*, J. Differential Geom. **34** (1991), 411-423. M. Ru, *Gauss map of minimal surfaces with ramification*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **339** (1993), 751-764. F. Xavier, *The Gauss map of a complete non-flat minimal surface cannot omit 7 points of the sphere*, Ann. of Math. **113** (1981), 211-214. [*Gerd Dethloff $^{1,2}$and Pham Hoang Ha$^{3}$\ $^1$ Université Européenne de Bretagne, France\ $^2$ Université de Brest\ Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Bretagne Atlantique -\ UMR CNRS 6205\ 6, avenue Le Gorgeu, BP 452\ 29275 Brest Cedex, France\ $^3$ Department of Mathematics\ Hanoi National University of Education\ 136 XuanThuy str., Hanoi, Vietnam*]{}\ Email : Gerd.Dethloff@univ-brest.fr ; phamhoangha23@gmail.com

--- abstract: 'The process of transport of metal particles (*ejecta*) in gases is the subject of recent works in the field of nuclear energetics. We studied the process of dissolution of titanium ejecta in warm dense hydrogen at megabar pressure. Thermodynamic and kinetic properties of the process were investigated using classical and quantum molecular dynamics methods. We estimated the dissolution time of ejecta, the saturation limit of titanium atoms with hydrogen and the heat of dissolution. It was found that particles with a radius of 1 $\mu m$ dissolve in hydrogen in time of $1.5 \cdot 10^{-2} \ \mu s$, while the process of mixing can be described by diffusion law. The presented approach demonstrates the final state of the titanium-hydrogen system as a homogenized fluid with completely dissolved titanium particles. This result can be generalized to all external conditions under which titanium and hydrogen are atomic fluids.' author: - 'Arslan B. Mazitov' - 'Artem R. Oganov' - 'Alexey V. Yanilkin' bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: 'Titanium-hydrogen interaction at megabar pressure' --- Introduction \[sec:intro\] ========================== Investigations of the interaction in metal-hydrogen systems at different external conditions are of both fundamental and practical value. Metals and hydrogen can form hydrides at normal conditions that are promising for hydrogen storage [@schlapbach2011hydrogen; @SAKINTUNA20071121] as well as moderators, reflectors or shield components for high-temperature mobile nuclear reactors [@mueller2013metal]. In 2004, the hypothesis of high-temperature superconductivity of hydrogen-rich hydrides under high pressure was proposed [@ashcroft2004]. This was subsequently confirmed both theoretically [@niobium; @esfahani2016superconductivity; @kruglov2017hs; @kruglov2017uh; @thorium; @kvashnin2017iron; @semenok2018actinium] and experimentally [@ferrum; @drozdov2015conventional; @lanthanium]. At pressures of about 100 GPa, stable hydrides with high hydrogen content, such as $\mathrm{NbH_{6}}$ [@niobium], $\mathrm{FeH_{5}}$ [@ferrum; @kvashnin2017iron], $\mathrm{LaH_{10}}$ [@lanthanium], $\mathrm{ThH_{10}}$ [@thorium], $\mathrm{UH_{8}}$ [@kruglov2017uh], $\mathrm{SnH_{14}}$ [@esfahani2016superconductivity] and $\mathrm{AcH_{16}}$ [@semenok2018actinium] were found to be thermodynamically stable. The practical interest comes from the processes of inertial thermonuclear fusion [@boiko1999fusion], which are often accompanied by separation of ejecta particles from the interior surface of the fuel target. In [@buttler2017ejecta], it was shown that at their initial stage at the pressure of 3 atm, ejecta with a radius of approximately 1 $\mu m$ can form hydrides within 1 $\mu s$. With further increase of pressure, the saturation degree of the ejecta with hydrogen can significantly increase, and this will negatively affect the amount of pure hydrogen in the system. Finally, recent calculations [@ticknor2016plasma; @clerouin2017enhancement] demonstrated that at temperatures of between $10^5-10^7 $ K and pressures of several hundred gigapascals, the metal-hydrogen system behaves as a two-component plasma, while the process of mixing can be described by diffusion law. Therefore, the investigation of the degree and kinetics of saturation in the intermediate region of pressures and temperatures is relevant. In this paper, we study the interaction between titanium and hydrogen. In order to estimate the hydrogen content in stable compounds at $\mathrm{P \simeq 100 \ GPa}$, we performed a variable-composition search using the evolutionary algorithm USPEX [@oganov2006crystal; @oganov2011evolutionary; @lyakhov2013new]. The process of mixing of titanium-hydrogen system at temperatures $\mathrm{T > 3 \cdot 10^3\ K}$ and megabar pressure was evaluated using quantum (QMD) and classical (MD) molecular dynamics methods. The calculations were performed employing VASP (QMD) [@kresse1993; @kresse1996; @kresse1999] and LAMMPS (MD) [@lammps] codes. Under these conditions, titanium is above the melting curve and hydrogen is dissociated [@stutzmann2015; @tamblyn2010], which allows us to consider the components as atomic fluids. One of the main issues underlying the MD method is to find the interatomic potential, which would correctly describe the atomic forces and energies of structures. These values can be calculated from first principles (*ab initio*) using density functional theory (DFT) [@hohenberg1964inhomogeneous; @kohn1965self], but this is computationally expensive. For systems with more than $10^3$ atoms it becomes vital to use flexible mathematical expressions with a large number of free parameters based on machine learning (ML) potentials. In practice, the accuracy of these potentials is higher than that of common classical potentials [@kruglov2017]. Today, a number of possible options for building ML potentials exist: 1. Linear and Gaussian regressions based on the atomic-environment descriptors [@bartok2010gaussian; @bartok2013; @bishop2006; @kruglov2017] 2. Invariant tensor polynomials [@shapeev2016moment] 3. Neural networks [@behler2015ml] Using *ab initio* data on energies and forces of relatively small systems, a ML potential can be *trained* by adjusting internal parameters, and then used to predict the behavior of large systems. Methods \[sec:methods\] ======================= Evolutionary search \[subsec:uspex\] ------------------------------------ The evolutionary algorithm USPEX provides a systematic approach to the search for stable structures of compounds at given pressure. Recently, several studies in the field of prediction of crystal structure of hydrides at various pressures were carried out [@niobium; @esfahani2016superconductivity; @kruglov2017hs; @kruglov2017uh; @thorium; @kvashnin2017iron]. We performed a variable-composition search at P = 100 GPa in order to predict composition and crystal structures of thermodynamically stable titanium hydrides at 0 K. The first generation (80 structures) was produced randomly with up to 16 atoms in the primitive unit cell. The next generations of the structures were obtained by applying heredity (40 %), softmutation (20 %),transmutation (20 %) operators. 20 % were produced using random symmetry and random topology generators. Each generated crystal structure was relaxed using VASP code with PAW pseudopotentials with four valence electrons (3d$^3$4s$^1$) for Ti [@kresse1999; @PAW]. Exchange-correlation effects were described within the generalized gradient approximation (Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof functional) [@PBE]. The energy cutoff of plane waves was set to 400 eV, and the Brillouin zone was sampled with k-points grid, centered at $\Gamma$ (0,0,0) point with a resolution of $2 \pi \cdot 0.05$ Å$^{-1}$. QMD calculation \[subsec:QMD\] ------------------------------ QMD simulations were carried out to investigate the mixing process based on first principles. In this way, the pure components of titanium (48 atoms) and hydrogen (256 atoms) at P $\simeq$ 100 GPa and T $\simeq$ 3000 K were prepared by preliminary relaxation. Thereafter, the MD of each system during $2 \cdot 10^3$ steps (each of 0.2 fs) was performed. The radial distribution function (RDF) of the final structures confirmed that titanium is in the liquid state and hydrogen is fluid. Finally, these two systems with pure components were placed close to each other to start mixing. The simulation of mixing was carried out during $2 \cdot 10^3$ steps in the NVE ensemble so the average temperature could change during mixing. Classical MD calculation \[subsec:MD\] -------------------------------------- Although mixing in the Ti-H system can be qualitatively investigated with a small system, quantitative analysis requires systems much larger than those discussed in the previous section. For this purpose we used classical MD with an interatomic potential, which was trained using a dataset of configuration, energies and forces, obtained from QMD calculations. ### Interatomic potential \[subsubsec:pot\] {#interatomic-potential-subsubsecpot .unnumbered} At high pressures in the metal-hydrogen system, the contribution of many-body interactions to the energy is small with respect to the pair interaction as the bonding is predominantly metallic and the repulsion forces are dominant. Thus, only the contribution from the pair interactions to the energy was considered. This assumption is confirmed by the following validation of the potential. In this case: $E_{tot} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{at}} U(r_i, r_j)$. In fact, Cartesian coordinates cannot be used as descriptors of the atomic environment, because their numerical values are not invariant with respect to translations and rotations of the system. Therefore, one should perform a preliminary procedure of *symmetrization*. We used the method of *symmetry functions* with functional form , which is a simplification of the approach proposed in [@li2015molecular; @kruglov2017]. $$\label{eq:1} \tag{1} X^{(k)}(r) = exp({-(\frac{r}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k}}),$$ where $p_k, r_{cut,k}$ are external parameters.Thus, one can take sums of the form as components of the feature vector which describes the local environment of the $i$-th atom. $$\label{eq:2} \tag{2} X_{E,i}^{(k)} = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{neigh, i}} exp({-(\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k}}),$$ where $|\vec{r_{i,j}}|$ is the distance between atoms $i$ and $j$, $N_{neigh, i}$ is the number of nearest neighbors of the atom $i$ in the cutoff sphere of radius $R_{cut}$ (here $R_{cut} = 5.0$ Å). Summing through all the atoms in the system, we obtain a symmetrized representation: $$\label{eq:3} \tag{3} X_E^{(k)} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{at}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{neigh,i}} exp({-(\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k}}), \quad \mathbf{X_E} = \{X_E^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{k=N}.$$ The obtained vectors $\mathbf{X_E}$ of length $N$ (where $k = 1, ... , N$, $N$ is the length of the $(r_{cut}, p)$ set) made up of such sums at different values $(r_{cut,k}, p_k)$ can be considered as features of the structures. Hence, we can present the energy of the system as a linear combination in the form : $$\label{eq:4} \tag{4} E = \theta_0 + \mathbf{\Theta}^T \mathbf{X_E}$$ where $(\theta_0, \mathbf{\Theta})$ is the vector of regression coefficients. Therefore, the expression has a clear interpretation as a generalization of the Morse potential. Using the presented method of symmetrization, it is possible to obtain a set of features for the forces on atoms by differentiation of expression : $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:5} X_{F,i}^{l,(k)} = - \frac{\partial X_{E,i}^{(k)}}{\partial r_l} = \frac{\partial}{\partial r_l} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{neigh, i}} exp({-(\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k}}) = \nonumber \\ = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{neigh, i}} exp({-(\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k}}) (\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k-1} \frac{p_k \ r_l}{r_{cut,k} \ |\vec{r_{i,j}}|} \tag{5}\end{aligned}$$ Mathematical form of the expression allows us to construct a regression with the same coefficients $\mathbf{\Theta}$ for the vector $\mathbf{X_{F, i}^l}$ of length $N$. Thus, the $l$-th component of the force acting on the $i$-th atom in the system is given by expression : $$\label{eq:6} \tag{6} F_i^l = \mathbf{\Theta}^T \mathbf{X_{F}}_i^l$$ The approach just described is valid for single-component systems. In the case of two or more components, the interaction of different types of atoms is described by different coefficients $\mathbf{\Theta}$ and different sets of ($p, r_{cut}$). The expressions (\[eq:4\]) and (\[eq:6\]) for the two-component system with atoms of types A and B can be rewritten as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:7} E = \theta_0 + \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{A-A} \mathbf{X_{E}}^{A-A} + \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{A-B} \mathbf{X_{E}}^{A-B} + \nonumber \\ + \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{B-B} \mathbf{X_{E}}^{B-B} \tag{7}\end{aligned}$$ $$F_{A_i}^l = \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{A-A} \mathbf{X_F}_{A_i-A}^{l} + \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{A-B} \mathbf{X_F}_{A_i-B}^{l}$$ $$F_{B_i}^l = \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{A-B} \mathbf{X_F}_{B_i-A}^{l} + \mathbf{\Theta}^T_{B-B} \mathbf{X_F}_{B_i-B}^{l},$$ where $$\label{eq:8} \tag{8} X_{E}^{A-B, (k)} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{at}^A} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{neigh,A_i}^B} exp({-(\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}^{A-B}})^{p_k^{A-B}}})$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:9} X_{F,A_i-B}^{l, (k)} = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{neigh, A_i}^B} exp({-(\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k}}) (\frac{|\vec{r_{i,j}}|}{r_{cut, k}})^{p_k-1} \ \mathrm{x} \ \nonumber \\ \ \mathrm{x} \ \frac{p_k \ r_l}{r_{cut,k} \ |\vec{r_{i,j}}|} \tag{9}\end{aligned}$$ is a symmetrized representation for the energy and forces between atoms of types $A$ and $B$, and $N_{neigh, A_i}^B $ is the number of neighbors of type $B$ around $i$-th atom of type $A$. The representation for the other interactions can be obtained in the same way. Constructed potential will yield an adequate prediction only if the interatomic distances will not differ much from those that were present in the training set. This becomes problematic $r \rightarrow 0 $, when the potential will turn to a constant. The absence of repulsion in the potential at small interatomic distances leads to the formation of dimers, which is an artifact. Thus, the potential has been modified to go to infinity at zero distance : $$\label{eq:10} \tag{10} U(r) = U_0(r) \theta(r-a) + (kr + b + (\frac{a}{r})^2 - 1) \theta(a-r)$$ where $U_0 (r)$ is the potential obtained by linear regression, $\theta(r)$ is the Heaviside function and the coefficients $k, a$ provide smooth stitching of the potential. The starting point of extrapolation $a$ was selected from the condition of the minimum of potential function derivative. ### Calculation parameters \[subsubsec:md\] {#calculation-parameters-subsubsecmd .unnumbered} To carry out the analysis of the mixing process, several MD simulations were performed. In order to validate the quality of interatomic potential, the small system with 48 titanium atoms and 256 hydrogens was considered at the same initial conditions. The validation was made by the comparison of atomic structures (pure components and mixed system cases) and heat of mixing. After the validation, a larger calculation with the system of 2304 titanium atoms and 12144 hydrogen atoms in a unit cell of 10.8 x 10.8 x 425.8 Å$^3$ with density of 4.1 g/cm$^3$ at the temperature of 4000 K was considered for calculations. Preliminary relaxation of the system was made using the gradient descent method and a subsequent low-temperature MD run at T = 300 K. Finally, MD simulations for 80 ps with a time step of 0.1 fs was conducted. Results and Discussion \[sec:results\] ====================================== Stable hydrides at P = 100 GPa \[subsec:stable\_hydrides\] ---------------------------------------------------------- Using the evolutionary algorithm USPEX (Sec. \[subsec:uspex\]) we predicted stable Ti-H phases with their enthalpies of formation ($\Delta H$). The obtained values of $\Delta H$ with corresponding compositions are shown in Figure \[fig:convex\_hull\]. ![Formation enthalpies of titanium hydrides at $\mathrm{P=100} \ $ GPa in units of kJ/mole (top) and kJ/(mole Ti) (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:convex_hull"}](figures/convex_hull.pdf){width="45.00000%"} The well-known titanium hydride is $\mathrm{TiH_2}$ [@stull1971; @dantzer1976high; @san1987h; @zhang2006electron; @wang1996thermodynamic; @arita1982thermodynamics; @china2008], but we also predicted a number of stable phases with higher hydrogen content, namely: $\mathrm{TiH_{2.5}}$, $\mathrm{TiH_{2.75}}$, $\mathrm{TiH_{3}}$. One can note that the computational and experimental values of $\Delta H$ for $\mathrm{TiH_2}$ from [@stull1971; @dantzer1976high; @san1987h; @zhang2006electron; @wang1996thermodynamic; @arita1982thermodynamics; @china2008] vary from -123 to -179 kJ/(mole Ti), but at 100 GPa we find much more negative values: $\Delta H_{\mathrm{TiH_{2}}}$ = -290.88 kJ/(mole Ti) and $\Delta H_{\mathrm{TiH_{2.75}}}$ = -344.52 kJ/(mole Ti). Indeed, for titanium and many other metals the formation of hydrides becomes more preferable under pressure [@niobium; @esfahani2016superconductivity; @kruglov2017hs; @kruglov2017uh; @thorium; @kvashnin2017iron]. Training and validation of the interatomic potential ---------------------------------------------------- Previously we discussed the principles the interatomic potential is based on. For this purpose one requires a set of features based on configurations and target values, which are typically interatomic forces and energies. We took expressions (\[eq:8\] - \[eq:9\]) as feature vectors, where the set of atomic coordinates as well as forces and energies of structures were obtained from the QMD calculations. A test of accuracy of this approach is shown in Figure \[fig:errors\]. The values of RMSE were 0.776 eV/Å and 0.548 eV/Å for predictions of force projections on the titanium and hydrogen, respectively. Since the train and test data sets were based on NVE molecular dynamics, where total energy is conserved, here we make comparisons only for the forces. Fig. \[fig:errors\] also shows that since all points lie along y=x line, the developed ML potential can be used to describe metal-hydrogen systems at discussed P-T conditions. It should be noted that an extrapolation on the form of the potential was made at $r \rightarrow 0$. This extrapolation does not affect the potential at realistic distances, but removes pathologies displayed by uncorrected Ti-Ti and Ti-H potentials at extremely short distances (Figure \[fig:extr\_plot\]). This can be explained by the lack of data with short interatomic distances in the dataset. The starting points of the extrapolation (1.44 Å for Ti-Ti potential, 1.2 Å for Ti-H potential) are shorter than distances found in the RDF \[fig:rdf\]. The role of our extrapolation correction is protection against random numerical errors and fluctuations. Atomic structures analysis \[subsec:atom\_analysis\] ---------------------------------------------------- Since the interatomic potential has to describe the mixing process of the Ti-H system, it should also provide the correct atomic structure of the pure components as well. We studied the atomic structures using RDF of the components in both these cases, making a comparison between the MD and QMD calculations of small systems. Calculations of pure elements were performed using titanium and hydrogen systems independently, where only corresponding parts of the interatomic potential were taken into account in the MD run. Analysis of the systems was carried out using the method discussed in Sec. \[subsec:QMD\], \[subsec:MD\] (Fig. \[fig:rdf\]). Values, obtained with the QMD calculation are plotted by solid line, while MD values are marked by symbols. ![RDF of the pure components (top, $\mathrm{T = 3000 \ K, \ \rho = 8.1 }$g/cm$^3$ for titanium and $\mathrm{T = 3600 \ K, \ \rho = 0.8 }$ g/cm$^3$ for hydrogen) and the mixture components (bottom, $\mathrm{T = 5600 \ K, \ \rho = 4.1 }$ g/cm$^3$) in MD and QMD calculations.[]{data-label="fig:rdf"}](figures/rdf_together.pdf){width="47.00000%"} The results obtained by MD and QMD agree well with each other, which proves the correctness of our ML potential. Good agreement between characteristic peaks, total behavior of RDF for pure hydrogen and reference data from [@norman2017] (the comparison was made with T = 4000 K and $\rho = $ 0.9 g/cm$^3$) was observed. Therefore, the comparison of mixing in the discussed cases was performed from equal initial conditions. Distribution profiles of the components along the selected direction (z-axis) were compared at certain points of time: 0.0, 0.4, 1.0, and 3.0 ps respectively (Figure \[fig:profiles\]). ![Comparison of the components distribution profiles in MD and QMD calculations[]{data-label="fig:profiles"}](figures/mix_prof.pdf){width="50.00000%"} From the Fig. \[fig:profiles\], one can see that in both (MD and QMD) calculations the active process of mutually diffusive penetration of atoms begins immediately.Titanium becomes saturated with hydrogen at t = 1.0 ps. Visualization of the system during mixing is shown in Figure \[fig:visual\]. At t = 3.0 ps the system appears to be completely mixed up. {width="70.00000%"} Heat effect of mixing \[subsec:heat\] ------------------------------------- One of the main thermodynamic characteristics of the mixing process is the enthalpy of mixing, which determines the heat effect of the process. It allows one to determine the character of the reaction between mixing fluids. Employing the temperature difference between initial and final states, we calculated the mixing enthalpy using formula (at constant pressure). $$\tag{11} \label{eq:11} \Delta H = c_{\mu} \frac{N_{Ti} + N_{H}}{N_{Ti}} \Delta T$$ where $ c_{\mu}$ is molar specific heat, $\Delta T$ is the temperature difference, $\mathrm{N_{Ti}}, \mathrm{N_{H}}$ is numbers of titanium and hydrogen atoms, and $R = 8.31 $ J/(mole $\cdot$ K). The value of specific heat for the given temperature range was evaluated in MD run and is equal to $ c_{\mu} \simeq 2.33 \ R$. This result is consistent with the phonon theory of liquids [@bolmatov2012]. The thermodynamics of mixing was analyzed using the calculations described in Sec. \[subsec:QMD\], \[subsec:MD\]. The dependence of temperature of the mixture on time in MD and QMD cases is given in Figure \[fig:entalpy\]. ![Dependence of the mixture temperature on time during the mixing process[]{data-label="fig:entalpy"}](figures/mix_temp.pdf){width="45.00000%"} Since the temperature of the system becomes constant at t = 1.0 ps, further dissolution does not result in any heat effect. The fraction of absorbed hydrogen was estimated using Fig. \[fig:profiles\] at t = 1.0 ps by taking the ratio of the number of hydrogen atoms penetrated into the titanium layer to the number of titanium atoms in this layer: $x = N_{H} / N_{Ti} \simeq 2.7$. The obtained value of enthalpy of mixing at 100 GPa is $\Delta H_{\mathrm{TiH_{2.7}}} = $ -327.75 kJ/(mole Ti). This result is in robust agreement with enthalpy of formation of $\mathrm{TiH_{2}}$ and $\mathrm{TiH_{2.75}}$ hydrides, obtained with the USPEX method: $\Delta H_{\mathrm{TiH_{2}}}$ = -290.88 kJ/(mole Ti) and $\Delta H_{\mathrm{TiH_{2.75}}}$ = -344.52 kJ/(mole Ti) (Sec. \[subsec:stable\_hydrides\]). Mixing character ---------------- The performed calculations show that the constructed interatomic potential is reliable and allow us to carry out simulations of large systems. In this section, we considered the mixing process from the position of classical diffusion theory, employing the method discussed in Sec. \[subsec:MD\]. Histograms in Figure \[fig:prof\_temp\] show the particle distribution profiles in the MD calculation with the developed MD potential (the distribution is given along the z-axis as in Fig. \[fig:profiles\]). ![Temperature and concentration profiles of mixture components during the MD calculation. Analytical predictions of hydrogen concentration are plotted by a dotted line.[]{data-label="fig:prof_temp"}](figures/prof_temp.pdf){width="45.00000%"} We compared hydrogen penetration dynamics (histogram in Fig. \[fig:prof\_temp\]) with the analytical solution of the one-dimensional diffusion equation (dotted line). The diffusion coefficient $D$ in (calculated using Einstein law in the equilibrium mixture at T = 4000 K) is equal to 27.7 Å$^2$/ps. $$\label{eq:12} \tag{12} \frac{\partial c}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}(D c)$$ $$\label{eq:13} \tag{13} \langle \vec{r}^2 \rangle = 6Dt$$ Strong agreement between the analytical curve and hydrogen distribution profile indicates that the mixing process at the discussed region of the phase diagram has diffusive character. In the same figure one can see the temperature profiles along the z-axis. There is a notable increase in temperature observed in the regions of exothermic mixing, reaching a maximum at the boundary between the interacting components. Estimation of the dissolution time of ejecta -------------------------------------------- Knowledge of diffusive character of the mixing process allows to make an estimation of the ejecta particles’ dissolution time. For this purpose, a spherical titanium particle with a radius beyond 1 $\mu m$ was considered. Evaluation was made using an analytical solution of the 3D diffusion equation (Figure \[fig:eqn3D\]). At the starting point (t = 0), hydrogen atoms (given in $\mathrm{c / c_{max}}$ units) are only at the region of r = 1 $\mu m$, which represents the edge of the sphere. Therefore, the diffusion process of hydrogen atoms inside the ejecta dissolves the particle within a duration of 1.5$\cdot 10^{-2}$ $\mu s$. ![Hydrogen concentration profiles from 3D diffusion equation.[]{data-label="fig:eqn3D"}](figures/conc_prof_color.pdf){width="49.00000%"} Conclusion ========== In this work, we studied the process dissolution of titanium ejecta particles in warm dense hydrogen at megabar pressure. The presented approach shows that the process can be described by diffusion law at T $> 3 \cdot 10^3$ K and megabar pressure. Furthermore, the limit of saturation for titanium was absent i.e. all available titanium in the system was completely dissolved in hydrogen, occupying the entire volume of the computational cell. The final state of the Ti-H system was found as a homogenized fluid with completely dissolved titanium particles. In the case of ejecta particles with a radius of 1 $\mu m$, we found that complete dissolution occurs within $1.5 \cdot 10^{-2}$ $\mu s$. This result can be generalized to a wider range of pressures and temperatures where titanium and hydrogen are atomic fluids. Acknowledgments =============== We thank O. V. Sergeev for integration of interatomic potential in LAMMPS code and I. A. Kruglov for the useful discussions. The calculations were performed on a cluster of the Dukhov Research Institute of Automatics.

--- abstract: 'We consider the passage of long polymers of length $N$ through a hole in a membrane. If the process is slow, it is in principle possible to focus on the dynamics of the number of monomers $s$ on one side of the membrane, assuming that the two segments are in equilibrium. The dynamics of $s(t)$ in such a limit would be diffusive, with a mean translocation time scaling as $N^2$ in the absence of a force, and proportional to $N$ when a force is applied. We demonstrate that the assumption of equilibrium must break down for sufficiently long polymers (more easily when forced), and provide lower bounds for the translocation time by comparison to unimpeded motion of the polymer. These lower bounds exceed the time scales calculated on the basis of equilibrium, and point to anomalous (sub–diffusive) character of translocation dynamics. This is explicitly verified by numerical simulations of the unforced translocation of a self-avoiding polymer. Forced translocation times are shown to strongly depend on the method by which the force is applied. In particular, pulling the polymer by the end leads to much longer times than when a chemical potential difference is applied across the membrane. The bounds in these cases grow as $N^2$ and $N^{1+\nu}$, respectively, where $\nu$ is the exponent that relates the scaling of the radius of gyration to $N$. Our simulations demonstrate that the actual translocation times scale in the same manner as the bounds, although influenced by strong finite size effects which persist even for the longest polymers that we considered ($N=512$).' author: - Yacov Kantor - Mehran Kardar title: Anomalous Dynamics of Forced Translocation --- Introduction ============ Translocation of a polymer through a narrow pore in a membrane is important to many biological processes, such as the injection of viral DNA into a host, DNA packing into a shell during viral replication, and gene swapping through bacterial pili [@MolBioCell]. Translocation also has practical applications in genetics as in cell transformation by DNA electroporation [@MolBioCell], and in gene therapy [@gt]. This has inspired a number of recent [*in vitro*]{} experiments, including the electric field-induced migration of DNA through microfabricated channels [@han], or through an $\alpha$-hemolysin protein channel in a membrane [@Kasianowicz; @meller]. Experiments are motivated by the possibility to “read-off" a DNA or RNA sequence by tracking its passage through a pore [@Kasianowicz; @meller; @kam]. Translocation of a polymer involves both molecular considerations, such as the shape of the pore channel and its interactions with DNA, as well as more macroscopic factors such as the statistics and dynamics of the long polymer. It is the universal features of the latter which are the focus of this paper. While worming its way through the hole, the segments of the polymer on each side of the membrane can “explore" many possible configurations. The number of allowed configurations actually is least when the polymer is halfway through the hole, presenting an entropic barrier. In this regard translocation resembles other entropically controlled polymer systems, such as polymer trapping in random environments [@entrap1; @entrap2; @entrap3], DNA gel electrophoresis [@electrophor] or reptation [@deGennes_book], where the geometry of the obstacles constrains the kinetics of the polymer. ![\[transloc\] Schematic depiction of polymer translocation from the left side of a membrane to its right side. (Throughout the paper we shall follow this convention for the direction of transport.) The number $s$ of the monomer at the hole is denoted the “translocation coordinate.”](FigA.eps){width="7cm"} A number of recent theoretical works have shed light on the translocation process [@Kasianowicz; @muthu; @muth2; @deGennesDNA; @Lubensky; @bs; @zandi], which is schematically depicted in Fig. \[transloc\]. A single variable $s$ representing the monomer number at the pore [@muthu; @Lubensky; @park] indicates how far the polymer has progressed, and is a natural variable for describing this problem. Due to its resemblance to the ‘reaction coordinate’ for chemical processes, we call $s$ the translocation coordinate. If $s$ changes very slowly, such that the polymer segments on both sides of the membrane have time to equilibrate, the mean force acting on the monomer in the hole can be determined from a simple calculation of free energy, and the translocation problem is then reduced to the escape of a ‘particle’ (the translocation coordinate) over a potential barrier. In the following, we shall refer to this limit as [*Brownian translocation*]{}, but shall demonstrate that the required equilibration is not tenable for long enough polymers. In many experimental situations the polymers are not very long and the observed behavior strongly depends on the properties of the polymer and the pore. Thus introduction of some specific features into the channel properties [@Lubensky; @slonkina], or into interparticle potential [@loebl; @kong], may provide qualitative explanations of the observed behavior. While the theoretical understanding of the experiments is growing, we are still quite far from quantitative understanding of many observed features [@meller_review]. In this work, we restrict out attention to qualitative features of very long polymers that are independent of the details of the pore or inter-monomer potentials. Consequently, we restrict ourselves to simple models. Furthermore, since we are interested in contrasting the behavior of phantom polymers, in which the monomers do not interact with each other, with self–avoiding ones, in which monomers repel each other at short distances, we perform simulations in two–dimensional (2D) space, where such differences are more pronounced. The reduction of the motion of a large molecule to a single–particle problem ignores the fact that the positions of the monomers have strong correlations [@deGennes_book], leading to non-trivial dynamical effects [@deGennes_book; @Doi]. In particular, in a dilute solution of polymers in a good solvent, on time scales shorter than the overall relaxation time of the polymer, the motion of monomers is characterized by [*anomalous*]{} dynamics [@KBG; @carm]. Not surprisingly, such effects are also present in translocation. In a previous work we demonstrated [@ckk] that the scaling of the translocation times with the number of monomers has a power–law dependence which cannot be derived from Brownian motion of a particle over a barrier, but rather follows from general scaling considerations. In this work, we focus on consequences of anomalous dynamics in the presence of a force. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec\_brown\] we review the limit of very slow translocation, in which case the problem can be reduced to the Brownian motion of a single coordinate. We demonstrate that the requirement of equilibration breaks down for long polymers, especially in the presence of a force pulling the polymer to one side. We also demonstrate the importance of how such a force is applied to the polymer, contrasting the cases of a polymer pulled by the end, with one forced into a favorable environment. Lower bounds on the translocation times are obtained in Sec. \[sec\_unimpeded\] by comparison with the unimpeded motion of a polymer. The long time scale for equilibration of a forced polymer is due to its change of shape, e.g. into a stretched sequence of blobs when pulled at one end. Exactly how this change of shape is achieved through transmission of the force from one end to another is explicitly shown in Appendix \[app\_oneD\] which solves this problem for a one–dimensional (1D) phantom polymer. Our other model system, the self-avoiding two dimensional polymer is discussed in Appendix \[app\_twoD\]. The bounds from unimpeded motion serve a convenient reference point for discussion of anomalous processes that are described in detail in Sec. \[sec\_anomal\]. In particular, we find that the actual translocation times have the same scaling behavior as the lower bounds. Brownian translocation and its limitations {#sec_brown} ========================================== If the translocation process is sufficiently slow, at each stage the statistics of the segments will be governed by the equilibrium Boltzmann weight. If so, the dynamics is constrained to reproduce the corresponding statistics. A simple method to achieve this is to focus on the translocation coordinate $s$, and to write down a stochastic Langevin equation for its evolution. This procedure, which we shall refer to as [*Brownian translocation*]{}, is the chief tool employed in most analytical studies[@muthu; @Lubensky; @park], and shall be reviewed in this Section. Unforced motion --------------- In the absence of an external potential, the entropic contributions to the free energy of the two polymeric segments result in a free energy ${\cal F}(s)=\gamma k_BT\ln[(N-s)s]$ [@muthu; @Lubensky; @park]. Note that there is a decrease in the number of possible states as the polymer threads the hole, which can be regarded as an entropic barrier. For phantom polymers (random walks) $\gamma$ is equal to 1/2, while for self-avoiding polymers it depends on the dimensionality of space. From this free energy, we can construct a Langevin equation $\dot s=-m {\partial{\cal F}/\partial s}+\eta(t)$, where $m$ is a mobility coefficient indicating how easily the polymer is pulled through the hole. To obtain the correct Boltzmann statistics, the noise $\eta(t)$ has to be uncorrelated at different times, with a variance equal to $m k_{B}T$. As demonstrated in Ref. [@ckk], the corresponding Fokker–Planck equation for the probability $p(s,t)$ can be made [*independent*]{} of $N$ by a simple change of variables $s\rightarrow sN$ and $t\rightarrow t/N^2$. Consequently, the average translocation time $\tau$ (and its fluctuations) must scale as $N^2$ for any $\gamma$. In fact, a very similar distribution for the transit time is obtained by ignoring the potential barrier completely (setting $\gamma=0$). In this limit the translocation coordinate simply undergoes diffusion, i.e. at time scales much shorter than typical translocation times we expect $\left\langle \left(s(t')-s(t)\right)^{2}\right\rangle\propto |t-t'|$. Pulling on the ends ------------------- The advent of optical tweezers has made it possible to manipulate single macromolecules. A common procedure is to attach latex balls to the end(s) of a polymer (such as DNA), and then to manipulate the balls by optical tweezers [@gerland; @farkas]. While this is not the method commonly used in the translocation experiments, it motivates an interesting extension of the previous calculation. Let us imagine that through an optical tweezer set-up forces $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are applied to the two ends of the polymer (perpendicular to the wall), as in Fig. \[transloc\]. A polymer configuration in which the ends are separated by a distance $\vec r$ gets an additional Boltzmann weight of $\exp\left(\vec F\cdot\vec r/k_{B}T\right)$. For a Gaussian polymer of length $N$, integration over all locations $\vec r$ leads to a contribution of $\exp\left[N(Fa/k_{B}T)^2\right]$ to the partition function ($a$ is a microscopic length scale). Restricting the integration over $\vec r$ only to half space (as appropriate for the translocation problem), does not change the qualitative form, i.e., in the presence of the force the free energy acquires a term proportional to $k_{B}T N (Fa/k_{B}T)^2$. The above argument can be generalized to a self-avoiding polymer by noting that due to dimensional considerations a force $F$ should always appear in the combination $FR/k_{B}T$, where $R$ is a characteristic size of the polymer, such as its radius of gyration $R_g$. Quite generally $R\sim a N^{\nu}$, with $\nu={1}/{2}$ for a [ *phantom*]{} (non–self–interacting) polymer, and $\nu={3}/{4}$ and 0.59 for self–avoiding polymers in space dimensions $d=2$ and 3, respectively [@madras]. The contribution of the force to the free energy can thus be written as $k_{B}T\Phi\left(FaN^{\nu}/k_{B}T\right)$. When the force is sufficiently strong to deform the polymer into a sequence of blobs (we shall argue later that this is the relevant regime for translocation), the free energy is expected to be linear in $N$, necessitating $\Phi(x)\sim x^{1/\nu}$. Such considerations thus imply a free energy contribution of $N k_{B}T \left(Fa/k_{B}T\right)^{1/\nu}$. In the specific case of translocation, adding up the contributions from the two segments leads to $$\label{F(f,s)} {\cal F}(s)\sim k_{B}T\left[s\left(F_{+}a\over k_{B}T\right)^{1/\nu}+ (N-s)\left(F_{-}a\over k_{B}T\right)^{1/\nu}\right].$$ The corresponding Langevin equation for the translocation coordinate is now $$\label{dots(f)} \dot s = \lambda\left(F_{+}^{1/\nu}-F_{-}^{1/\nu}\right)+\eta(t),$$ where we have absorbed various coefficients into the parameter $\lambda$. Note that the average velocity has a non-linear dependence on the forces; in the case of $F_{-}=0$ growing as $F_{+}^{1/\nu}$. Consequently, the translocation time in such a set up should decrease with the applied force as $\tau\propto N/F_{+}^{1/\nu}$. Note that this expression breaks down for [*small forces*]{}, where the typical translocation time is controlled by the diffusive fluctuations. The distinction between weak and strong force regimes has a specific meaning in the context of polymers, and quantified through the scaling combination $\tilde{f}\equiv FaN^{\nu}/k_{B}T$. For weak forces this combination is small, and the equilibrium polymer shape is not changed. For strong forces $\tilde{f}\gg 1$, and the polymer becomes stretched. The same division applies to forces that are strong enough to overcome the diffusive character of the translocation coordinate. Chemical potential difference ----------------------------- A more common situation for translocation is when the environments separated by the membrane are not equivalent, so that the polymer encounters a chemical potential difference between the two sides. In this case, the leading contribution to the free energy is ${\cal F}(s)=\mu_{+}s+(N-s)\mu_{-}$, and the Langevin equation takes the form $$\label{dots(mu)} \dot s = \lambda' \Delta\mu+\eta(t),$$ with $\Delta\mu\equiv\left(\mu_{-}-\mu_{+}\right)>0$. In this case the average translocation velocity is predicted to be proportional to $\Delta\mu$, leading to typical exit times that scale as $N/\Delta\mu$ for large $\Delta\mu$. It is possible to envision situations in which the polymer is forced (or hindered) by a combination of both a chemical potential difference, and forces applied to the two ends. For the corresponding Langevin equation, we merely need to add the force contributions in Eqs. (\[dots(f)\]) and (\[dots(mu)\]). In the experiments of Meller [*et al.*]{} [@meller], translocation is driven by an electric potential difference between the two sides of an artificial membrane suspended in a liquid. It is commonly assumed that since the conductivity of the liquid is significantly higher than the conductivity of the membrane, the liquid on each side of the membrane is an equipotential. The voltage drop then occurs only across the membrane, and is experienced only by the (charged) monomers moving through the pore [@meller_review]. If so, the voltage difference is equivalent to the chemical potential difference discussed above. However, the previous results with force acting only on the end monomers serve as a warning that the results are quite sensitive to where the force is applied to the polymer. It would thus be reassuring to carry out a more precise calculation of the electric field in the vicinity of the pore, and how it acts upon the monomers. Limitations ----------- The analytical procedure outlined in this section rests on the assumption that the two polymeric segments have come to equilibrium, so that the corresponding free energy can be used to construct a Langevin equation. The minimal requirement is that the typical translocation time $\tau$ should exceed the equilibration time $\tau_{\rm equil}$ of a polymer. For a chain of finite size, it is always possible to achieve this by designing the pore to have a large friction coefficient. In Ref. [@Lubensky], it is argued that this is the case applicable to the experiments of Ref. [@meller]. However, the equilibration time of a polymer depends strongly on its length, scaling as $\tau_{\rm equil}(N)\propto N^{z\nu}$. As discussed in the next section, the exponent $z\nu$ is typically larger than 2 for Brownian dynamics of self-avoiding polymers (and equal to 2 for a phantom polymer). Since typical transit times for unforced translocation scale as $N^{2}$, it is possible to imagine that the formalism may apply to phantom polymers. Indeed there is some evidence of this from numerical simulations [@chern], although with an inexplicably large friction coefficient. The situation becomes worse in the presence of a force (either imposed by pulling or a chemical potential difference), in which case typical translocation times are predicted to be proportional to $N$. In the latter case, the range of applicability of ‘Brownian translocation’ is even further limited. Unimpeded motion of a polymer {#sec_unimpeded} ============================= Since the collective dynamics of the passage of polymer through the pore is hard to treat analytically, as a first step we shall derive [*lower bounds*]{} on the characteristic time scale. The key observation is that the restriction that the monomers should sequentially pass through a hole in a membrane can only impede the motion of the polymer. Hence the time scale for the polymer to travel the same distance in the absence of the wall should be a generous lower bound to its translocation time. In this Section we shall thus explore the time scale for unimpeded motion of the polymer in the circumstances of interest. Unforced diffusion ------------------ In the unforced limit, the translocating polymer simply goes from one side of the membrane to the other by ‘diffusion.’ In the process, the center of mass of the polymer moves a distance of the order of a typical size, say the gyration radius of $R_g$. How long does it take for a polymer to move a similar distance without the constraints imposed by the pore and the wall? In the absence of hydrodynamic interactions, the diffusion constant $D$ of a polymer is related to the diffusion constant $D_0$ of a single monomer by $D=D_0/N$. Consequently, the time that a polymer needs to diffuse its own radius of gyration scales as $N^{1+2\nu}$ [@deGennes_book]. (This is also the relaxation time of the slowest internal mode of a polymer [@deGennes_book], and is called the Rouse equilibration time.) For self–avoiding polymers $\nu>1/2$, and the equilibration time is clearly longer than that obtained for translocation though a hole in the wall assuming Brownian translocation. The Rouse time scale of $N^{1+2\nu}$ should thus be a lower bound to the correct translocation time. Pulling on the end ------------------ Now consider a polymer that is being pulled by one end. The regime of interest to us is when the force is strong enough to deform the shape of the polymer. The equilibrium shape of the polymer is then a stretched sequence of ‘blobs’ [@deGennes_book]. The number of monomers per blob $N_B$ is such that force acting on it is marginally strong, and obtained from $FaN_B^\nu\sim k_BT$. The typical size of each blob is thus $R_B\sim aN_B^\nu\sim k_BT/F$, while the number of blobs is $N/N_B\sim N(Fa/k_BT)^{1/\nu}$. The overall length of the stretched chain is now $R(F)\sim R_B(N/N_B)\sim aN(Fa/k_BT)^{1/\nu-1}$. The mobility of the center of the mass of a polymer of length $N$ is proportional to $1/N$, and since there is only a force applied to one monomer, its net velocity scales as $F/N$. The characteristic relaxation time is the same as the time scale of the polymer moving a distance of order of its size, and hence behaves as $$\label{tau(f)} \tau_{\rm equil}(F)\sim\frac{R(F)}{v(F)}\propto N^2 F^{-2+1/\nu}.$$ (The same conclusion is obtained if we start with a globular polymer and then apply the force to one end, and wait until the other end feels the force.) Note that upon approaching the boundary between weak and strong forces at $F\propto N^{-\nu}$, we regain the equilibration time $N^{1+2\nu}$ for unforced polymers. However, the result in Eq. (\[tau(f)\]) is only valid for $N^{-\nu}\leq Fa/k_BT\leq 1$, since for stronger forces, as we shall see in the specific models described in the next Section, the velocity of the monomer (and hence of the entire chain) saturates. Unimpeded motion of the pulled polymer thus places a lower bound of $N^2$ on the translocation time, far exceeding the time scale ($\propto N$) calculated in the previous section. It may not be readily apparent how the force applied to one end of the polymer is transmitted to the other end, and why the qualitative picture of blobs presented above is valid. There is actually one limit in which the problem of pulling a polymer by the end can be solved analytically, and that is for a 1D phantom polymer. In Appendix \[app\_oneD\] this model and the corresponding analysis are presented in some detail. Mimicking a chemical potential difference ----------------------------------------- It is difficult to come up with an unhindered situation that best resembles the case of a chemical potential difference across a membrane. Absent the restrictions imposed by the membrane, there is now a force that is applied to a single monomer, at the spatial position where the membrane would reside. Unlike the previous case, the monomer to which the force is applied now changes constantly. There is thus no incentive for a drastic change in the shape of polymer, and we assume that the scaling of the size remains the same, i.e. $R\sim a N^\nu$, independent of $\Delta\mu$. At each moment there is a force of $\Delta \mu/a$ applied to the entire polymer, as a consequence of which its center of mass should move with a velocity $v\propto \Delta\mu/N$. We thus conclude that the time for such unhindered motion scales as $$\label{tau(mu)} \tau(\Delta\mu)\sim\frac{R}{v}\propto \frac{N^{1+\nu}}{\Delta\mu}.$$ Note that to recover the equilibration time of the unforced polymer we have to set $\Delta\mu\propto N^{-\nu}$ in the above equation. While this is the same scaling form as that of a force applied to the end, it is different from the weak/strong criterion that would have been deduced on the basis of energetics ($\Delta\mu N\sim k_BT$). This is a reflection of the manner in which we introduced the unimpeded version (as a force, rather than a chemical potential difference.) Nonetheless, we still expect the velocity, and hence the time scale in Eq. (\[tau(mu)\]) to saturate for $\Delta\mu\sim k_BT$, as explicitly demonstrated for the models considered in the next Section. Anomalous translocation {#sec_anomal} ======================= Having established some some (presumably generous) lower bounds, we now would like to focus on the true asymptotic dynamics of translocation. Given the limitations of analytical studies, the chief tool employed in this section is numerical simulations. Interestingly, we find that the lower bounds obtained in the previous section are actually quite restrictive. Sub–diffusive behavior of unforced motion ----------------------------------------- In a previous work [@ckk], we made a detailed study of the $N$–dependence of the mean translocation time. One of the central conclusions was that in the case of Brownian dynamics of a self-avoiding polymer, the translocation time scales as $$\label{tau} \tau\sim N^{1+2\nu}.$$ This is of the same order as the equilibration time of a polymer of length $N$, and also demonstrates that the actual exit time scales in the same manner as the bound established in the previous section. The above $N$–dependence of $\tau$ is inconsistent with simple diffusion of the translocation coordinate $s(t)$, reflecting the constraints imposed by the collective motion of the entire polymer. A related situation occurs for the fluctuations of a labeled monomer in space, which are also anomalous and sub–diffusive[@KBG] on time scales shorter than the equilibration time. Following this analogy, we suggested [@ckk] that the short time fluctuations of $s(t)$ follow the anomalous diffusion relation $$\label{andif} \langle\Delta s^2 (t)\rangle\sim t^{2\zeta}.$$ For Eqs. (\[tau\]) and (\[andif\]) to be consistent, we must obtain $\Delta s$ of order $N$, when $t$ of order $\tau$, leading to the exponent relation $\zeta=1/(1+2\nu)$. Note that for a phantom polymer $\nu=\zeta={1}/{2}$, i.e. the anomaly disappears in this limit, and the process becomes diffusive. (This differs from the corresponding motion of a labeled monomer [@KBG; @carm], which remains anomalous even for a phantom polymer.) This is consistent with a detailed study of a three–dimensional phantom polymer by Chern [*et al.*]{} [@chern] which concluded that the results may be interpreted in terms of diffusive motion of the translocation coordinate over a barrier. Such correspondence is likely a fortuitous coincidence for phantom polymers, and even in this case, the value of the effective diffusion constant could not be obtained from the geometrical features of the model [@chern]. ![\[cor\_lglg\_no\_force\] Temporal fluctuations of the monomer number $s$ located at the hole, averaged over the initial time $t'$ and over 1000 independent simulations, for polymers of lengths $N=8$, 16, 32, 64, and 128. ](FigB.eps){width="8cm"} To establish the anomalous nature of (unforced) translocation dynamics, we carried out Monte Carlo (MC) simulations on a model of [*two-dimensional self-avoiding*]{} polymers, described in Appendix \[app\_twoD\]. Simulations in two (rather than three) dimensions have the advantage of relative ease, and stronger differences from phantom polymers. We followed the dynamics of $s(t)$, focusing on the quantity $\Delta s^2\equiv (s(t'+t)-s(t'))^2$. This correlation function is depicted in Fig. \[cor\_lglg\_no\_force\], and was obtained by averaging over $t'$ of over 1000 independent simulations for $N=8$, 16, 32, 64 and 128. Two cautionary points must be made in considering this data: The first is that we have no a priori assurance that this process is stationary; the results may depend on both $t$ and $t'$, and consequently influenced by the averaging over $t'$. (For example, choosing a short averaging range may increase the effect of the initial conditions. We performed averaging over shorter ranges of $t'$ and did not see significant differences in the correlation functions.) Secondly, for each value of $t$, we can only include processes whose translocation time exceeds $t$; consequently, the size of the ensemble decreases with increasing $t$. (However, this effect is insignificant for $t$ several times shorter than the mean translocation time.) In Fig. \[cor\_lglg\_no\_force\] all available $t'$ are included, i.e. for each polymer the statistics was collected up to the moment that the translocation was completed. Since the values of $s$ cannot exceed $N$, as the time–difference $t$ becomes of order of $\tau$, $\Delta s^2$ saturates, as is apparent in the case of $N=8$ in Fig. \[cor\_lglg\_no\_force\]. However, for times shorter than $\tau(N)$, the results for different lengths seem to form a single curve. This instills confidence in the quasi–stationary character of translocation on time scales shorter than $\tau$. On the logarithmic scale the graph seems to have curvature for $t<1000$. This is probably a consequence of discreteness of the model, since corresponding differences in $s$ are smaller than 5. For larger times the slope of the curve approaches 0.80, which clearly indicates the presence of anomalous diffusion, and is consistent with the expected value $2/(1+2\nu)$, with $\nu={3}/{4}$ for 2D self–avoiding walks [@madras]. Thus, despite its finite duration, the translocation process at short scales resembles a stationary process (at least $\Delta s^2$ is insensitive to $t'$) which exhibits anomalous dynamics. ![\[phant\_pic\] “Snapshots” of a 128-monomer phantom polymer passing through a membrane in one dimension. Each line depicts the position $x$ (in lattice units) of the $n$th monomer at a fixed time. Different lines correspond to times when the 20th, 40th, …120th (bottom-left to top-right) monomer crosses the membrane (the thick line at $x=0$). ](FigC.eps){width="8cm"} Pulling on the end ------------------ As discussed in Sec. \[sec\_brown\], the polymer pulled by a force $F_{+}$ is relatively undistorted as long as $\tilde{f}\equiv F_+a N^\nu/k_BT\ll 1$, and the corresponding translocation times are not very different to those in the absence of force. Increasing polymer length at fixed $F_+$ ultimately leads to a regime with $\tilde{f}\gg 1$, in which the polymer is expected to be stretched into a sequence of blobs. It is the latter regime which is of interest us, and which shall be explored by examining the one– and two–dimensional polymer models introduced earlier. ### One–dimensional phantom polymer Simulations are carried out with the model 1D phantom polymer presented in Appendix \[app\_oneD\], starting with a polymer that is equilibrated on one (say, left) side of the “membrane” (a point on a 1D lattice) with one end point held at the membrane. The “narrow opening" is implemented by allowing only [*sequential passage*]{} of the monomers across the membrane, i.e. the $n$th monomer can move from the left to the right only if $(n-1)$th monomer is already on the right side. Conversely, the $n$th monomer may diffuse from the right side to the left, only if the $(n+1)$th monomer is on the left side. The first monomer of the chain is restricted to remain on the right throughout the process. We study the dynamics of translocation as a function of the force $F$ applied to the first monomer. However, the results become independent of $F$ when the reduced force $f\equiv Fa/k_BT$ exceeds unity, since it becomes very unlikely for the first monomer to move backwards. ![\[inf\_F\_phant\] Logarithmic plot of the mean translocation time as a function of length for a one–dimensional phantom polymer with an infinite force applied to one end. The circles represent passage through an opening, while the squares represent motion in the absence of a membrane. Each data point represents an average over 1000 processes.](FigD.eps){width="8cm"} Figure \[phant\_pic\] depicts a sequence of “snapshots” of a 128-monomer polymer going across the membrane. Since the maximal separation between adjacent monomers is two lattice spacings, the slopes of the curves are limited by 2. Note that for $x>0$ the polymer is almost maximally stretched, while the $x<0$ configurations resemble the initial random walk state. There is also much similarity between the profile of the polymer for $x>0$, and the the steady–state configurations of a polymer moving in the absence of the membrane, as depicted in Fig. \[phant\_nomemb\] of Appendix \[app\_oneD\]. The results of averaging the translocation time (over 1000 realizations) are indicated by the circles in Fig. \[inf\_F\_phant\]. The points appear to fall on a straight line in this logarithmic plot, with the slope of $1.93\pm0.01$ from a least-squares-fit. There is a slight upwards curvature, and the effective slope varies from 1.84 for points with $N\le 128$ to 1.93 for all the points, indicating potential crossover effects persisting even for $N=512$. From this data by itself it is difficult to determine the ultimate slope. However, we can compare the results with the times required to cross an imaginary membrane (i.e. unimpeded diffusion). This lower bound which was described in the previous section (and discussed in detail in Appendix \[app\_oneD\]), leads to the mean passage times depicted by the squares in Fig. \[inf\_F\_phant\]. The extrapolated slope for this unimpeded motion is indeed 2.00. Since the unimpeded crossing times are indeed shorter, the asymptotic exponent in the presence of the membrane has to be larger than or equal to 2. (Otherwise, for sufficiently large $N$ the curves will intersect causing longer times for passage if the membrane is absent.) We therefore conclude that the translocation of a phantom polymer in 1D should asymptotically scale as $N^2$, saturating the bound obtained previously. ### Two–dimensional self–avoiding polymer We next study the translocation of a self–avoiding polymer in 2D as a function of the force $F$ applied to the first monomer. Figure \[timedist\_fend\] depicts the distribution of translocation times for a 128–monomer polymer at three values of $f=Fa/k_BT$. As $f$ increases from 0.25 to $\infty$, the mean translocation time drops by less than one order of magnitude, and the [*relative width*]{} of the distribution decreases somewhat. Note that once $f\gg 1$, the first monomer always moves in the forward direction, and the results become independent of $f$. ![\[timedist\_fend\] The distribution of translocation times for a 2D polymer with $N=128$. Each histogram represents results from 250 independent translocations for forces $Fa/k_BT=0.25$, 1, and $\infty$ (from right to left) applied to one end. (The horizontal axis is logarithmic.)](FigE.eps){width="8cm"} Figure \[NTvsF\_end\] summarizes the results obtained for polymer lengths $N$ ranging from 8 to 128, and for a variety of forces. Each point corresponds to an average over 1000 realizations. The figure depicts the scaled inverse translocation time as a function of the dimensionless force $f=Fa/k_BT$. The vertical scale has been multiplied by $N^{1.87}$ to produce moderate collapse of data for different $N$s, although as explained further on, we do not believe this to be the correct scaling factor in the asymptotic regime. As expected, the curves saturate when $f$ significantly exceeds unity. ![\[NTvsF\_end\]Scaled inverse translocation time as a function of the reduced force $Fa/k_BT$ applied to the end–monomer, for $N=8$, 16, …128.](FigF.eps){width="8cm"} Note that all the points in Fig. \[NTvsF\_end\] belong to the regime where $\tilde{f}\gg 1$, i.e. when the shape of the polymer is expected to be different from equilibrium, and stretched. This is confirmed in Fig. \[pict\_fend\], which depicts configurations of the polymer in the process of translocation under the action of an [*infinite force*]{}. The front end of the polymer is quite stretched, somewhat resembling a [*directed*]{} random walk, suggesting that self–avoiding interactions play a secondary role in this limit. If the front part of the polymer controls the translocation time, it should have the same scaling with $N$ as the corresponding time for a phantom polymer, i.e. we expect $\tau\propto N^2$. Figure \[infF\_end\] depicts the dependence of $\tau$ on $N$; the effective exponent in this range is $1.875\pm0.005$. Although smaller than two, it is close to the value of the effective exponent of a phantom polymer in this range of lengths $N$. Given the bound presented earlier, it is reasonable to expect asymptotic convergence to this value. However, as far as we can judge by analogy to phantom polymers, we need $N$ to be much larger than 1000 to see an exponent of 2. ![\[pict\_fend\] Configurations of a polymer of length $N=128$, pulled through a hole by an infinite force applied to its first monomer. The circles, diamonds and triangles represent the initial configuration, and at times $t=60,000$ and 120,000 Monte Carlo time steps.](FigG.eps){width="8cm"} ![\[infF\_end\] Logarithmic plot of the dependence of the translocation time $\tau$ on polymer length $N$, when an infinite force is applied to the end–monomer. The line is a fit to a power law dependence with exponent 1.875.](FigH.eps){width="8cm"} Chemical potential difference ----------------------------- When the environments on the two sides of the membrane are different, the monomer at the pore experiences a force pushing it to the more favorable side. As explained previously, this form of forcing leads to yet a different form of asymptotic behavior which is once more explored using our two numerical models. ### One–dimensional phantom polymer Figure \[inf\_ch\_phant\] depicts the $N$–dependence of the translocation time $\tau$ for a 1D phantom polymer under the influence of an infinite potential difference, i.e. when the monomer at the pore can only move to one side. The data on the logarithmic plot are fitted to a straight line with exponent $1.45\pm0.01$, although there is a slight upward curvature even for $N=512$. Note that in the limit of large chemical potential difference, the monomers that have already crossed to the right side no longer play any role in the translocation process, which is thus constrained by the dynamics of the monomers remaining on the left side. In Sec. \[sec\_unimpeded\] we argued that the translocation time of an [*unimpeded*]{} phantom polymer should scale as $N^{3/2}$, since the leftmost monomer must travel a distance of order $N^{1/2}$ with a velocity of order $1/N$. Thus 3/2 should be a lower bound for the exponent characterizing the scaling of the translocation time with $N$. By comparing this limit with our numerical results, we conclude 3/2 to be the true asymptotic form describing our simulations. ![\[inf\_ch\_phant\] Logarithmic plot of the mean translocation time as a function of polymer length for a one–dimensional phantom polymer subject to an infinite chemical potential difference. The solid line is a fit to a power law with exponent 1.45.](FigI.eps){width="8cm"} ### Two–dimensional self–avoiding polymer Figure \[timedist\_bw\_chem\] presents the distribution of translocation times for a polymer with $N=64$ at several values of the dimensionless chemical potential difference $\Delta\mu/k_BT$. These distributions are quite wide — although they become (relatively) narrower with increasing $\Delta\mu$, the width of the distribution is of the same order as the average even in the limit of an infinite $\Delta\mu$. As expected, the average translocation times decrease and saturate when $\Delta\mu/k_BT$ exceeds unity. The results for different values of $\Delta\mu/k_BT$ and $N$ can be approximately collapsed by scaling $\tau$ with $N^{1.45}$, as shown in Fig. \[CurvsF\_chem\] (where each point represents an average over 1000 independent runs). The quality of the collapse is very poor, and we shall argue that $N^{1.45}$ [*is not*]{} the expected asymptotic power. ![\[timedist\_bw\_chem\] Distribution of translocation times of a 64–monomer polymer subject to chemical potential differences of $\Delta\mu/k_BT =0$, 0.25, 0.75, and 2 (right to left). (The horizontal axis is logarithmic.)](FigJ.eps){width="8cm"} ![\[CurvsF\_chem\] Scaled inverse mean translocation time as a function of reduced chemical potential difference $\Delta\mu/k_BT$, for $N=8$, 16, 32, 64 and 128.](FigK.eps){width="8cm"} Since (with the exception of $\Delta\mu=0$), the points in Fig. \[CurvsF\_chem\] correspond to a strong force at the pore, we expect the configurations of the translocating polymer to be different from those of a polymer in equilibrium. To explore this difference, in Fig. \[transloc\_pict\_chem\] we show a pair of configurations for an infinite chemical potential difference. We see that fast translocation results in a higher density of monomers immediately to the right of the pore, which may in principal slow down the process. (Recall that in the case of phantom polymers the monomers that have passed through the hole have no further influence.) Nevertheless, the whole process should still be bounded by the corresponding time for passage of an unimpeded polymer, as discussed in Sec. \[sec\_unimpeded\]. For considerations of this bound, the relevant time corresponded to motion of the leftmost monomer over a distance of size $R\propto N^\nu$, leading to a time scale growing as $N$ to a power of $1+\nu$ which in 2D is 1.75. The optimal data collapse of the inverse translocation times for $N\le 128$ leads to an exponent 1.45 (with a rather poor data collapse). Therefore, we extended our simulations for the case of the infinite $\Delta\mu$ to larger values of $N$. Fig. \[InfF\_TauvsN\_chem\] represents the dependence of mean translocation time on $N$, for polymer lengths up to 512. Data points with $N\le 128$ correspond to averages over 1000 independent simulations, while $N=256$ and 512 include 300 and 130 runs, respectively. The effective slope of the fit for data points below $N=128$ is $1.45\pm0.01$, while all the data points produce an effective slope of $1.53\pm0.01$. Also by directly measuring the effective slopes between successive pairs of points we definitely see an increase, with the last pair of points giving a slope of $1.60\pm0.03$. However, the increase is very slow, and the uncertainties are too large to enable a reliable extrapolation to large $N$. By comparing the results to data obtained in the simulations of phantom polymers we believe that eventually the exponent will reach 1.75; however, this will probably happen only for $N$ significantly larger that 1000. ![\[transloc\_pict\_chem\] Configurations of a polymer of length $N=64$ crossing a membrane from left to right under an infinite chemical potential difference. Full and open symbols represent times of $t=10,000$ and 25,000 Monte Carlo steps, respectively](FigL.eps){width="8cm"} ![\[InfF\_TauvsN\_chem\] Logarithmic plot of the dependence of the translocation time $\tau$ on polymer length $N$, for an infinite chemical potential difference. The solid line is a fit to a power law dependence with exponent 1.53.](FigM.eps){width="8cm"} Discussion ========== Translocation of a polymer through a pore is intrinsically a many body problem involving collective and cooperative motion of monomers crossing a membrane. If the process is sufficiently slow, it is possible for the segments on the two sides to come to equilibrium, in which case the dynamics of the translocation coordinate (the number of monomers on one side) is similar to Brownian motion of a single particle. However, the assumption of equilibrium must necessarily break down for long enough polymers; even more drastically when the polymer is pulled to one side by a force. We argued previously [@ckk] that the collective motion of the whole polymer slows down the translocation to the extent that the corresponding dynamics is anomalous and sub–diffusive. This is explicitly verified in this paper by quantifying the temporal correlations of the fluctuating translocation coordinate. We note that there is a general theoretical framework [@metz] for anomalous dynamics of a single variable, which may be profitably applied to this problem. One of the objectives of this paper was to find how dynamical anomalies affect the motion of the polymer under the action of a force. With this in mind, we also emphasized that the method by which the polymer is forced is quite important. In particular, pulling the polymer by one end leads to stretched configurations, and slower overall dynamics, compared to applying a chemical potential difference (which can modify the densities on the two sides). While pulling the polymer by optical tweezers is not the currently favored method for artificial translocation of biopolymers, for potential applications such as decoding the sequence, it should offer a better controlled procedure (whether by itself or in conjunction with a voltage difference). To understand the time scales involved in forced translocation, we initially provided what at first glance appear to be a quite loose lower bounds by analogy to [*unimpeded motion*]{} of a polymer, i.e. neglecting the constraints imposed by passage of the polymer through a hole in a wall. We then performed numerical simulations on two model systems: a 1D phantom polymer, and a self–avoiding polymer in 2D. Direct interpretation of the numerical results was made difficult by very large cross–over effects which persist in the length scales of 100–1000 monomers accessible to numerical study. Nonetheless, by appealing to the lower bounds found earlier, we concluded that (rather surprisingly) the actual translocation times scale in the same way as in the limit of unimpeded motion. Thus the constraints from the collective motion of the whole polymer turn out to be at least as important as those imposed by the requirement of passage through a hole. The experiments of Ref. [@meller] suggest that in the range of 10 to 100 base pairs, the pulling velocity of single-stranded DNA through a nanopore is independent of $N$, but with a non-linear dependence on the applied force. In Ref. [@ckk], we briefly speculated whether such behavior may be consistent with anomalies associated with polymeric constraints. As demonstrated in this paper, such constraints result in time scales (and hence pulling velocities) which must depend on $N$ for large enough $N$. The only case where we observe a non-linear force-velocity relation which is independent of $N$ is when short (hence equilibrated) polymers are pulled by a force applied to one end. We hope that these results encourage further experimental and analytical studies of forced translocation. In particular, it would be interesting to better characterize the manner in which external forces act on the polymer, even in the case of a voltage difference across the membrane. Hydrodynamic effects, not considered in this paper, are also likely to play an important role. Some of these effects can be included in more realistic numerical simulations, although in that case one should keep in mind the rather long crossover times that appear to be intrinsic to this process. This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant No. 38/02 (Y.K.), and by the National Science Foundation through grant No. DMR-01-18213 (M.K.). The one–dimensional phantom polymer model {#app_oneD} ========================================= Self–avoiding interactions are integral to understanding the statics and dynamics of real polymers. Nevertheless, it is useful to study one–dimensional [*phantom*]{} polymers, with no interactions between monomers which are not adjacent along the chain. Independently of the details of the interactions of adjacent monomers, long phantom polymers are [*harmonic*]{} [@deGennes_book], in the sense that the probability distribution of the distance $|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|$ between monomers $i$ and $j$, approaches a Gaussian for large $|i-j|$. In practice, such behavior already appears for $|i-j|\approx 10$, and on such a “coarse-grained” level one can view the polymer as consisting of monomers connected by springs whose energy is proportional to $({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j)^2$. In this limit, certain aspects of phantom polymer dynamics can be analyzed analytically, and we can compare the expected asymptotic behavior with the numerically observed dynamics. Such treatment provides both a better view of crossover effects, and produces some insights into the dynamics of more realistic (self–avoiding) models. We employ a phantom polymer model in which the monomers are restricted to sites of a 1D lattice with spacing $a$. The polymer connectivity is implemented by requiring the distance between adjacent monomers not to exceed two lattice constants. An elementary Monte Carlo (MC) step consists of randomly picking a monomer and attempting to move it in a randomly selected direction. If an external force $F$ is applied to the first monomer of the chain, then the probability to make a step in the direction opposite to the force is proportional to $\exp(-aF/k_BT)$. A MC time unit corresponds to $N$ attempts to move monomers. We first performed simulations of polymer motion when $F\to\infty$, in the absence of a membrane. Figure \[phant\_nomemb\] depicts several examples of spatial configurations in steady state, i.e. when the initial spatial configuration has been forgotten. The resulting profiles can be explained analytically by noting that in the Gaussian limit the equation of motion of a 1D phantom polymer is given by $$\label{gauss_chain} \frac{\partial^2x}{\partial n^2}=\frac{\partial x}{\partial t}\ ,$$ where we have used dimensionless units, (distance in lattice constants, and time in MC units, which leads to a (monomer) diffusion constant of order one), and omitted prefactors of order unity. The model used in the MC simulations has a finite stretchability, while a Gaussian chain can be stretched indefinitely. However, once the scaled force $f\equiv Fa/k_BT$ becomes significantly larger than unity, the dynamics becomes essentially independent of $F$, as a backwards step of the end point has negligible probability. Thus, instead of using $F\to\infty$, we can get set $f=1$, which leads to the boundary condition $\partial x/\partial n=-1$ at the beginning of the chain. For such a boundary condition we can easily find a stationary solution of Eq. (\[gauss\_chain\]), as $$\label{gauss_sol} x(n)=vt+\frac{v}{2}(n-N)^2 \ ,$$ where $v=1/N$. Simulations, of our model polymer in the absence of a membrane indeed confirm that the stationary state velocity is proportional to $1/N$. Moreover, the actual shape of the polymer in steady state, as depicted in Fig. \[phant\_nomemb\], is similar on average to Eq. (\[gauss\_sol\]). ![\[phant\_nomemb\]Five profiles of a 1D phantom polymer of length $N=128$, with an infinite force applied to one end in steady state motion. The curves are displaced along the vertical axis such that the position of the first monomer is at $x=0$. ](FigN.eps){width="8cm"} ![\[imag\_wall\] Scaled coordinate $x$ of the first monomer as a function of scaled time $t$, for $N=8$, 16, …, 512 (right to left), in the absence of a membrane.](FigO.eps){width="8cm"} The solution in Eq. (\[gauss\_chain\]) can also be used to understand the crossover to stationary motion, starting from a relaxed initial state. It is easy to see that the initial velocity of a point to which the force is applied is of order unity. As time progresses, this velocity decays as $t^{-1/2}$, until after time $\tau\approx N^2$ it reaches its final (stationary) value of order $1/N$. The monomer at the opposite end does not feel the external force in the beginning, and starts moving with velocity of order $1/N$ after time $\tau$. We also performed simulations of unimpeded polymer motion mimicking the translocation set-up, by considering an imaginary membrane located at position $x=0$ which has no effect on the motion of monomers. The initial configuration was chosen by equilibrating the polymer on one side ($x<0$), with the first monomer fixed to $x=0$. Then an infinite force was applied to the first monomer, and its position $x$ was tracked as a function of time, until all the monomers crossed to $x>0$. For every $N$, the results were averaged over 1000 independent runs. In these simulations the end point only needs to move a distance of order $R_g\sim N^{1/2}$ to cross to $x>0$. Moving at a steady velocity of $1/N$, this would take a time of order $N^{3/2}$, which is significantly shorter than $\tau$. Thus the time $\sim N^2$ required for the last monomer to start feeling the force sets the time scale for a polymer with a large force applied to its first monomer, to move a distance of order of its radius of gyration. The measured $N$–dependence of the translocation time is depicted by squares in Fig. \[inf\_F\_phant\]. There is a slight curvature in the logarithmic plot and the slope approaches $2.00\pm 0.01$, confirming $\tau\sim N^2$. ![\[true\_wall\] Scaled coordinate $x$ of the first monomer of a translocating phantom 1D polymer, as a function of the scaled time $t$, for $N=8$, 16,…, 512 (right to left).](FigP.eps){width="8cm"} The above arguments suggest that $(x/N)^2$ should be a linear function of $t/N^2$. Thus appropriately scaled plots of the motion of the first coordinates should collapse for different values of $N$. The actual picture appearing in Fig. \[imag\_wall\] is more complicated: while we see an approach to a single curve for the largest $N$, there are very strong finite size effects for moderate values of $N$. The results for crossing the imaginary wall are surprisingly similar to those for translocation of the phantom polymer through a hole (as described in Sec. \[sec\_anomal\]), as depicted in Fig. \[true\_wall\]. (Both plots are obtained by averaging 1000 translocation processes.) The linear behavior of these curves close to the origin confirms our expectation that at short times the velocity is proportional to $t^{-1/2}$. However, for scaled variables around 0.5 the line has a slight curvature, which distorts the apparent scaling relations, and creates the illusion of slightly different exponents. The two–dimensional Self-avoiding polymer model {#app_twoD} =============================================== We used a 2D lattice fluctuating bond polymer model [@carm] for MC simulations of a self–avoiding polymer. The monomers are placed on the sites of a square lattice, with the bonds between adjacent monomers restricted not to exceed $\sqrt{10}$ lattice constants. The excluded volume between monomers is implemented by requiring that no two monomers can approach closer than 2 lattice constants. The membrane with a hole is constructed from a row of immobile monomers arranged in a straight line, with a 3 lattice constant gap representing the hole. Such a hole is small enough to allow only a single monomer to pass through, thus enabling a unique identification of the monomer $s$ which separates the polymer into two segments on different sides of the membrane. An elementary MC move consists of randomly selecting a monomer and attempting to move it onto an adjacent lattice site (in a randomly selected direction). If the new position does not violate the excluded–volume or maximal bond–length restrictions, the move is performed. $N$ elementary moves form one MC time unit. The first monomer is not allowed to withdraw to the opposite side of the membrane. Since we are investigating a non–equilibrium process, the initial conditions may play an important role. We chose an initial state in which the first monomer was fixed inside the hole, and the remaining polymer was equilibrated for more than the Rouse relaxation time [@deGennes_book]. After such equilibration, the first monomer was released, and that moment was designated as $t=0$. [25]{} B. Alberts, [*Molecular Biology of the Cell*]{}, Garland Publishing, New York (1994). B. Hanss, E. Leal-Pinto, L. A. Bruggeman, T. D. Copland, and P. E. Klotman, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA [**95**]{}, 1921 (1998). J. Han and S. W. Turner and H. G. Craighead, , 1688 (1999). S. E. Henrickson and M. Misakian and B. Robertson and J. Kasianowicz, , 3057 (2000). A. Meller, L. Nivon, and D. Branton, , 3435 (2001). J. Kasianowicz, E. Brandin, D. Branton and D. Deamer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**93**]{}, 13770 (1996); M. Akeson, D. Branton, J. Kasianowicz, E. Brandin and D. Deamer, Biophys. J. [**77**]{}, 3227 (1999); A. Meller, L. Nivon, E. Brandin, J. Golovchenko, and D. Branton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**97**]{}, 1079 (2000). A. Baumgärtner and M. Muthukumar, , 3082 (1987). M. Muthukumar and A. Baumgärtner, Macromolecules [**22**]{}, 1937 and 1941 (1989). G. W. Slater and S. Y. Wu, , 164 (1995). E. Arvanitidou and D. Hoagland, , 1464 (1991); D. A. Hoagland and M. Muthukumar, Macromolecules [**25**]{}, 6696 (1992); P. Mayer, G. W. Slater, and G. Drouin, Appl. Theor. Electrophoresis [**3**]{}, 147 (1993); N. A. Rotstein and T. P. Lodge, Macromolecules [**25**]{}, 1316 (1992); I. Szabo, G. Bathori, F. Tombola, M. Brini, A. Coppola, and M. Zoratti, J. Biol. Chem. [**272**]{}, 25275 (1997). P.-G. de Gennes, [*Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics*]{}, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca (1979). M. Muthukumar, J. Chem. Phys. [**111**]{},10371 (1999). M. Muthukumar, , 3188 (2001). P. G. de Gennes, Physica A [**274**]{}, 1 (1999). D. K. Lubensky and D. R. Nelson, Biophysical Journal [**77**]{}, 1824 (1999). A. Baumgärtner and J. Skolnick, , 2142 (1995). R. Zandi, D. Reguera, J. Rudnick, W. M. Gelbart, preprint cond-mat/0301331 (2003). P. J. Park and W. Sung, , 3013 (1998). E. Slonkina, A. B. Kolomeisky, , 7112 (2003). H. C. Loebl, R. Randel, S. P. Goodwin, and C. C. Matthai, , 041913 (2003). C. Y. Kong and M. Muthukumar, Electrophoresis [**23**]{}, 2697 (2002). A. Meller, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. [**15**]{}, R581 (2003). M. Doi and S. F. Edwards, [*The Theory of Polymer Dynamics*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1986). K. Kremer and K. Binder, , 6381 (1984); G.S. Grest and K. Kremer, , 3628 (1986). I. Carmesin, K. Kremer, Macromolecules [**21**]{}, 2819 (1988). J. Chuang, Y. Kantor, and M. Kardar, , 011802 (2001). U. Gerland, R. Bundschuh and T. Hwa, preprint cond-mat/0306126 (2003). Z. Farkas, I. Derenyi, T. Vicsek, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. [**15**]{}, S1767 (2003). N. Madras and G. Slade, [*Self–Avoiding Walk*]{}, Birkhäuser, Boston (1999). S.-S. Chern, A. E. Cádenas, and R. D. Coalson, , 7772 (2001). R. Metzler and J. Klafter, in [*Adv. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**116**]{}, p. 223, ed. by I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice, Wiley (2001), and references therein.

--- abstract: 'The structural energetics of PdTi and PtTi have been studied using first-principles density-functional theory with pseudopotentials and a plane-wave basis. We predict that in both materials, the experimentally reported orthorhombic $B19$ phase will undergo a low-temperature phase transition to a monoclinic $B19''$ ground state. Within a soft-mode framework, we relate the $B19$ structure to the cubic $B2$ structure, observed at high temperature, and the $B19''$ structure to $B19$ via phonon modes strongly coupled to strain. In contrast to NiTi, the $B19$ structure is extremely close to hcp. We draw on the analogy to the bcc-hcp transition to suggest likely transition mechanisms in the present case.' author: - 'Xiangyang Huang, Karin M. Rabe and Graeme J. Ackland' title: 'First-principles study of the structural energetics of PdTi and PtTi' --- Introduction ============ Shape memory alloys (SMA) have attracted a great deal of attention due to their important technological applications, including mechanical actuator devices and medical stents. The shape memory effect also gives rise to superelasticity, which finds applications in stents and spectacle frames. The shape memory effect is related to a reversible martensitic (diffusionless) phase transformation. It has been shown that the martensitic transformation can be induced by applied fields, temperature or both, and the mechanical properties of materials, therefore, can be controlled accordingly. In many systems, including those discussed in the present work, alloying can dramatically change the properties and transition temperatures of the materials, reflecting the importance of electronic features, specifically Fermi surface effects, in the structural energetics of SMA. There are several complementary approaches to modelling of the shape memory effect. Continuum modelling allows investigation of the microstructural behavior, specifically martensitic twins, at the relevant long length scales. Material-specific behavior is incorporated through an empirical functional for the free energy in terms of strain and a twin boundary energy to set the length scale. In atomistic models, the individual atoms are considered explicitly and their interaction given by an interatomic potential, which may be determined empirically, from first-principles density-functional-theory (DFT) calculations, or a combination of the two. Crystal symmetry and defect energies emerge from this approach, which gives microstructures with both natural length scales (from defect energies) and time scales (since the atoms have definite Newtonian forces and masses). However, in atomistic models, the electronic degrees of freedom do not appear explicitly. First principles DFT methods are so computationally intensive that direct studies of microstructural behavior are impossible, but they are valuable both for obtaining quantitative atomic-level information regarding energies, forces and stresses independent of empirical input, and for understanding the electronic origin of this behavior. Thus, first-principles investigation of the energetic instability of the high-temperature structure towards the low-symmetry martensitic structure is in itself quite illuminating. The resulting information can then also be used as inputs to atomistic[@Pinsook] and continuum modelling of shape memory behavior. Typically, martensitic transformations are described using the strain as an order parameter, the classic example being the Bain bcc-fcc transformation of iron. However, there is an alternative approach appropriate for cases where the strain degrees of freedom are coupled to atomic degrees of freedom (phonons). Following the soft-mode theory of structural transitions,[@Cochran:1960] we start from a high-symmetry reference structure (here $B2$) and freeze in unstable phonons of this structure, with corresponding lattice relaxation, to produce the ground-state structure. The symmetry of the phonons determines the symmetry of the low temperature structure. This approach has been successfully used in the study of minerals[@GJA; @MCW; @BBK] and ferroelectric materials [@King-smith:1994; @Krakauer:1995; @Ghosez:1999; @Waghmare:1997] and has been extended to shape memory alloys in our previous study of NiTi[@Huang:2002]. Closely related to NiTi, PdTi and PtTi are shape memory materials with reasonable structural simplicity and extraordinary mechanical behavior. They undergo a martensitic transformation at tunable temperatures: PdTi transforms at 810K, but this can be reduced to 410K with 8% substitution of Cr for Pd[@neut]. The high-temperature “austenitic” phase has a simple cubic $B2$ structure (space group $Pm3\bar m$), while the ambient temperature “martensitic” phase has been reported as the orthorhombic $B19$ structure[@dwight; @donkersloot] (space group: $Pmma$). Previous first-principles studies in PdTi and PtTi[@BEN; @Bihlmayer; @Ye:1997] have shown that the observed electronic and elastic properties of the $B19$ structure are well reproduced by density-functional theory calculations assuming the experimentally determined structure. In this paper, we investigate the structural energetics of PdTi and PtTi from first-principles calculations of phonon frequencies as well as total energies. This allows us to examine local as well as global stability and to investigate transition mechanisms, drawing on the strong analogy between the $B2$-$B19$ and bcc-hcp transformations and showing that coupling of unstable modes to the strain is a crucial aspect of the structural energetics. In Sec. II, we describe the first-principles calculations. In Sec. III, we present and discuss the results for the phonon dispersion of PdTi and PtTi in the $B2$ structure and for the relaxed structures in which unstable modes and strains are coupled, yielding a low-symmetry ground state. In addition, we present results of calculations of the electronic structure, identifying and discussing features that affect the relative stability of the phases. Sec. V concludes the paper. Calculations ============ First-principles total energy calculations were carried out within density-functional theory with a plane-wave pseudopotential approach. The calculations were performed with the Vienna [*ab-initio*]{} Simulations Package[@VASP1; @VASP2], using the Perdew-Zunger[@Perdew:81] parametrization of the local-density approximation (LDA). Vanderbilt ultrasoft pseudopotentials [@Vanderbilt] were used. Our pseudopotentials include nonlinear core corrections and for Ti, we treated the occupied $3p$ levels as valence. The electronic wave functions were represented in a plane-wave basis set with a kinetic energy cutoff of 278eV. The Brillouin zone (BZ) integrations were carried out by the Hermite-Gaussian smearing technique [@Methfessel] with the smearing parameter of 0.1eV. The unit cells contain two atoms in the cubic $B2$ structure and four atoms in the orthorhombic $B19$ and monoclinic $B19'$ structures. The calculations were performed with a $16\times16\times16$ Monkhorst-Pack (MP) $k-$point mesh for the cubic $B2$ structure and a $12\times12\times16$ MP $k-$point mesh for both orthorhombic $B19$ and monoclinic $B19'$ structures (space group: $P2_{1}/m$), corresponding to 120 $k$ points in the $1\over48$ irreducible BZ of the simple cubic cell, 288 $k$ points in the $1\over8$ irreducible BZ of the orthorhombic cell and 576 $k$ points in the $1\over4$ irreducible BZ of the monoclinic cell. This choice of parameters converges the total energy to within 1 meV/atom. The density of states (DOS) for the $B19$ and $B19'$ structures were calculated using the tetrahedron method with Blöchl corrections[@blochl]. The BZ’s for the orthorhombic $B19$ and monoclinic $B19'$ structures are different. To compare the band structure of the two structures, we label the $B19$ band structure by regarding the $B19$ structure as a special case of $B19'$. The phonon dispersion relations were obtained with the PWSCF and PHONON codes [@SISSAcode], using the Perdew-Zunger[@Perdew:81] parametrization of the LDA, as above. Ultrasoft pseudopotentials [@Vanderbilt] for Pd, Pt and Ti were generated according to a modified Rappe-Rabe-Kaxiras-Joannopoulos (RRKJ) scheme [@Rappe] with three Bessel functions [@DalCorso]. The electronic wave functions were represented in a plane-wave basis set with a kinetic energy cutoff of 408eV. The augmentation charges were expanded up to 9000eV. The Brillouin zone (BZ) integrations were carried out by the Hermite-Gaussian smearing technique [@Methfessel] using a 56 [*k*]{}-point mesh (corresponding to $12\times12\times12$ regular divisions along the $k_x$, $k_y$ and $k_z$ axes) in the $1\over48$ irreducible wedge. The value of the smearing parameter was $\sigma$=0.2eV. These parameters yield phonon frequencies converged within 5 cm$^{-1}$. The dynamical matrix was computed on a $6\times6\times6$ [*q*]{}-point mesh commensurate with the [*k*]{}-point mesh. The complete phonon dispersion relation was obtained through the computation of real-space interatomic force constants within the corresponding box[@Giannozzi]. The choice to use two different first-principles codes was dictated by the individual strengths of each. VASP has a highly efficient scheme for calculating total energies, forces, and stresses, and relaxing to the minimum energy structure, but does not have the density-functional perturbation theory capabilities of PWSCF/PHONON. Even with slightly different pseudopotentials and [*k*]{}-point sampling, the results of the two codes are quite compatible. For example, the difference between the computed lattice parameters for the $B2$ structure of PdTi is less than 0.2%, and for PtTi the difference is less than 0.1%. Comparisons of normalized eigenvector components computed by VASP using the frozen phonon method and by PWSCF/PHONON also show good agreement, generally within 5%. Results ======= For the cubic $B2$ structure, our calculations yield the equilibrium lattice parameters of 3.112Å and 3.125Å for PdTi and PtTi respectively. For comparison, we also performed full-potential linearized-augmented-plane-wave calculations (FLAPW) within the LDA[@FLAPW]. The results are in excellent agreement with FLAPW results of 3.113Å (PdTi) and 3.127Å (PtTi) and in in good agreement with experimental values of 3.18Å and 3.17Å. The phonon dispersion relations along high symmetry lines, computed at the theoretical lattice parameters, are shown in Figure \[phonons\]. The frequencies are obtained by taking the square root of the eigenvalues of the dynamical matrix[@bornhuang]. Imaginary frequencies, as plotted as negative, are obtained from negative eigenvalues of the dynamical matrix. Thus, the structure is dynamically unstable against distortions following the corresponding eigenvector. It should be noted that the phonon frequency $\omega$ is [*not*]{} the reciprocal of the period of oscillation of this mode (as measured in molecular dynamics) nor is it the energy difference between adjacent quantum levels (as measured in neutron scattering experiments). These three quantities are equal only for a stable harmonic crystal. In the materials studied here the unstable modes may be related to a soft mode[@Cochran:1960] (as defined by MD or neutron scattering) at high temperature, and even the stable modes are expected to be significantly renormalized as a function of temperature by anharmonic effects. ![\[phonons\] Phonon dispersion relations for PdTi (upper) and PtTi (lower) in the $B2$ structure calculated at the LDA equilibrium parameters 3.112Å and 3.125Å respectively. The negative slope of the acoustic $\Gamma-M$ branch corresponds to a pure elastic instability ($c'=\frac{1}{2}(c_{11}-c_{12})<0$). Symmetry labels are assigned according to the conventions of Ref.  with Pd/Pt at the origin. The imaginary frequencies of the unstable modes are plotted as negative values.](fig-1a.eps "fig:")\ ![\[phonons\] Phonon dispersion relations for PdTi (upper) and PtTi (lower) in the $B2$ structure calculated at the LDA equilibrium parameters 3.112Å and 3.125Å respectively. The negative slope of the acoustic $\Gamma-M$ branch corresponds to a pure elastic instability ($c'=\frac{1}{2}(c_{11}-c_{12})<0$). Symmetry labels are assigned according to the conventions of Ref.  with Pd/Pt at the origin. The imaginary frequencies of the unstable modes are plotted as negative values.](fig-1b.eps "fig:") The dynamical matrices are related by mass factors to the force constant matrix: the second derivatives of the internal energy with respect to atomic displacements. The eigenmodes of the force constant matrix describe the potential energy landscape, and a negative eigenvalue indicates a static instability against a distortion following the corresponding eigenvector. While the actual normalized displacements of these eigenmodes are in general slightly different they carry the same symmetry labels as the eigenmodes of the dynamical matrix. Either choice is expected to serve as a useful pointer to a lower energy structure if the distorted structure obtained by “freezing in" an unstable mode is relaxed using first-principles forces and stresses, as we describe below. The phonon dispersion relations shown in Figure \[phonons\] show instability of the $B2$ structure similar to and even stronger than that of NiTi[@Huang:2002]. There are large regions of reciprocal space where one, two or even three modes are unstable, with dominant instabilities at $M$ and along $\Gamma$-$R$. The phonon instability shows that the observed high-temperature $B2$ phases of PdTi and PtTi are dynamically stabilized by anharmonic phonons, and should be characterized by large fluctuating local distortions. The calculated phonon dispersions are also reminiscent of those of unstable bcc materials such as Zr and Ti, which undergo martensitic transformations to hcp or $\omega$[@Sikka:1982] (via the $M$ and $\Gamma$-$R$ bcc-phonon equivalents respectively) phases. The analogy based on the view of $B19$ phases of PdTi and PtTi as chemically ordered hcp will be further strengthened below. In the soft mode approach, we search for local energy minima by choosing an unstable mode of the high symmetry structure, freezing in the distortion with varying amplitude, and relaxing the resulting structure. In many cases, the mode with the largest negative eigenvalue will generate the lowest energy structure. However, this is by no means generally true, as the energy gain is determined not only by the curvature of the energy surface but by higher order terms as well as the strength of coupling to strain and other modes, both unstable and stable, of appropriate symmetry. Indeed, in PdTi this “most unstable” mode (i.e. largest negative eigenvalue) lies in the $\Gamma$-$R$ branch rather than at $M$. This mode is typically unstable in dynamically-stabilized bcc materials such as titanium and zirconium where it is associated with a phase transition to the ideal $\omega$ ($C32$) phase. The fact that in the chemically ordered analog (Pd/Pt)Ti, the observed phase transition is to $B19$ rather than $C32$ illustrates the importance of anharmonic effects and strain coupling in the energetics of these materials. ![\[pattern\] Eigenmode of the doubly-degenerate $M_5'$ unstable phonon in the $B2$ structure. This mode generates the $B19$ structure in PdTi and PtTi. The structure is shown projected along the $\hat z$ direction, with Pd/Pt represented by filled circles and Ti by open circles. ](fig-2.eps) Structure Volume $b/a$ $c/a$ $\gamma(^{\circ})$ Wyckoff position $x$ $y$ $z$ $E-E_{B2}$ ------ ---------------------- -------- ------- ------- -------------------- ------------------ -------- -------- ------ ------------ PdTi $B19$ 29.63 1.753 1.634 90 Pd(2e) 0 0.6866 0.25 -0.0917 Ti(2e) 0.5 0.2008 0.25 $B19'$ 29.64 1.758 1.633 93.39 Pd(2e) 0.0114 0.6827 0.25 -0.0924 Ti(2e) 0.4475 0.1964 0.25 $L1_0$ 29.32 1.000 1.375 90 -0.0870 bco 30.16 1.837 1.579 105.79 Pd(2e) 0.0882 0.6764 0.25 -0.0573 Ti(2e) 0.3491 0.1983 0.25 $B19$ 31.33 1.74 1.62 90 $B19$ 31.74 1.75 1.64 90 $B19$ 30.3 1.72 1.62 90 Pd(2e) 0 0.689 0.25 -0.095 Ti(2e) 0.5 0.201 0.25 special $B19$ (hcp) 1.732 1.633 90 Pd(2e) 0 0.6666 0.25 Ti(2e) 0.5 0.1666 0.25 special $B19$ ($B2$) 1.414 1.414 90 Pd(2e) 0 0.5 0.25 Ti(2e) 0.5 0.0 0.25 PtTi $B19$ 29.84 1.758 1.668 90 Pt(2e) 0 0.6874 0.25 -0.1512 Ti(2e) 0.5 0.1958 0.25 $B19'$ 29.88 1.762 1.656 93.56 Pt(2e) 0.0154 0.6841 0.25 -0.1561 Ti(2e) 0.4455 0.1923 0.25 $L1_0$ 29.52 1.000 1.386 90 -0.1397 bco 30.57 1.835 1.561 105.80 Pt(2e) 0.0907 0.6816 0.25 -0.1231 Ti(2e) 0.3502 0.2001 0.25 $B19$ 30.66 1.75 1.663 90 $B19$ 29.75 1.75 1.666 90 $B19$ 30.9 1.72 1.62 90 Pt(2e) 0 0.688 0.25 -0.155 Ti(2e) 0.5 0.197 0.25 In the $B2$ structure, a doubly-degenerate unstable $M_5'$ zone-boundary mode implies a doubling of the unit cell to [**a**]{}=$(001)_{bcc}$, [**b**]{}=$(110)_{bcc}$, [**c**]{}=$(1\overline{1}0)_{bcc}$. For the distortion to be frozen in, we choose the eigenvector that gives the space group $Pmma$ of the $B19$ structure (Figure \[pattern\]). The unit cell is orthorhombic, with lattice parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$, two Wyckoff positions occupied by Ti and Pd/Pt yielding a total of two free internal parameters $v_{Pd/Pt}$ and $v_{Ti}$. The unstable mode corresponds to a distortion with fixed $v_{Pd/Pt}/v_{Ti}$ ratio. In PdTi, the ratios for the phonon and unstable force constant eigenmode as computed by PWSCF (VASP) are 1.55 (1.48) and 1.75 (1.64), respectively. In PtTi, the corresponding ratios are 1.25 (1.19) and 1.81 (1.62), respectively. In Table \[table:struct\], we provide the calculated equilibrium lattice parameters of the $B19$ structure, obtained by relaxing all five free structural parameters. The results are in good agreement with experiment, aside from the volume underestimate typical of LDA. The computed relaxed values of the ratio $v_{Pd/Pt}/v_{Ti}$ are 1.29 for PdTi and 1.16 for PtTi. The latter is quite close to the VASP phonon result, while the former is significantly lower. To understand this result more fully, we separate the coupling to strain from that to the second (stable) mode of the same symmetry by relaxing the structure to $B19$ with the lattice held fixed. The resulting ratios $v_{Pd/Pt}/v_{Ti}$ are 1.51 for PdTi and 1.41 for PtTi. Thus both couplings are significant in both systems, though the effects fortutiously nearly cancel in PtTi. This behavior is compatible with continuum models[@james]. Comparing the parameter values in Table \[table:struct\], we see that the relaxed $B19$ structure is close to the ideal hcp structure that would be obtained from packing monodisperse hard spheres, with parameters given in the last line of the Table \[table:struct\]. The lower symmetry arises from the “decoration” of the close packed plane with two different atomic species, which cannot preserve symmetry and maximise unlike near neighbors[@Kelsey]. This confirms that the phase transition is best thought of as a binary equivalent of bcc-hcp, not simply as a distortion of the $B2$ structure. There is an interesting contrast with NiTi here: the experimentally reported ground state NiTi $B19'$ phase has $b/a=1.603$ and $c/a=1.417$[@KTMO], far from hcp. Alloy structure $\omega$ (cm$^{-1}$) ------- ----------- --------------------------------------------- PdTi $B19$ 73, 90, 101, 139, 159, 184, 199, 231, 251 bco 94, 138, 146, 148, 164, 198, 200, 230, 256 PtTi $B19$ 68, 87, 98, 123, 165, 185, 196, 238, 260 bco 119, 171, 172, 173, 185, 210, 225, 247, 284 : \[table:phonon-gamma\] Optical phonon frequencies at $\Gamma$ for PdTi and PtTi in the $B19$ and bco structures by DFPT. The lowest frequency mode couples to the strain in the $B19$-$B19'$ transition. Alloy Frequencies $u_{Pd/Pt}/u_{Ti}$ ------- -------------- --------------------------------------- PdTi 74, 103, 159 [*-0.280*]{} (-0.217), 3.5684, -1.002 PtTi 69, 106, 161 [*-0.321*]{} (-0.283), 3.1159, -1.05 : \[table:ratio\] Calculated optical phonon frequencies and ratio of atomic displacements of $\Gamma_{4}'$ mode of PdTi and PtTi at relaxed $B19$ structure from force constant matrix eigenvectors (i.e. ignoring masses). The values in italic are the modes leading to $B19'$ structure and are compared with values in parentheses which are taken from relaxed $B19'$ structure. Frequencies here differ slightly from Table \[table:phonon-gamma\] because they are calculated from finite displacements[@prac] using VASP rather than DFPT.   In the soft-mode approach, there is no guarantee that the energy-minimizing freezing-in of one unstable mode will stablize the other unstable modes of the high-symmetry structure. In the present case, the undistorted doubled unit cell contains two sets of (110)$_{bcc}$ planes each of which is unstable to strain-coupled shuffling at all [*q-*]{}points. The simplest such mode in the $B19$ structure is $\Gamma_4$, which lowers the symmetry to monoclinic $P2_1/m$. The resulting $B19'$ structure has three additional free parameters: the monoclinic angle $\gamma$ and two internal parameters $u_{Ti}$ and $u_{Pd}$. These values are given for the relaxed $B19'$ structure in Table \[table:struct\], and compared with the normalized eigenvector displacements in Table \[table:ratio\]. However, it is important to note that the computed $\Gamma$ phonon modes in the $B19$ structures are in fact all stable (Table \[table:phonon-gamma\]). The lowering of energy by distortion to $B19'$ cannot be obtained by a pure $\Gamma_4$ phonon distortion, but only if the strain is allowed to relax simulataneously (Table \[table:struct\]). This may be the reason that in a previous calculation [@Ye:1997], $B19$ was reported to be the minimum energy structure. The relative energies of the various relaxed structures are given in Table \[table:struct\]. The $B19$ total energy is lower than $B2$. A simple estimate of the transition temperature is given by $\Delta E = kT_c$ which suggest $T_c$ of 1050K (PdTi) and 1755K (PtTi). These rough values are significantly larger than the experimental data for the hysteretical transition region[@donkersloot; @data1; @data2] (approximately 800K and 1400K respectively), but show the correct material trend. For neither system has a $B19'$ phase yet been observed experimentally. The small computed energy differences between $B19'$ and $B19'$, translated into temperature, are 28K and 39K for PdTi and PtTi, respectively. This suggests that the transition to the $B19'$ phase should occur at temperatures well below those at which the experiments were performed, so that our results are fully consistent with the available experimental work.  \    \   The binary-hcp phase interpretation also suggests that we should examine the binary-fcc equivalent, which is the $L1_0$ phase. $L1_0$ is accessible from $B2$ by a simple (001) shear and has lower energy[@BEN], however we find that $L1_0$ has slightly higher energy than $B19$. We consider one further structure: at the special $B19'$ values $\cos\gamma = a/2b$ and $4u-1=2v$, orthorhombic symmetry is restored. The side of the conventional cell of this body centered orthorhombic (bco) (space group $Pmna$) structure is doubled in the [**b**]{} direction, though the primitive cell still contains four atoms. Although at relatively high energy ( \[table:struct\]), this provides us a reference point for structures with large $\gamma$[@niti]. Note that a further shear to $\cos\gamma = a/b$ would give the $B19$ structure once more. The potential energies of continuous paths between the structures identified above are important for understanding the transformation mechanism. We compute the energies of three paths: $B2$-$B19$, $B19$-$B19'$ and $B19'$-bco. In keeping with the timescale separation between bulk strain and atomic motion, we define intermediate configurations by relaxing the atoms to their minimum energy configuration consistent with the applied symmetry and strain on the cell. The remaining four strain degrees of freedom are reduced to a single parameter by taking interpolations between the strains of the endpoint structures. For the $B2$ structure, we minimize the energy assuming the $B19$ space group, which gives a smooth evolution of the structure along the path. &gt;From Figure \[tote\], it is clear that there is no total energy barrier along the $B2$-$B19$-$B19'$ path, and that $B19$ represents the total energy barrier between $B19'$ martensitic variants. The $B19$ phase can be viewed as the binary equivalent of hcp, and the transformation path as the binary equivalent of the Nishiyama-Wassermann (NW) path. Using the analogy with the NW mechanism for the bcc-hcp transition, we can attribute the transition to a shuffling of (110)$_{bcc}$ planes[@Pinsook]. Structural instabilities in metals are typically related to details of the Fermi surface, and we have calculated the band structures of $B2$, $B19$ and $B19'$ to investigate this. In PdTi/PtTi the band structure is dominated by the [*d*]{}-bands, with the Pd/Pt bands lying below the Fermi level and almost fully occupied, and the Ti $d$-bands lying above the Fermi level (Figure \[bands-pdti\] and  \[bands-ptti\]), the band centers being offset by some 6eV. The free-electron like $sp$ bands are very broad, and play little role in the bonding except to donate some electrons to the Ti-d band. The large strain involved in the $B2-B19$ transition means that the Fermi surfaces are quite different ($B19$ having the lowest DOS at $E_F$[@Ye:1997]) and this transition cannot be related directly to the band structure. By contrast, the $B19$-$B19'$ transition is accompanied by the opening of a pseudogap at the Fermi level, a typical signature of increased stability. The band structures are very similar, the small difference which stabilises $B19'$ being traceable to the shifting above the Fermi level of a pocket of electrons around $B$. The distortion to $B19'$ is just enough to complete the topological phase transition which eliminates this pocket of electrons in both materials. Conclusions =========== In conclusion, we have performed [*ab initio*]{} calculations of the structural energetics of PdTi and PtTi. In each case we predict that the low temperature ground state structure will be $B19'$, with the (observed) $B2$ and $B19$ phases being dynamically stabilized. There are no total energy barriers between the structures, meaning that the phase space microstates that belong to the $B19'$ structure [*also*]{} belong to the $B19$ and $B2$ structures. In contrast to NiTi[@Huang:2002], the entire $\Gamma-M$ phonon branch is unstable. We showed that the $B19$ structure can be obtained by a “freezing in” of phonons of the $B2$ structure coupled to the shear associated with the $c'=(c_{11}-c_{12})/2$ elastic constant, but that no single dynamical-matrix or force-constant-matrix eigenvector leads to the low-symmetry phase. The $B19'$ then corresponds to a further strain coupled to a $\Gamma_4$ phonon of the $B19$ phase. Tracing the atomic motions of these instabilities shows that they are both related to shears of alternate $(110)_{B2}$ phases, and hence that the transition mechanism is the binary equivalent of the Nishiyama-Wassermann bcc-hcp mechanism. We thank R. D. James, I. I. Naumov, and K. Bhattacharya for valuable discussions. This work was supported by AFOSR/MURI F49620-98-1-0433. The calculations were performed on the SGI Origin 3000 and IBM SP3 at ARL MSRC. [1]{} U. Pinsook and G. J. Ackland, Phys. Rev. B [**58,**]{} 11252 (1998); Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{} 5427 (2000). W. Cochran, Adv. Phys. [**9,**]{} 387 (1960). G. J. Ackland and M. C. Warren, Phase Transitions, [**61,**]{} 215 (1997). M. C. Warren and G. J. Ackland, Phys. Chem. Minerals [**23,**]{} 107 (1996). B. B. Karki, M. C. Warren, L. Stixrude, G. J. Ackland and J. Crain, Phys. Rev. B [**55,**]{} 3465 (1997). R. D. King-Smith and David Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**49,**]{} 5828 (1994). R. Yu and H. Krakauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74,**]{} 4067 (1995). Ph. Ghosez, E. Cockayne, U. V. Waghmare and K. M. Rabe, Phys. Rev. B [**60,**]{} 836 (1999). U. V. Waghmare and K. M. Rabe, Phys. Rev. B [**55,**]{} 6161 (1997). X. Huang, C. Bungaro, V. Godlevsky and K. M. Rabe, Phys. Rev. B [**65,**]{} 14108 (2002). B. Winn, S. M. Shapiro, D. Schlagel and T. Lograsso, unpublished). A. E. Dwight, R. A. Conner, Jr. and J. W. Downey, Acta Crystallogr. [**18,**]{} 835 (1965). H. C. Donkersloot and J. H. N. van Vucht, J. Less-Common Met. [**20,**]{} 83 (1970). G. Bihlmayer, R. Eibler and A. Neckel, Phys. Rev. B [**50,**]{} 13113 (1994). G. Bihlmayer, R. Eibler and A. Neckel, Philos. Mag. B [**73**]{}, 511 (1996). Y. Y. Ye, C. T. Chan and K. M. Ho, Phys. Rev. B [**56,**]{} 3678 (1997). G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B [**47,**]{} R558 (1993). G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B [**54,**]{} 11169 (1996). J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**23,**]{} 5048 (1981). D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**41,**]{} 7892 (1990). M. Methfessel and A. T. Paxton, Phys. Rev. B [**40,**]{} 3616 (1989). P. E. Blöchl, O. Jepsen and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B [**49,**]{} 16223 (1994). S. Baroni, S. de. Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso and P. Giannozzi, http://www.sissa.it/cm/PWcodes. A. M. Rappe, K. M. Rabe, E. Kaxiras and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B [**41,**]{} 1227 (1990). A. DalCorso, A. Pasquarello and A. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B [**56,**]{} 11369 (1997). P. Giannozzi, S. de Gironcoli, P. Pavone and S. Baroni, Phys. Rev. B [**43,**]{} 7231 (1991). P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, and J. Luitz, WIEN97, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna 1997. (Improved and updated Unix version of the original copyrighted WIEN-code, published by P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, P. Sorantin, and S. B. Trickey, in Comput. Phys. Commun. [**59,**]{} 399 1990). Our FLAPW calculations were performed using a 120 [*k*]{}-point mesh in the $1\over48$ irreducible wedge. No shape approximations were made to the density or potential. The muffin-tin radii for Pd/Pt and Ti were chosen to be 1.343Åand 1.278Å, repectively. A $R_{MT}K_{MAX}$ of 10 were used. The tetrahedron method was used in the Brillouin zone integrations. F. Bassani and G. Pastori Parravicini, [*Electronic states and optical transitions in solids*]{}, ed. by R. A. Ballinger (Oxford, New York, Pergamon Press, 1975). M. Born and K. Huang, [*Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices,*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1956). S. K. Sikka, Y. K. Vohra and R. Chidambaram, Prog. Mat. Sci. [**27**]{}, 245 (1982). J. M. Ball and R. D. James, [*Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik*]{} [**S2 76**]{}, 389 (1996). A. A. Kelsey and G. J. Ackland, J. Phys. CM, [**12,**]{} 32, (2000). Y. Kudoh, M. Tokonami, S. Miyazaki and K. Otsuka, Acta Metall. Mater. [**33,**]{} 2049 (1985). G. J. Ackland, M. C. Warren and S. J. Clark, J. Phys. Cond. Mat. [**9,**]{} 7861 (1997). W. G. Moffatt, [*The handbook of binary phase diagrams*]{} (Genium Publishing, Schenectady, New York, 1984). T. Biggs, M. B. Cortie, M. J. Witcomb and L. A. Cornish, Metall. Mater. Trans A [**32A,**]{} 1881 (2001). According to various density functional calculations, this body centered orthorhombic structure appears to be more stable than $B19'$ in stoichiometric NiTi.

--- abstract: 'We describe the first lattice determination of the strong coupling constant with 3 flavors of dynamical quarks. The method follows previous analyses in using a perturbative expansion for the plaquette and Upsilon spectroscopy to set the scale. Using dynamical configurations from the MILC collaboration with 2+1 flavors of dynamical quarks we are able to avoid previous problems of haivng to extrapolate to 3 light flavors from 0 and 2. Our result agrees with our previous work: $\alpha^{\overline{MS}}_s(M_Z) = 0.121(3)$.' address: - 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK' - 'School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK' - 'Newman Laboratory of Nuclear Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853, USA' - 'Department of Physics, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, CANADA' - 'Department of Physics, the Ohio State University, OH 43210, USA' author: - 'C. Davies, A. Gray, M. Alford, E. Follana, J. Hein, P. Lepage, Q. Mason, M.Nobes, J.Shigemitsu, H. Trottier, M. Wingate, HPQCD and UKQCD collaborations.' title: 'The determination of $\alpha_s$ from lattice QCD with 2+1 flavors of dynamical quarks' --- INTRODUCTION ============ Precise determinations of the strong coupling constant are important for strong interaction phenomenology and searches for new physics. Lattice QCD provides a good methodology for such a determination [@ouralpha]. IMPROVED STAGGERED QUARKS ========================= The staggered quark formulation allows for much faster simulation of dynamical quarks than other formulations. It maintains a remnant chiral symmetry at the cost of not entirely removing the doublers, which appear as additional ‘tastes’ of quarks. The presence of the doublers gives rise to large lattice artefacts through taste-changing interactions. The realisation that these can be systematically reduced by a Symanzik improvement programme opens the way to generating ensembles with light dynamical quarks and small lattice artefacts. The MILC collaboration have generated a number of dynamical ensembles using the Asqtad action for the dynamical quarks and either 2 dynamical flavors, 3 degenerate dynamical flavors or 2 degenerate plus 1 heavier dynamical flavors, which should be close to the real world [@MILC]. In the 2+1 flavor case they have been able to reduce the light dynamical mass to 1/5 of the heavier one (which is approximately at $m_s$). The Asqtad staggered action includes a set of staples in place of the simple 1-link derivative, to suppress gluon exchange with momentum $\pi/a$ which couples the tastes together. These staples include a correction for low-momentum $a^2$ artefacts introduced by this procedure. In addition there is a 3-link derivative (Naik) term to improve rotational discretisation errors through $a^2$. The Asqtad action then has $\alpha_sa^2$ rotational errors and $\alpha_s^2a^2$ taste-symmetry breaking interactions. This is combined in MILC ensembles with a gluon action improved to the level of $\alpha_s^2a^2$ discretisation errors. We have calculated the $\Upsilon$ spectrum on these ensembles using the NRQCD action for the $b$ quark [@agray]. NRQCD ===== The physics of the bottomonium ($\Upsilon$) system is that of non-relativistic $b$ quarks ($v^2/c^2 \approx$ 10%) and so the NRQCD action is appropriate [@NRQCD]. We use a Hamiltonian correct through $a^2v^4/c^4$ where all terms are tadpole-improved using an estimate of the Landau gauge link [@agray]. For the purposes of determining the lattice spacing to set the scale for $\alpha_s$ we need only the radial and orbital excitation energies. These are experimentally well-determined and have the advantage that they are to a good approximation independent of heavy quark mass so that sophisticated tuning of the $b$ mass is not necessary. In addition they are good probes of the dynamical quark content of the theory because the $\Upsilon$ has no valence light quarks. The leading contribution to the radial and orbital splittings is at $\cal{O}$$(v^2/c^2)$ and so the expected systematic error from higher order (e.g. $\alpha_sv^4/c^4$ or $v^6/c^6$) terms not included in the NRQCD action is expected to be at the 1% level. The splittings can be determined very precisely on the lattice because of the speed of NRQCD correlator calculations. DETERMINATION OF $\alpha_s$ =========================== We use the perturbative expansion of the plaquette in terms of a physically well-motivated coupling, $\alpha_V(q)$, defined from the heavy quark potential: $$V(q) = - \frac{16\pi}{3q^2} \alpha_V(q) .$$ We then define $\alpha_P(q)$ by the following expansion of the logarithm of the plaquette, where $\alpha_P$ is equal to $\alpha_V$ to the order (second) to which we are working here. $$\begin{aligned} -{\rm ln}(plaq) = 3.0682(2)\alpha_P(q^*)[1+ \\\nonumber \alpha_P\{-0.770(4)-0.09681(9)n_f\}]\end{aligned}$$ The numbers in brackets indicate numerical uncertainties in the perturbative coefficients from the numerical integration involved in their calculation. This perturbative expansion is for 1-loop Symanzik-improved gluon action using tadpole-improvement with $u_0$ from the plaquette and $n_f$ flavors of Aqtad improved staggered quarks, as appropriate to the MILC ensembles. The scale, $q^*$, is set using the BLM scheme and is $3.33/a$ in this case. The perturbative expansion is well-behaved and shows small corrections for non-zero $n_f$. $\alpha_P$ can be converted to $\alpha_{\overline{MS}}$ using the equality of $\alpha_P$ and $\alpha_V$ and the continuum relation between $\alpha_V$ and $\alpha_{\overline{MS}}$. $$\alpha_{\overline{MS}}^{(n_f)}(q) = \alpha_P^{(n_f)}(e^{5/6}q)[1+2\frac{\alpha_P}{\pi}+{\cal O}(\alpha_P^2)]$$ RESULTS ======= Figure 1 shows results for $\alpha_P$ evolved to a common (and arbitrarily chosen) physical scale of 8.2 GeV for various MILC ensembles. Notice the clear separation of results for $n_f = 0$, 2 and 3. The figure shows results using either the $\Upsilon$ orbital splitting or radial splitting to set the lattice spacing. The orbital splitting is calculated from the energy difference between the $1^1P_1$ ($h_b$) and $1^3S_1$ ($\Upsilon$) states on the lattice. The experimental result for the $1^1P_1$ mass is not known and so is taken as the spin-average of the masses of the $1^3P$ ($\chi_b$) states. The difference is expected to be very small. The radial splitting is the difference in energies of the $2^3S_1$ ($\Upsilon'$) and $1^3S_1$ states, which is experimentally well-known. The value for $\alpha_P(8.2GeV)$ agrees well between the two determinations on the 2+1 dynamical ensemble but not on the others. This reflects the fact that the lattice spacing will depend on the quantity chosen to fix it if the vacuum does not have dynamical content which is close enough to the ‘real world’. We can take the result for $\alpha_P$ on the 2+1 dynamical ensemble, convert to $\alpha_{\overline{MS}}$ and run to $M_Z$. The result for $\alpha_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}$ is then 0.121(3). The dominant source of error (0.002) is the perturbative error from unknown higher orders in perturbation theory in eq. 3. This result agrees with the world average and with our previous results using dynamical (unimproved) staggered quarks [@ouralpha]. Other sources of systematic error give small effects. We can see from Figure 1 that the $n_f$ = 3 results show very little dependence on dynamical light quark mass. Extrapolating $\alpha_P$ with $m_{\pi}^2$ would change the final result by less than 0.001. The lattice spacing dependence of the result is expected to be very small but we currently have $\Upsilon$ results only on the coarser of the MILC set of ensembles. We can estimate the dependence from other results, however. Figure 2 shows the dependence of $\alpha_P$ in the quenched approximation on $a^2$ for improved and unimproved glue [@steveg]. Here we have used $r_0$ to set the scale (and quote $\alpha_P$ at a scale of $15/r_0$) because it can be fixed very precisely. Its disadvantage is that it is not clear how to convert it to a physical result. The figure shows that unimproved glue has very small dependence on $a$ and improved glue (appropriate to the MILC ensembles) even less. We fold this lattice spacing dependence along with quark mass effects above and NRQCD systematics into a final error of 0.003. CONCLUSIONS =========== The first calculation of $\alpha_s$ with 2+1 flavours of dynamical quarks gives results in agreement with previous work, but without extrapolating in $n_f$. Further improvements, including the calculation of the next order in perturbation theory, are planned to reduce the error even further. [**Acknowledgements**]{} We are grateful to the MILC collaboration for the use of their configurations. This work was supported by the DoE, the EU IHP programme, NSF, NSERC and PPARC. [9]{} C. Davies [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**56**]{} (1997) 2755. MILC collaboration, Phys. Rev. D[**64**]{} (2001) 054506. A. Gray [*et al*]{}, these Proceedings. G. P. Lepage [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**46**]{} (1992) 4052. We thank Steve Gottlieb for providing the unpublished MILC results for this plot.

--- abstract: 'A value of $ (-6.1\pm 0.9_{stat}\pm 0.5_{syst})\times 10^{-3} $ is obtained for the quadratic slope parameter $ h $ in the $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decay Dalitz plot at the NA48 experiment at the CERN SPS. The result is based on $ 14.7\times 10^{6} $ fully reconstructed $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0}\rightarrow 6\gamma $ decays. This is the most precise measurement of any of the Dalitz plot slope parameters in the charged and neutral kaon decays so far.' address: - 'Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università e Sezione dell’INFN di Cagliari, I-09100 Cagliari, Italy' - 'Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, U.K' - 'CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland' - 'Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russian Federation' - 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, JCMB King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, U.K' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università e Sezione dell’INFN di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università e Sezione dell’INFN di Firenze, I-50125 Firenze, Italy' - 'Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz, Germany' - 'Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire, IN2P3-CNRS, Université de Paris-Sud, 91898 Orsay, France' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università e Sezione dell’INFN di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università, Scuola Normale Superiore e Sezione INFN di Pisa, I-56100 Pisa, Italy' - 'DSM/DAPNIA - CEA Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France' - 'Fachbereich Physik, Universität Siegen, D-57068 Siegen, Germany' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica Sperimentale dell’Università e Sezione dell’INFN di Torino, I-10125 Torino, Italy' - 'Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Laboratory for High Energy Physics, PL-00-681 Warsaw, Poland' - 'Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Hochenergiephysik, A-1050 Wien, Austria' author: - 'A. Lai' - 'D. Marras' - 'L. Musa' - 'A. Bevan' - 'R.S. Dosanjh' - 'T.J. Gershon' - 'B. Hay' - 'G.E. Kalmus' - 'D.J. Munday' - 'M.D. Needham' - 'E. Olaiya' - 'M.A. Parker' - 'T.O. White' - 'S.A. Wotton' - 'G. Barr' - 'H. Blümer' - 'G. Bocquet' - 'A. Ceccucci' - 'D. Cundy' - 'G. D’Agostini' - 'N. Doble' - 'V. Falaleev' - 'L. Gatignon' - 'A. Gonidec' - 'G. Govi' - 'P. Grafström' - 'W. Kubischta' - 'A. Lacourt' - 'M. Lenti' - 'S. Luitz' - 'A. Norton' - 'S. Palestini' - 'B. Panzer-Steindel' - 'G. Tatishvili' - 'H. Taureg' - 'M. Velasco' - 'H. Wahl' - 'C. Cheshkov' - 'P. Hristov' - 'V. Kekelidze' - 'D. Madigojine' - 'N. Molokanova' - 'Yu. Potrebenikov' - 'A. Zinchenko' - 'I. Knowles' - 'C. Lazzeroni' - 'V. Martin' - 'H. Parsons' - 'R. Sacco' - 'A. Walker' - 'M. Contalbrigo' - 'P. Dalpiaz' - 'J. Duclos' - 'P.L. Frabetti' - 'A. Gianoli' - 'M. Martini' - 'F. Petrucci' - 'M. Savrié' - 'A. Bizzeti' - 'M. Calvetti' - 'G. Collazuol' - 'G. Graziani' - 'E. Iacopini' - 'H.G. Becker' - 'M. Eppard' - 'H. Fox' - 'K. Holtz' - 'A. Kalter' - 'K. Kleinknecht' - 'U. Koch' - 'L. Köpke' - 'I. Pellmann' - 'A. Peters' - 'B. Renk' - 'S.A. Schmidt' - 'V. Schönharting' - 'Y. Schué' - 'R. Wanke' - 'A. Winhart' - 'M. Wittgen' - 'J.C. Chollet' - 'S. Crépé' - 'L. Fayard' - 'L. Iconomidou-Fayard' - 'J. Ocariz' - 'G. Unal' - 'I. Wingerter' - 'G. Anzivino' - 'P. Cenci' - 'E. Imbergamo' - 'P. Lubrano' - 'A. Mestvirishvili' - 'A. Nappi' - 'M. Pepe' - 'M. Piccini' - 'R. Carosi' - 'R. Casali' - 'C. Cerri' - 'M. Cirilli' - 'F. Costantini' - 'R. Fantechi' - 'S. Giudici' - 'B. Gorini' - 'I. Mannelli' - 'G. Pierazzini' - 'M. Sozzi' - 'J.B. Cheze' - 'J. Cogan' - 'M. De Beer' - 'P. Debu' - 'A. Formica' - 'R. Granier de Cassagnac' - 'E. Mazzucato' - 'B. Peyaud' - 'R. Turlay' - 'B. Vallage' - 'I. Augustin' - 'M. Bender' - 'M. Holder' - 'M. Ziolkowski' - 'R. Arcidiacono' - 'C. Biino' - 'F. Marchetto' - 'E. Menichetti' - 'N. Pastrone' - 'J. Nassalski' - 'E. Rondio' - 'M. Szleper' - 'W. Wislicki' - 'S. Wronka' - 'H. Dibon' - 'G. Fischer' - 'M. Jeitler' - 'M. Markytan' - 'I. Mikulec' - 'G. Neuhofer' - 'M. Pernicka' - 'A. Taurok' title: 'Measurement of the quadratic slope parameter in the $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decay Dalitz plot' --- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ The $ K\rightarrow 3\pi $ decays Dalitz plot distributions can be expanded in powers of Dalitz plot variables $ u $ and $ v $ [@PDG]: $$\label{dalitz_plot} \left| M\left( u,v\right) \right| ^{2}\propto 1+gu+jv+hu^{2}+kv^{2}$$ $$u=\frac{\left( s_{3}-s_{0}\right) }{m^{2}_{\pi ^{+}}},\: v=\frac{\left( s_{1}-s_{2}\right) }{m^{2}_{\pi ^{+}}}$$ $$s_{0}=\frac{s_{1}+s_{2}+s_{3}}{3},\: \: s_{i}=\left( P_{K}-P_{i}\right) ^{2},\: i=1,2,3$$ where $ P_{K} $ and $ P_{i} $ are the four-momenta of the decaying kaon and $ i- $th pion ($ i=3 $ for the “odd charge” pion), respectively. In the case of the $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decay the expression (\[dalitz\_plot\]) reduces to [@Devlin]: $$\label{dalitz_plot_k3pi0} \left| M_{000}\left( R^{2},\theta \right) \right| ^{2}\propto 1+hR^{2}\: ,$$ $$R^{2}=\left( u^{2}+v^{2}/3\right) ,\: \theta =\arctan \left( v/\sqrt{3}u\right)$$ because of the identical final state particles. A positive/negative value of the quadratic slope parameter $ h $ would mean that asymmetric/symmetric final states are favoured. Based only on isospin symmetry and some general assumptions it is possible to define a relation $$\rho \equiv h+3k-\frac{g^{2}}{4\cos ^{2}\beta }$$ between the quadratic $ h,k $ and linear $ g $ Dalitz plot slope parameters and the final state interaction phases $ \beta $ which should be approximately the same for all $ K\rightarrow 3\pi $ decays [@Belkov1]. For $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decays the parameter $ \rho $ is equal to $ 2\times h $ ($ k\equiv h/3 $) and is not influenced by radiative corrections since all the final state particles are neutral. Thus a high statistics measurement of the quadratic slope parameter in the $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decay Dalitz plot could establish strong constraints to the Dalitz plot slope parameters and f.s.i. phases in other $ K\rightarrow 3\pi $ decays. Also, it could be useful in the evaluation of radiative corrections applied to $ K^{\pm }\rightarrow \pi ^{\pm }\pi ^{\pm }\pi ^{\mp } $ and $ K_{L}\rightarrow \pi ^{+}\pi ^{-}\pi ^{0} $ decays. On the other hand, by combining the $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decay Dalitz plot slope parameter $ h $ with the linear and quadratic slope parameters in the $ K^{\pm }\rightarrow \pi ^{\pm }\pi ^{\pm }\pi ^{\mp } $ decay it is possible to probe the validity of the $ \Delta I=1/2 $ rule. The $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ Dalitz plot slope parameter $ h $ has been estimated in the framework of ChPT [@Kambor1],[@Kambor2],[@Ambrosio]. The analysis includes a nonzero $ \Delta I=3/2 $ amplitude in the quadratic term of the Dalitz plot expansion (\[dalitz\_plot\]) by taking into account the next-to-leading $ O(p^{4}) $ corrections. The phenomenological coupling constants in the chiral Lagrangian are evaluated using a fit to the recent experimental data in both $ K\rightarrow 2\pi $ and $ K\rightarrow 3\pi $ decays. In this paper we present a measurement based upon a data set collected with the NA48 detector in 1998. The detector acceptance has been estimated using a detailed Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Detector setup and data taking {#detector-setup-and-data-taking .unnumbered} ============================== The NA48 experiment is dedicated to the measurement of direct CP violation in $ K_{L,S}^{0}\rightarrow 2\pi $ decays. The $ K_{L} $ beam is produced by $ 450 $ GeV/c protons from the CERN SPS hitting a $ 2 $ mm diameter and $ 400 $ mm long beryllium target at a production angle of $ 2.4 $ mrad. Passing through a set of collimators, a $ \pm 0.15 $ mrad divergent $ K_{L} $ beam enters the decay volume $ 126 $ m downstream of the target. The evacuated $ 89 $ m long decay volume is followed by a helium tank which contains four drift chambers of the charged particle spectrometer. After the tank a scintillator hodoscope, a liquid krypton electromagnetic calorimeter, a hadron calorimeter and muon veto counters are placed. The liquid krypton calorimeter (LKr) is designed to measure the energy, position and timing of electromagnetic showers [@LKr]. The $ 127 $ cm long detector consists of 13212 readout cells in a projective tower geometry which points to the middle of the decay volume. Each cell of $ 2\times 2 $ cm$ ^{2} $ cross section is made of copper-beryllium ribbons which are extended longitudinally in a $ \pm 48 $ mrad accordion structure. The readout cells are contained in a cryostat filled with about $ 20 $ t liquid krypton at $ 121 $ K. The initial current induced on the copper-beryllium electrodes is measured by $ 80 $ ns FWHM and digitized by $ 40 $ MHz FADCs. For the 1998 data taking period, the energy and position resolutions of the calorimeter were determined to be: $$\label{e_{r}esol} \frac{\sigma (E)}{E}=\frac{(3.2\pm 0.2)\%}{\sqrt{E}}\oplus \frac{(0.09\pm 0.01)}{E}\oplus (0.42\pm 0.05)\%$$ $$\label{x_{r}esol} \sigma (x)\simeq \sigma (y)\simeq \frac{0.4\: \rm {cm}}{\sqrt{E}}\oplus 0.05\: \rm {cm}$$ with $ E $ measured in GeV. The time resolution was better than $ 300 $ ps for photons with energies above $ 20 $ GeV. The energy non-linearity in the calorimeter response was found to be less than $ 1\times 10^{-3} $ between $ 6 $ GeV and $ 100 $ GeV [@Unal]. The LKr detector contains the so-called neutral hodoscope which is made of a 4 mm thick plane of scintillating fibres placed near the maximum of the e.m. shower development. The neutral hodoscope is used in the estimation of the main trigger inefficiency and for an additional measurement of the event time. A description of the whole experimental setup can be found elsewhere [@setup]. The $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0}\rightarrow 6\gamma $ data sample was acquired by three different triggers. The first one is the neutral $ 2\pi ^{0} $ trigger (NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $) in which each $ 25 $ ns the calibrated analogue sums of $ 2\times 8 $ LKr cells are used to construct $ 64 $-channel $ x $ and $ y $ projections of the energy deposited in the calorimeter [@NUT]. Based on these projections the total deposited energy $ E_{sum} $, the first and second moments of the $ x $ and $ y $ energy distributions, and the time of the energy peaks are computed. The centre-of-gravity COG of the event and the longitudinal vertex position are reconstructed as: $$\label{cog_{t}rig} COG^{trig}=\frac{\sqrt{M^{2}_{1,x}+M^{2}_{1,y}}}{E_{sum}}$$ $$\label{z_{t}rig} z^{trig}_{vertex}=z_{LKr}-\frac{\sqrt{E_{sum}\left( M_{2,x}+M_{2,y}\right) -\left( M^{2}_{1,x}+M^{2}_{1,y}\right) }}{m_{K}}$$ where $ M_{1,x} $ , $ M_{1,y} $ and $ M_{2,x} $, $ M_{2,y} $ are the first and second moments of the energy deposition, $ z_{LKr} $ is the longitudinal position of the calorimeter and $ m_{K} $ is the nominal kaon mass. The proper decay time $ \tau ^{trig} $ from the beginning of the decay region (just after the final collimator) in units of the $ K_{S} $ lifetime $ \tau _{S} $ is derived taking into account calibration constants. The events are accepted by the NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $ trigger if $ E_{sum}>50 $ GeV, $ COG^{trig}<15 $ cm and $ \tau ^{trig}/\tau _{S}<5 $. In addition, less than $ 6 $ energy peaks within $ 13.5 $ ns in both the $ x $ and $ y $ projections are required. The second trigger (NUT $ 3\pi ^{0} $) uses the same hardware chain as NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $ trigger but is specially set-up to select $ 3\pi ^{0} $ events by applying no condition on the number of the energy peaks. The third trigger (Nhodo) is based on the information from the neutral hodoscope. It requires a coincidence of signals from the upper and lower or the left and right parts of the calorimeter. In order to reduce the trigger output rates the Nhodo trigger and the NUT $ 3\pi ^{0} $ one were properly down-scaled. Data analysis {#data-analysis .unnumbered} ============= The $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0}\rightarrow 6\gamma $ events were selected from all events which met at least one of the trigger requirements. The selection criteria required 6 or more LKr clusters satisfying the following conditions: - The energy of the cluster had to be between $ 3 $ GeV and $ 100 $ GeV; - To avoid energy losses in the LKr, the distance from the cluster to the closest dead calorimeter cell was required to be greater than $ 2 $ cm and the cluster had to be more than $ 5 $ cm from the beam pipe and the outer edge of the calorimeter. All possible combinations of $ 6 $ clusters which passed these requirements were considered. In addition, the following further selection criteria were applied on each combination: - The distance between all cluster pairs had to be greater than $ 10 $ cm in order to avoid overlapping of the clusters; - All $ 6 $ clusters had to lie within $ 5 $ ns from the average cluster time; - The sum of the clusters energies had to exceed $ 60 $ GeV which is sufficiently far from the NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $ and NUT $ 3\pi ^{0} $ trigger threshold of $ 50 $ GeV; - The radial position of the center-of-gravity\ $$COG=\frac{\sqrt{\left( \sum ^{6}_{i=1}E_{i}x_{i}\right) ^{2}+\left( \sum ^{6}_{i=1}E_{i}y_{i}\right) ^{2}}}{\sum ^{6}_{i=1}E_{i}}\: ,$$ where $ E_{i} $, $ x_{i} $, $ y_{i} $ are the energies and positions of the six selected clusters, had to be less than $ 10 $ cm; - No additional clusters with an energy $ >1.5 $ GeV were allowed within $ \pm 3 $ ns from the event time to minimize possible accidental effects. The longitudinal vertex positions were reconstructed analogous to (\[z\_[t]{}rig\]): $$\label{z} z_{vertex}=z_{LKr}-\frac{\sqrt{\sum ^{6}_{i=1}\sum ^{6}_{j>i}E_{i}E_{j}\left[ \left( x_{i}-x_{j}\right) ^{2}+\left( y_{i}-y_{j}\right) ^{2}\right] }}{m_{K}}$$ where $ E_{i} $ and $ x_{i} $, $ y_{i} $ are the energies and positions of the six selected clusters. For each combination the invariant masses $ m_{1} $, $ m_{2} $ and $ m_{3} $ of all $ 15 $ possible photon pairings were computed using $ z_{vertex} $. By applying a $ \chi ^{2} $ criteria, the combination and pairing most compatible with the hypothesis that $ m_{1} $, $ m_{2} $ and $ m_{3} $ are equal to the nominal $ \pi ^{0} $ mass were picked. To ensure the purity of the sample, events which had one or more reconstructed tracks in the spectrometer or more than one hit per plane in the third and fourth drift chambers were rejected. To improve the resolution on the Dalitz plot variables $ R^{2} $ and $ \tan (\theta ) $ and to reduce differences in the energy resolutions and non-linearities between data and MC which may bias the measurement of the quadratic slope parameter $ h $, all the events were passed through a kinematical fitting procedure with constraints. Assuming the neutral kaon coming from the $ K_{L} $ target and a $ K\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0}\rightarrow 6\gamma $ decay the cluster energies and positions are adjusted to minimize $$\label{chi2} \chi _{fit}^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{6}\frac{\left( E_{i}-E_{i}^{fit}\right) ^{2}}{\sigma \left( E_{i}\right) ^{2}}+\sum _{i=1}^{6}\frac{\left( x_{i}-x_{i}^{fit}\right) ^{2}}{\sigma \left( x_{i}\right) ^{2}}+\sum _{i=1}^{6}\frac{\left( y_{i}-y_{i}^{fit}\right) ^{2}}{\sigma \left( y_{i}\right) ^{2}}$$ where $ \sigma \left( E_{i}\right) $, $ \sigma \left( x_{i}\right) $, $ \sigma \left( y_{i}\right) $ are given by (\[e\_[r]{}esol\]),(\[x\_[r]{}esol\]) and $ E_{i}^{fit} $, $ x_{i}^{fit} $, $ y_{i}^{fit} $ are the adjusted energies and positions of the photons as functions of the $ 15 $ decay parameters (the kaon energy, the vertex position, the three Euler angles of the decay plane in the kaon rest frame, the Dalitz plot variables $ R^{2} $ and $ \theta $ and the 2 angles of the $ \gamma $ directions for each of the decaying $ \pi ^{0} $s). While the effect of the kinematical fitting on the $ E_{K} $ and $ z_{vertex} $ resolutions was small, the $ R^{2} $ and $ \theta $ resolutions were improved significantly. In particular the RMS widths of $ (R^{2}-R_{true}^{2}) $ and $ (\theta -\theta _{true}) $ from $ 8.8\times 10^{-2} $ and $ 48 $ mrad became $ 3.0\times 10^{-2} $ and $ 31 $ mrad, respectively. Finally a cut $ \chi _{fit}^{2}<8.5 $ was applied to exclude the tails in the $ \chi _{fit}^{2} $ distribution which differ for data and MC. The numbers of data and MC events which passed the selection criteria are presented in Table \[result\]. NUT $ 3\pi ^{0} $ NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $ Nhodo -------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------------- Data events $ 12.43\times 10^{6} $ $ 1.48\times 10^{6} $ $ 0.82\times 10^{6} $ MC events $ 4.76\times 10^{6} $ $ 4.53\times 10^{6} $ $ 2.49\times 10^{6} $ $ h\times 10^{3} $ $ -6.36\pm 1.06 $ $ -4.49\pm 1.88 $ $ -7.53\pm 2.50 $ : \[result\]The summary of the number of accepted events and the measured values of the Dalitz plot slope parameter $ h\protect $ for the NUT $ 3\pi ^{0}\protect $, NUT $ 2\pi ^{0}\protect $ and Nhodo triggers. The errors are statistical only.\ To estimate the quadratic slope parameter $ h $, the $ R^{2} $ distribution for the data events was corrected for the detector acceptance. For this purpose about $ 8\times 10^{8} $ Monte Carlo events were generated with $ h=0 $. Then the quadratic slope parameter $ h $ was evaluated by a linear fit to the ratio of the data and MC $ R^{2} $ distributions (Fig. \[fig\_r2\]). The fit was done separately for each of the triggers using the corresponding MC samples within appropriate decay regions. An important feature of the analysis was that the ratio of the data and MC $ R^{2} $ distributions was fitted up to $ 1.9 $ (Fig. \[fig\_r2\]). This allowed us to significantly improve the stability of the result by excluding the part of the Dalitz plot most affected by the energy resolution and non-linearities. Since the shape of the detector acceptance on $ R^{2} $ depends mainly on the kaon energy, the whole analysis was done in kaon energy bins. Combining the measured values of the Dalitz plot slope parameter $ h $ presented in Figure \[fig\_h\_ediv\] and Table \[result\] we get a overall result of $ (-6.1\pm 0.9)\times 10^{-3} $. Systematics {#systematics .unnumbered} =========== Contributions of the detector acceptance estimation, the $ \chi _{fit}^{2} $ cut, the trigger conditions and the differences in the energy resolution, non-linearities and energy scale between the data and MC to the systematic error were considered. In order to study possible uncertainties in the acceptance we divided the data and MC samples upon the decay length $ \tau /\tau _{s} $, the longitudinal vertex position $ z_{vertex} $ and the centre-of-gravity COG. For each considered trigger sample the maximum deviation between the average value of $ h $ from Table \[result\] and the values obtained averaging over the dependence of a second variable ($ \tau /\tau _{s} $, $ z_{vertex} $, COG) was taken as systematic error (Table \[acc\_syst\_table\]). NUT $ 3\pi ^{0} $ NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $ Nhodo ---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------- In $ z_{vertex} $bins -6.50 -4.48 -6.72 $ \chi ^{2}/n.d.f $ 14.3/9 7.4/10 6.9/10 In $ \tau /\tau _{s} $bins -6.43 -4.58 -7.70 $ \chi ^{2}/n.d.f $ 14.6/9 8.9/9 7.2/9 In $ COG $bins -6.38 -4.64 -7.56 $ \chi ^{2}/n.d.f $ 12.4/9 11.6/9 5.7/9 $ \Delta h $ 0.14 0.16 1.0 : \[acc\_syst\_table\]The Dalitz plot slope parameter $ h\protect $ in units of $ 10^{-3}\protect $ for the different subdivisions of the data and MC.\ An important check of the reliability of the MC was done by comparing the data and MC Dalitz plot variable $ \theta $ (Fig. \[fig\_theta\]). A linear fit to the ratio of the data and MC $ \theta $ distributions clearly points to a very good agreement between experimental data and the simulation. The second considered source of systematics was the difference between the data and MC cluster energy resolution. Using the measured and kinematically adjusted cluster energies we established a strong control over the resolutions seen in the data and the MC. The differences in the resolutions were adjusted by an additional smearing to the cluster energies in the MC. The maximum change in $ h $ after these adjustments was found to be $ \pm 0.20\times 10^{-3} $ and was taken as a systematic error. A similar approach was applied in the study of the systematics due to the energy non-linearities leading to a $ \pm 0.17\times 10^{-3} $ systematic error on the $ h $. To take into account small non-gaussian tails in the cluster energy resolution seen in the data, a simplified parameterization was used to add the tails to the MC events. The effect of the tails was found to be negligible. Changing the energy scale in the MC by $ \pm 1\times 10^{-3} $ we got a shift in $ h $ of $ \pm 0.17\times 10^{-3} $. The influence of the trigger conditions was studied by subdividing the data and MC in $ \tau /\tau _{s} $ bins. Although that for the NUT $ 2\pi ^{0} $ and Nhodo trigger samples no systematic effect was found, the result for NUT $ 3\pi ^{0} $ trigger sample was affected by a small NUT inefficient region near the $ \tau ^{trig} /\tau _{s} $ cut. The data and MC were processed excluding this region and the change in the result of $ 0.1\times 10^{-3} $ gave us a systematic error due to the trigger. The stability of the result upon the $ \chi _{fit}^{2} $ cut was checked by loosening it to $ 17 $. No statistically significant effect on $ h $ was established. Furthermore, the result was found to be stable upon different cuts on the clusters energies and positions in LKr. No influence of a possible background contamination from $ \gamma $ conversions and Dalitz decays was observed. All the sources of systematic error were added quadratically and yield a total systematic error of $ 0.5\times 10^{-3} $. In addition, a second independent analysis has been performed yielding a consistent result. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered} =========== Our result for the Dalitz plot slope parameter in the $ K_{L}\rightarrow 3\pi ^{0} $ decay is $ h=(-6.1\pm 0.9_{stat}\pm 0.5_{syst})\times 10^{-3} $, where the errors are statistical and systematic, respectively. This result is in an agreement with the value of $ (-12\pm 4)\times 10^{-3} $ predicted in [@Kambor1]. The previous measurement of $ \left( -3.3\pm 1.1_{stat}\pm 0.7_{syst}\right) \times 10^{-3} $ performed by the E731 experiment [@E731], is comparable with the result presented in this paper. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We would like to thank the technical staff of the participating laboratories, universities and affiliated computing centres for their support and co-operation. [10]{} D.Groom et al., Review of Particle Physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1-878 (2000). T.Devlin and J.Dickey, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 237 (1979). A.Belkov et al., Phys. Part. Nucl. 26(3), 239 (1995). G.Barr et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A370, 413 (1996). V.Fanti et al., Phys. Lett. B458, 553 (1999). G.Fischer et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A419, 695 (1998). G.Unal for the NA48 collaboration, talk on “9th International Conference on Calorimetry in Particle Physics”, 9-14 Oct 2000, hep-ex/0012011. J.Kambor et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1818 (1992). J.Kambor et al., Phys. Lett. B261, 496 (1991). G.D’Ambrosio et al., Phys. Rev. D50, 5767 (1994). S.Somalwar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2580 (1992).

--- abstract: 'We study the dynamics of momentum entanglement generated in the lowest-order QED interaction between two massive spin-1/2 charged particles, which grows in time as the two fermions exchange virtual photons. We observe that the degree of generated entanglement between interacting particles with initial well-defined momentum can be infinite. We explain this divergence in the context of entanglement theory for continuous variables, and show how to circumvent this apparent paradox. Finally, we discuss two different possibilities of transforming momentum into spin entanglement, through dynamical operations or through Lorentz boosts.' author: - 'L. Lamata' - 'J. León' - 'E. Solano' title: 'Dynamics of momentum entanglement in lowest-order QED' --- Introduction\[s1\] ================== Entanglement is the physical property that Schrödinger described as *Not one but the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics*. It has played a fundamental role in the study of the completeness of quantum mechanics [@epr; @Bell64]. Nowadays, in quantum information theory, entanglement is considered as a physical resource, equivalent in many aspects to the role energy played in classical and quantum mechanics. Most applications in this novel field, like quantum teleportation [@Bennett93], quantum communication [@QuantumComm], quantum cryptography [@Ekert91], and some algorithms of quantum computation are carried out by using this intriguing quantum property [@NielsenChuang]. A thorough study of entanglement in quantum information theory would demand a natural classification between discrete [@MiguelAngel] and continuous variables [@Englert]. In the last few years two apparently different fields, entanglement and relativity, have experienced intense research in an effort for treating them in a common framework [@C97; @PST02; @AM02; @GA02; @GBA03; @PS03; @TU03; @ALM03; @PT04; @MY04]. Most of those works investigated the Lorentz covariance of entanglement through purely kinematic considerations, and only a few of them studied [*ab initio*]{} the entanglement dynamics. For example, in the context of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Pachos and Solano [@PS03] considered the generation and degree of entanglement of spin correlations in the scattering process of a pair of massive spin-$1/2$ charged particles, for an initially pure product state, in the low-energy limit and to the lowest order in QED. Manoukian and Yongram [@MY04] computed the effect of spin polarization on correlations in a similar model, but also for the case of two photons created after $e^+e^-$ annihilation, analyzing the violation of Bell’s inequality [@Bell64]. In an earlier work, Grobe et al. [@qedentang] studied, in the nonrelativistic limit, the dynamics of entanglement in position/momentum of two electrons which interact with each other and with a nucleus via a smoothed Coulomb potential. They found that the associated quantum correlations manifest a tendency to increase as a function of the interaction time. In this paper, we study to the lowest order in QED the interaction of a pair of identical, charged, massive spin-1/2 particles, and how this interaction increases the entanglement in the particle momenta as a function of time. We chose to work at lowest order, where entanglement already appears full-fledged, precisely for its simplicity. In particular this allows to set aside neatly other intricacies of QED, whose influence on entanglement should be subject of separate analysis. Here, the generation of entanglement is a consequence of a conservation law: the total relativistic four-momentum is preserved in the system evolution. This will also be the case in any interaction verifying this conservation law, as occurs in closed multipartite systems, while allowing the change in the individual momentum of each component. In the asymptotic limit, the infinite spacetime intervals involved in the S-matrix result in the generation of an infinite amount of entanglement for interacting particles with well-defined momentum. QED is a place where infinities can be avoided, and this will be also true, even though for other physical reasons, in the case of divergences appearing in momentum entanglement, a distinctive feature of continuous variables [@Englert]. We will also discuss two different possibilities of establishing transfer of entanglement between momentum and spin degrees of freedom in the collective two-particle system: through dynamical operations or Lorentz boosts. In Sec. \[fte\], we analize at lowest order and at finite time the generation of momentum entanglement between two electrons. In Sec. \[ges\], we calculate the Schmidt decomposition of the amplitude of a pair of spin-1/2 particles, showing the growth of momentum entanglement as they interact via QED. We obtain also analytic approximations of the Schmidt modes, both, in momentum and configuration spaces. In Appendix \[entangfi\], we include some notations and definitions related to entanglement theory for discrete and continuous variables. In Appendix \[maj\], we address the possibilities of transferring entanglement between momenta and spins via dynamical action, with Local Operations and Classical Communication (LOCC), or via kinematical action, with Lorentz transformations. Two electron Green function in perturbation theory\[fte\] ========================================================= To address the properties of entanglement of a two electron system one needs the amplitude (wave function) $\psi(x_1,x_2)$ of the system, an object with 16 spinor components dependent on the configuration space variables $x_1$, $x_2$ of both particles. The wave functions were studied perturbatively by Bethe and Salpeter [@bethe] and their evolution equation was also given by Gell-Mann and Low [@gellmann]. The wave function development is closely related to the two particle Green function, $$K(1,2;3,4)\, = \, (\Psi_0, T(\psi(x_1)\psi(x_2)\bar{\psi}(x_3) \bar{\psi}(x_4))\,\Psi_0)\label{m1}$$ which describes (in the Heisenberg picture) the symmetrized probability amplitude for one electron to proceed from the event $x_3$ to the event $x_1$ while the other proceeds from $x_4$ to $x_2$. If $u_{\mathbf{p}s}(3)$ describes the electron at 3 and $u_{\mathbf{p}'s'}(4)$ the one at 4, then $$\begin{aligned} \psi(x_1,x_2)&=&\int d\sigma_\mu(3)\,d\sigma_\nu(4) \,K(1,2;3,4) \gamma^\mu_{(3)}\,\gamma^\nu_{(4)}\nonumber\\&\times& u_{\mathbf{p}s}(3)\, u_{\mathbf{p}'s'}(4),\end{aligned}$$ will be their correlated amplitude at 1, 2. In the free case this is just $u_{\mathbf{p}s}(1)\, u_{\mathbf{p}'s'}(2)$ , but the interaction will produce a reshuffling of momenta and spins that may lead to entanglement. The two body Green function $K$ is precisely what we need for analysing the dynamical generation of entanglement between both electrons. Perturbatively [@bethe], $$\begin{aligned} K(1,2;3,4) \!\! & = & \!\! S_F(1,3) \, S_F(2,4)\,-\, e^2 \!\! \int d^4x_5\,d^4x_6 S_F(1,5) \nonumber \\ & \times & \!\!\! S_F(2,6)\,\gamma_{(5)}^{\mu} D_F(5,6) \, {\gamma_{(6)}}_{\mu} S_F(5,3) \, S_F(6,4)\nonumber\\ &+&\cdots -\{1\,\leftrightarrow\,2\}\label{m4}\end{aligned}$$ where all the objects appearing in the expansion are those of a free field theory. We may call $K^{(n)}$ to the successive terms on the right hand side of this expression. They will describe the transfer of properties between both particles due to the interaction. This reshuffling vanishes at lowest order, which gives just free propagation forward in time: $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\int d^3 x_1 d^3 x_2 d^3 x_3 d^3 x_4 u^\dagger_{\mathbf{p_1} s_1}(1) \, u^\dagger_{\mathbf{p_2} s_2}(2)K^{(0)}(1,2;3,4)}\nonumber\\&&\times\gamma_{(3)}^0 u_{\mathbf{p_a} s_a}(3) \,\gamma_{(4)}^0 u_{\mathbf{p_b} s_b}(4)= \theta(t_1-t_3) \, \theta(t_2-t_4)\nonumber\\&&\times \delta_{s_1s_a}\,\delta_{s_2 s_b} \delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}_1 - \mathbf{p}_a) \,\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}_2 - \mathbf{p}_b)\label{m41}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{\mathbf{p} s}(x)\,=(2\pi)^{-3/2}(m/ E)^{1/2} \exp(-ipx) u_s(\mathbf{p})$. The first effects of the interaction appear when putting $K^{(2)}$ instead of $K^{(0)}$ in the left hand side of the above equation. The corresponding process is shown in Fig. \[figqed1bis\]. ![Feynman diagrams for the QED interaction between two electrons (second order). The minus sign denotes the antisymmetry of the amplitude associated to the fermion statistics. \[figqed1bis\]](moller.eps){width="7.5cm"} To deal with this case we choose $t_1=t_2=t, \, t_3=t_4=-t$ and introduce the new variables $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\! t_+&=&\frac{1}{2}(t_5+t_6) , \;\;\; t_+\in(-t,t), \label{eqfte10}\\ \!\!\!\!\!\! t_- &=&\frac{1}{2}(t_5-t_6) , \;\;\; t_-\in(-(t-|t_+|),t-|t_+|) , \label{eqfte11}\end{aligned}$$ in Eq. (\[m4\]), yielding $$\begin{aligned} && \!\!\!\!\!\! \lefteqn{\tilde{K}^{(2)}(1,2;a,b;t)=} \nonumber\\ && \!\!\!\! \frac{2ie^2}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{j^{\mu}_{1a}j_{\mu 2b}}{\sqrt{2E_12E_22E_a2E_b}} \delta^{(3)} (\mathbf{p}_1+\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_b) \nonumber \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\! \times \int_{- \! \infty}^{\infty} \!\! \frac{dk^0}{(k^0)^2-(\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_1)^2 + i \epsilon} \! \int_{-t}^{t} \!\!\!\! dt_+ \mathrm{e}^{-i(E_a+E_b-E_1-E_2)t_+} \nonumber \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\! \times \int_{-(t-|t_+|)}^{t-|t_+|}dt_- \mathrm{e}^{-i(E_1-E_2+E_b-E_a+2k^0)t_-}-\{1\leftrightarrow 2\} \, , \label{eqfte12}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{K}^{(2)}(1,2;a,b;t)$ is a shorthand notation for what corresponds to (\[m41\]) at second order, and $j^{\mu}_{kl}\,=\, \bar{u}_k\gamma^{\mu}u_l$. After some straightforward calculations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\tilde{K}^{(2)}(1,2;a,b;t) = \frac{e^2}{4\pi^3}\frac{\delta^{(3)} (\mathbf{p}_1+\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_b)}{\sqrt{2E_12E_22E_a2E_b}} \nonumber \\ && \times \{j^{\mu}_{1a}j_{\mu 2b}[S_t(t)+\Upsilon_t(t)]-j^{\mu}_{2a}j_{\mu 1b}[S_u(t)+\Upsilon_u(t)]\},\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ with, $$\begin{aligned} S_t(t)&=&\frac{i}{\left(\frac{E_1-E_2+E_b-E_a}{2}\right)^2 -(\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_1)^2} \nonumber\\ && \times \frac{\sin{[(E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b)t]}}{E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b},\label{eqfte17}\\ \Upsilon_t(t) = \!\!\!\!\! && \frac{1}{|\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_1|} \nonumber \\ && \,\, \times \left\{ i \left[ \frac{1} {\mu(\Sigma^2-\mu^2)}+\frac{1}{\nu(\Sigma^2-\nu^2)}\right]\right. \Sigma\sin(\Sigma t) \nonumber \\ && \,\,\,\, - \left[\frac{1}{\Sigma^2-\mu^2}+\frac{1}{\Sigma^2-\nu^2}\right] \cos(\Sigma t)\nonumber \\ && \,\,\,\, + \left.\left[\frac{1}{\Sigma^2-\mu^2}\mathrm{e}^{-i\mu t}+\frac{1}{\Sigma^2-\nu^2}\mathrm{e}^{-i\nu t}\right]\right\}, \label{eqfte17bis}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \Sigma&=&E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b\label{eqfte17bis2},\\ \mu&=&\Delta+2|\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_1|,\label{eqfte17bis3}\\ \nu&=&-\Delta+2|\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}_1|,\label{eqfte17bis4}\\ \Delta&=&E_1-E_2+E_b-E_a,\label{eqfte17bis5}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &S_u(t)\leftrightarrow S_t(t), \Upsilon_u(t)\leftrightarrow\Upsilon_t(t),&\nonumber\\ &1 \leftrightarrow 2&\end{aligned}$$ $S_{t,u}$ are the only contributions that remain asymptotically ($t\rightarrow \infty$) leading to the standard scattering amplitude, while $\Upsilon_{t,u}$ vanish in this limit. We recall that these are weak limits: no matter how large its modulus, the expression in Eq. (\[eqfte17bis\]) will vanish weakly due to its fast oscillatory behavior. On the other hand, the sinc function in Eq. (\[eqfte17\]) enforces energy conservation via $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\sin{[(E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b)t]}}{E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b} =\pi\delta(E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b) . \label{eqfte18}$$ This limit shows also that the entanglement in energies increases with time [@lljl], see Appendix \[entangfi\], reaching its maximum (infinite) value when $t\rightarrow \infty$ for particles with initial well-defined momenta and energy. This result is independent of the chosen scattering configuration. Exact energy conservation at large times, united to a sharp momentum distribution of the initial states, would naturally result into a high degree of entanglement. The better defined the initial momentum of each electron, the larger the asymptotic entanglement. The physical explanation to this unbounded growth is the following: the particles with well defined momentum (unphysical states) are spread over all space, and thus their interaction is ubiquitous, with the consequent unbounded degree of generated entanglement. This is valid for every experimental setup, except for those pathological cases where the amplitude cancels out, due to some symmetry. In the following section, and for illustrative purposes, we will single out these two possibilities. i\) The case of an unbounded degree of attainable entanglement due to an incident electron with well defined momentum. We consider, with no loss of generality, a fuzzy distribution in momentum of the second initial electron, for simplicity purposes. ii\) Basically the same setup as in (i) but with a specific spin configuration, which leads to cancellation of the amplitude at large times due to symmetry, and thus to no asymptotic entanglement generation. On the other hand, for finite times, nothing prevents a sizeable contribution from Eq. (\[eqfte17bis\]). In fact, in the limiting case where $t^{-1}$ is large compared to the energies relevant in the problem, it may give the dominant contribution to entanglement. Whether the contribution from $\Upsilon_t(t)$ and $\Upsilon_u(t)$ is relevant, or not, depends on the particular case considered. Two electron entanglement generation at lowest order\[ges\] =========================================================== The electrons at $x_3, \,x_4$ will be generically described by an amplitude $F$ $$\begin{aligned} \psi_F(x_3,x_4)=\sum_{s_a,s_b}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_a \! \int \! d^3\mathbf{p}_b\, F(\mathbf{p}_a,s_a;\mathbf{p}_b,s_b)\nonumber\\ \times u_{\mathbf{p}_a,s_a}(x_3)\, u_{\mathbf{p}_b,s_b}(x_4)\end{aligned}$$ that should be normalizable to allow for a physical interpretation, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{s_a,s_b}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_a \! \int \! d^3\mathbf{p}_b|F(\mathbf{p}_a,s_a;\mathbf{p}_b,s_b)|^2=1.\end{aligned}$$ For separable states where $F(a;b)=f_a(\mathbf{p}_a,s_a)f_b(\mathbf{p}_b,s_b)$, $f_a$ and $f_b$ could be Gaussian amplitudes $g$ centered around a certain fixed momentum $\mathbf{p}^0$ and a certain spin component $s^0$, $$\begin{aligned} g(\mathbf{p},s)= && \!\!\! \frac{\delta_{ss^0}}{(\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\sigma)^{3/2}} \mathrm{e}^{-(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^0)^2/\sigma^2} \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ which in the limit of vanishing widths give the standard -well defined- momentum state $\delta_{s s^0}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^0)$. In the absence of interactions, a separable initial state will continue to be separable forever. However, interactions destroy this simple picture due to the effect of U. Clearly, the final state $$\begin{aligned} F^{(2)}(\mathbf{p}_1,s_1;\mathbf{p}_2,s_2;t) \!\!\! & = & \!\!\!\! \sum_{s_a,s_b} \!\! \int \!\! d^3\mathbf{p}_a \! \int \!\! d^3\mathbf{p}_b \tilde{K}^{(2)}(1,2;a,b;t) \nonumber \\ &\times& F(\mathbf{p}_a,s_a;\mathbf{p}_b,s_b)\label{teeglo1}\end{aligned}$$ can not be factorized. In the rest of this section we analyze the final state $F^{(2)}(\mathbf{p}_1,s_1;\mathbf{p}_2,s_2;t)$ in Eq. (\[teeglo1\]) to show how the variables $\mathbf{p}_1$ and $\mathbf{p}_2$ get entangled by the interaction. We consider the nonrelativistic regime in which all intervening momenta and widths $\mathbf{p},\sigma\ll m$, so the characteristic times $t$ under consideration are appreciable. We single out the particular case of a projectile fermion $a$ scattered off a fuzzy target fermion $b$ centered around $\mathbf{p}_b^0=0$. As a further simplification, we consider the projectile momentum sharply distributed around $\mathbf{p}_a^0$ ($\sigma_a\ll\mathbf{p}_a^0$) so that the initial state can be approximated by $$F(a;b)\approx \delta_{s_as_a^0}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}_a-\mathbf{p}^0_a) \frac{\delta_{s_bs_b^0}}{(\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\sigma_b)^{3/2}} \mathrm{e}^{-(\mathbf{p}_b-\mathbf{p}^0_b)^2/\sigma_b^2} . \label{eqges4}$$ Our kinematical configuration would acquire complete generality should we introduce a finite momenta $\mathbf{p}^0_b$ for the initial electron b. The reference system would be in this case midway between the lab. system and the c.o.m. system. In short, the choice $\mathbf{p}^0_b = 0$ will not affect the qualitative properties of entanglement generation. We will work in the lab frame, where particle $b$ shows a fuzzy momentum distribution around $\mathbf{p}^0_b=0$, and focus in the kinematical situation in which the final state momenta satisfy $\mathbf{p}_1\cdot\mathbf{p}_2=0$ and also $\mathbf{p}_{\alpha}\cdot\mathbf{p}_a^0=1/\sqrt{2}p_{\alpha}p_a^0$, $\alpha=1,2$ (see Fig. \[figgesinicial\]). This choice not only avoids forward scattering divergencies but also simplifies the expression of the amplitude in Eq. (\[teeglo1\]), due to the chosen angles. For sure, the qualitative conclusions would also hold in other frames, like the center-of-mass one. ![Experimental setup considered in the calculations. \[figgesinicial\]](exp.eps){width="40.00000%"} We obtain $$\begin{aligned} && \!\!\!\!\!\! E_1+E_2-E_a-E_b|_{\mathbf{p}_a=\mathbf{p}_a^0}^{\mathbf{p}_b=\mathbf{p}_1 +\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_a^0} = \nonumber \\ && \frac{p_a^0}{\sqrt{2}m}(p_1+p_2-\sqrt{2}p_a^0)+O((p_a^0/m)^3p_a^0) , \nonumber \\ && \frac{(\mathbf{p}_1+\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_a^0)^2}{\sigma^2} = \frac{(p_1-p_a^0/\sqrt{2})^2}{\sigma^2} +\frac{(p_2-p_a^0/\sqrt{2})^2}{\sigma^2} , \nonumber \\ && (\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_a)^2 = (p_1-p_a^0/\sqrt{2})^2+(p_a^0)^2/2 , \nonumber \\ && (\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_a)^2 = (p_2-p_a^0/\sqrt{2})^2+(p_a^0)^2/2. \label{eqges9}\end{aligned}$$ Here, boldface characters represent trivectors, otherwise they represent their associated norms. We perform now the following change of variables, $$\frac{p}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{1}{\sigma}\left(p_1-\frac{p_a^0}{\sqrt{2}} \right) , \;\;\;\; \frac{q}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{1}{\sigma}\left(p_2-\frac{p_a^0}{\sqrt{2}} \right) ,\label{eqges10}$$ turning the amplitude in Eq. (\[teeglo1\]) into $$\begin{aligned} && F^{(2)}(p,s_1;q,s_2;t) \propto\frac{\sin[(p+q)\tilde{t}]} {\tilde{\Sigma}}\nonumber\\&\times&\left[\frac{(j^{\mu}_{1a}j_{\mu 2b})^{s_a=s_a^0}_{s_b=s_b^0}}{p^2+\left(\frac{p_a^0}{\sigma} \right)^2}-\frac{(j^{\mu}_{1b}j_{\mu 2a})^{s_a=s_a^0}_{s_b=s_b^0}}{q^2+\left(\frac{p_a^0}{\sigma} \right)^2}\right]\mathrm{e}^{-p^2/2}\mathrm{e}^{-q^2/2}\nonumber\\ &+&\left(\frac{(j^{\mu}_{1a}j_{\mu 2b})^{s_a=s_a^0}_{s_b=s_b^0}}{\tilde{\mu}/2}\right. \left\{-\frac{1}{\tilde{\mu}(\tilde{\Sigma}^2-\tilde{\mu}^2)} \right.\tilde{\Sigma}\sin[(p+q)\tilde{t}]\nonumber\\&-&\left. \frac{i}{\tilde{\Sigma}^2-\tilde{\mu}^2} \left(\cos[(p+q)\tilde{t}]-\mathrm{e}^{-i\frac{2m}{p_a^0} \tilde{\mu}\tilde{t}}\right)\right\} \nonumber\\&-&\Biggl.\{p,1\leftrightarrow q,2\}\Biggr)\mathrm{e}^{-p^2/2}\mathrm{e}^{-q^2/2}, \label{eqges11}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\Sigma}=\frac{p_a^0}{2m}(p+q)$, $\tilde{\mu}=\sqrt{2}\sqrt{p^2+\left(\frac{p_a^0}{\sigma}\right)^2}$, and $\tilde{t}\equiv\frac{p_a^0\sigma}{2m}t$. In the following, we analyze different specific spin configurations in the non-relativistic limit with the help of Eq. (\[eqges11\]). We consider an incident particle energy of around $1$ eV$\ll m$ ($p_a^0=1$ KeV), and a momentum spreading $\sigma$ one order of magnitude less than $p_a^0$. We make this choice of $p_a^0$ and $\sigma$ to obtain longer interaction times, of femtoseconds ($t=\frac{2m}{p_a^0\sigma}\tilde{t}$). Thus the parameter values we consider in the subsequent analysis are $p_a^0/m=0.002$ and $\sigma/m=0.0002$. We consider the initial spin state for particles $a$ and $b$ as $$\begin{aligned} |s_a^0s_b^0\rangle =|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle , \label{eqsges1}\end{aligned}$$ along an arbitrary direction that will serve to measure spin components in all the calculation. The physical results we are interested in do not depend on this choice of direction. The QED interaction, in the non-relativistic regime considered, at lowest order, is a Coulomb interaction that does not change the spins of the fermions. In fact, $(j^{\mu}_{1a}j_{\mu 2b})\simeq 4m^2\delta_{s_a^0s_1}\delta_{s_b^0s_2}$, $(j^{\mu}_{1b}j_{\mu 2a})\simeq 4m^2\delta_{s_b^0s_1}\delta_{s_a^0s_2}$. Given the initial spin states of Eq. (\[eqsges1\]), depending on whether the channel is $t$ or $u$, the possible final spin states are $$\begin{aligned} |s_1s_2\rangle_t &=& |\uparrow\downarrow\rangle,\label{eqsges1bis}\\ |s_1s_2\rangle_u&=&|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle . \label{eqsges1bisbis}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the fact that the considered fermions are identical, the resulting amplitude after applying the Schmidt procedure is a superposition of Slater determinants [@entanglefermion1; @ESB02; @entanglefermion2]. Whenever this decomposition contains just one Slater determinant (Slater number equal to 1) the state is not entangled: its correlations are just due to the statistics and are not useful for the applications because they do not contain any additional physical information. If the amplitude contains more than one determinant, the state is entangled. Splitting the amplitude in the corresponding ones for the $t$ and $u$ channels, we have $$\begin{aligned} &&F^{(2)}(p,\uparrow;q,\downarrow;t)_t\propto \nonumber \\ && \frac{\sin[(p+q)\tilde{t}]}{\tilde{\Sigma}}\frac{1}{p^2 +\left(\frac{p_a^0}{\sigma}\right)^2} \mathrm{e}^{-p^2/2}\mathrm{e}^{-q^2/2}\nonumber\\ &+&\frac{1}{\tilde{\mu}/2}\left\{-\frac{1}{\tilde{\mu} (\tilde{\Sigma}^2-\tilde{\mu}^2)} \right.\tilde{\Sigma}\sin[(p+q)\tilde{t}]\nonumber \\ & - & \left. \frac{i}{\tilde{\Sigma}^2-\tilde{\mu}^2} \left(\cos[(p+q)\tilde{t}]-\mathrm{e}^{-i\frac{2m}{p_a^0} \tilde{\mu}\tilde{t}}\right)\right\} \nonumber \\ & \times & \mathrm{e}^{-p^2/2}\mathrm{e}^{-q^2/2}, \label{eqsges3}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} & F^{(2)}(p,\downarrow;q,\uparrow;t)_u \leftrightarrow F^{(2)}(p,\uparrow;q,\downarrow;t)_t , & \nonumber \\ & p \leftrightarrow q . & \label{eqsges3bis}\end{aligned}$$ In the infinite time limit the sinc function converges to $\delta(p+q)$, which is a distribution with infinite entanglement [@lljl]. The presence of the sinc function is due to the finite time interval of integration in Eq. (\[eqfte12\]). This kind of behavior can be interpreted as a time diffraction phenomenon [@moshinsky]. It has direct analogy with the diffraction of electromagnetic waves that go through a single slit of width $2L$ comparable to the wavelength $\lambda$. The analogy is complete if one identifies $\tilde{t}$ with $L$ and $p+q$ with $2\pi/\lambda$. In Fig. \[figsqed1\], we plot the modulus of Eq. (\[eqsges3\]) versus $p$, $q$, at times $\tilde{t}=1,2,3,4$. This graphic shows the progressive clustering of the amplitude around the curve $q=-p$, due to the function $\frac{\sin[(p+q)\tilde{t}]}{p+q}$. This is a clear signal of the growth in time of the momentum entanglement. Fig. \[figsqed1\] puts also in evidence the previously mentioned time diffraction pattern. ![(Color online) $|F^{(2)}(p,\uparrow;q,\downarrow;t)_t|$ versus $p$, $q$ at $\tilde{t}=1,2,3,4$ . \[figsqed1\]](qedcontoursinglete.eps) We have applied the method for obtaining the Schmidt decomposition given in Ref. [@lljl] to Eq. (\[eqsges3\]), considering for the orthonormal functions $\{O^{(1)}(p)\}$, $\{O^{(2)}(q)\}$ Hermite polynomials with their weights, to take advantage of the two Gaussian functions. We obtain the Schmidt decomposition for $\tilde{t}=1,2,3,4$, where the error with matrices $C_{mn}$ $12\times 12$ or smaller is $d^{2}_{m_0,n_0}\leq 7 \cdot10^{-3}$ in all considered cases. We plot in Fig. \[figsqed2\] the coefficients $\lambda_n$ of the Schmidt decomposition of Eq. (\[eqsges3\]) as a function of $n$, for times $\tilde{t}=1,2,3,4$. The number of $\lambda_n$ different from zero increases as time is elapsed, and thus the entanglement grows. The complete Schmidt decomposition, including channels $t$ and $u$, is given in terms of Slater determinants [@entanglefermion1], and is usually called Slater decomposition. It is obtained antisymmetrizing the amplitude for channel $t$ $$\begin{aligned} &&F^{(2)}(p,s_1;q,s_2;t) \propto \sum_n \sqrt{\lambda_n(\tilde{t})}\nonumber\\&\times&\frac{\psi^{(1)}_n (p,\tilde{t})|\uparrow\rangle\psi^{(2)}_n(q,\tilde{t})|\downarrow \rangle -\psi^{(2)}_n(p,\tilde{t})|\downarrow\rangle\psi^{(1)}_n(q,\tilde{t}) |\uparrow\rangle}{\sqrt{2}},\nonumber\\\label{eqges13bis}\end{aligned}$$ where the modes $\psi^{(1)}_n(k,\tilde{t})$ and $\psi^{(2)}_n(k,\tilde{t})$ are the Schmidt modes of the channel $t$ obtained for particles $1$ and $2$ respectively, and they correspond to the modes of the channel $u$ for particles $2$ and $1$ respectively. ![Eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ versus $n$ at times $\tilde{t} =1,2,3,4$.\[figsqed2\]](qedautosinglete.eps) A measure of the entanglement of a pure bipartite state of the form of Eq. (\[eqges13bis\]), equivalent to the entropy of entanglement $S$, is given by the Slater number [@qedentang] $$K\equiv \frac{1}{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\lambda_n^2} \, . \label{eqsges4}$$ $K$ gives the number of effective Slater determinants which appear in a certain pure bipartite state in the form of Eq. (\[eqges13bis\]). The larger the value of $K$, the larger the entanglement. For $K=1$ (one Slater determinant) there is no entanglement. This measure is obtained considering the average probability, which is given by $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\lambda_n^2$ ($\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\lambda_n=1$, and thus $\{\lambda_n\}$ can be seen as a probability distribution). The inverse of the average probability is the Slater number. Its attractive properties are that it is independent of the representation of the wavefunction, it is gauge invariant, and it reaches its minimum value of 1 for the separable state (single Slater determinant). In Fig. \[figsqed3\], we show the Slater number $K$ as a function of elapsed time $\tilde{t}$, verifying that the entanglement increases as the system evolves. It can be appreciated in this figure the monotonic growth of entanglement, due to the fact that we have considered an incident electron with well defined momentum. In realistic physical situations with wave packets, this growth would stop, due to the momentum spread of the initial electrons. The general trend is that the higher the precision in the incident electron momentum, the larger the resulting asymptotic entanglement. The fact that the entanglement in momenta between the two fermions increases with time is a consequence of the interaction between them. We remark that the entanglement cannot grow unless the two particles “feel” each other. The correlations in momenta are not specific of QED: the effect of any interaction producing momentum exchange while conserving total momentum will translate into momentum correlations. ![Slater number $K$ as a function of the elapsed time $\tilde{t}$.\[figsqed3\]](qedKsinglete.eps){width="6cm"} The Schmidt modes in momenta space for the amplitude of Eq. (\[eqsges3\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned} \psi^{(\alpha)}_m(k,\tilde{t})&\simeq&\mathrm{e}^{-k^2/2} \sum_{n=0}^{n_0}(\sqrt{\pi}2^nn!)^{-1/2} A^{(\alpha)}_{mn}(\tilde{t})H_n(k)\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\ \alpha &=&1,2, \label{eqges13}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_0$ is the corresponding cut-off and the values of the coefficients $A^{(\alpha)}_{mn}(\tilde{t})$ are obtained through the method given in Ref. [@lljl]. The modes in momenta space depend on time because they are not stationary states: the QED dynamics between the two fermions and the indeterminacy on the energy at early stages of the interaction give this dependence. By construction, the coefficients $A^{(\alpha)}_{mn}(\tilde{t})$ do not depend on $p$, $q$. We plot in Fig. \[figsqed4\] the Schmidt modes $\psi^{(1)}_n(p,\tilde{t})$ at times $\tilde{t}=1,2,3,4$ for $n=0,1,2,3$ (we are plotting specifically the real part of each mode only, which approximates well the whole mode, because Eq. (\[eqsges3\]) is almost real for the cases considered). The sharper modes for each $n$ correspond to the later times. Each Schmidt mode is well approximated at early times by the corresponding Hermite orthonormal function, and afterwards it sharpens and deviates from that function: it gets corrections from higher order polynomials. The fact that the modes get thinner with time is related to the behavior of Eq. (\[eqsges3\]) at large times. In particular the sinc function goes to $\delta(p+q)$ and thus the amplitude gets sharper. ![(Color online) Schmidt modes $\psi^{(1)}_n(p,\tilde{t})$ at times $\tilde{t}=1,2,3,4$ for $n=0,1,2,3$. The sharper modes for each $n$ correspond to the later times.\[figsqed4\]](qedphimomsing.eps) Now we consider the Schmidt modes in configuration space. To obtain them, we just Fourier transform the modes of Eq. (\[eqges13\]) with respect to the momenta $p_1$, $p_2$ $$\tilde{\psi}^{(\alpha)}_m(x_{\alpha},\tilde{t})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp_{\alpha}\mathrm{e}^{i(p_{\alpha}x_{\alpha} -\frac{p_{\alpha}^2}{2m}t)} \psi^{(\alpha)}_m(k(p_{\alpha}),\tilde{t}),\label{eqges14}$$ where $\alpha=1,2$. The dependence of $p$ on $p_1$ and $q$ on $p_2$ is given through Eq. (\[eqges10\]). The factor $\mathrm{e}^{-i\frac{p_{\alpha}^2}{2m}t}$ in Eq. (\[eqges14\]) is the one which commutes the states between the interaction picture (considered in Eq. (\[eqges13\]) and in the previous calculations in Secs. \[fte\] and \[ges\]) and the Schrödinger picture. The Hermite polynomials obey the following expression [@grads] $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx \mathrm{e}^{-(x-y)^2}H_n(\alpha x)=\sqrt{\pi}(1-\alpha^2)^{n/2}H_n\left(\frac{\alpha y}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}}\right).\label{eqges15}$$ With the help of Eq. (\[eqges15\]) and by linearity of the Fourier transforms, we are able to obtain analytic expressions for the Schmidt modes in configuration space (to a certain accuracy, which depends on the cut-offs considered). This is possible because the dispersion relation of the massive fermions in the considered non-relativistic limit is $E_{\alpha}=\frac{p_{\alpha}^2}{2m}$, and thus the integral of Eq. (\[eqges14\]) can be obtained analytically using Eq. (\[eqges15\]). The corresponding Schmidt modes in configuration space are then given by $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\psi}^{(\alpha)}_m(\tilde{x}_{\alpha},\tilde{t})\simeq \sum_{n=0}^{n_0}A^{(\alpha)}_{mn}(\tilde{t}) \tilde{O}^{(\alpha)}_n(\tilde{x}_{\alpha},\tilde{t}) , \;\;\;\; \alpha=1,2, \label{eqges16}\end{aligned}$$ where the orthonormal functions in configuration space are $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{O}^{(\alpha)}_n(\tilde{x}_{\alpha},\tilde{t}) \!\! & \!\!\!\! = \!\!\!\! & \!\! i^n (\sqrt{\pi}2^nn!)^{-1/2} \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-in\arctan(\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{t}) +i\tilde{\sigma}^{-1}(\tilde{x}_{\alpha}-\tilde{t}/2)}} {\sqrt{1+i\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{t}}}\nonumber\\&\times& \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{(\tilde{x}_{\alpha}-\tilde{t})^2} {2(1+i\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{t})}} H_n\left[\frac{\tilde{t}-\tilde{x}_{\alpha}}{\sqrt{1 +(\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{t})^2}}\right].\label{eqges17}\end{aligned}$$ In Eqs. (\[eqges16\]) and (\[eqges17\]), we are using dimensionless variables, $\tilde{x}_{\alpha}=\frac{\sigma x_{\alpha}}{\sqrt{2}}$, $\alpha=1,2$, $\tilde{\sigma}=\frac{\sigma}{p_a^0}$, and the dimensionless time defined before, $\tilde{t}=\frac{p_a^0\sigma}{2m}t$. The modes in Eqs. (\[eqges16\]) and (\[eqges17\]) are normalized in the variables $\tilde{x}_{\alpha}$. The orthonormal functions of Eq. (\[eqges17\]) propagate in space at a speed $\frac{p_a^0}{\sqrt{2}m}$ and they spread in their evolution. Additionally, the modes of Eq. (\[eqges16\]) have also the time dependence of $A^{(\alpha)}_{mn}(\tilde{t})$. The Slater decomposition in configuration space, obtained Fourier transforming the modes of Eq. (\[eqges13\]) is $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{F}^{(2)}(\tilde{x}_1,\tilde{x}_2,\tilde{t})&\propto&\sum_n \sqrt{\frac{\lambda_n(\tilde{t})}{2}}[\tilde{\psi}^{(1)}_n (\tilde{x}_1,\tilde{t})|\uparrow\rangle\tilde{\psi}^{(2)}_n (\tilde{x}_2,\tilde{t})|\downarrow\rangle \nonumber\\&-&\tilde{\psi}^{(2)}_n(\tilde{x}_1,\tilde{t})| \downarrow\rangle\tilde{\psi}^{(1)}_n(\tilde{x}_2,\tilde{t}) |\uparrow\rangle].\label{eqges18}\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $\lambda_n(\tilde{t})$ are unaffected by the Fourier transformation, and thus the degree of entanglement in configuration space is the same as in momenta space. We consider now the initial spin configuration $$\begin{aligned} |s_a^0s_b^0\rangle=|\uparrow\uparrow\rangle , \label{eqtges1}\end{aligned}$$ where, the only possible final state in the non-relativistic limit is $$\begin{aligned} |s_1s_2\rangle=|\uparrow\uparrow\rangle.\label{eqtges2}\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the sinc term goes to zero, because the momentum part of this term is antisymmetric in $p^2$, $q^2$ and the sinc function goes to $\delta(p+q)$, which has support (as a distribution) on $q=-p$. We point out that the sinc contribution to this amplitude is negligible because of the particular setup chosen. In other experiment configurations the amplitude in Eq. (\[teeglo1\]) associated to the spin states of Eqs. (\[eqtges1\]) and (\[eqtges2\]) would have appreciable sinc term and thus increasing momenta entanglement with time. On the other hand, in this case the contribution from $\Upsilon_t(t)$ in Eq. (\[eqfte17bis\]) and $\Upsilon_u(t)$ is even smaller than the sinc term, and converges weakly to zero. We plot in Fig. \[figtqed2\] the real and imaginary parts of the term associated to $\Upsilon_t(t)$ and $\Upsilon_u(t)$ in Eq. (\[eqges11\]), which we denote by $g(p,q,\tilde{t})$, for spin states of Eqs. (\[eqtges1\]) and (\[eqtges2\]) as a function of time $\tilde{t}\in(1,1.001)$ and having $p=1$, $q=1.2$. We want to show with it the strong oscillatory character of the amplitude with time, and how all the contributions interfere destructively with each other giving a zero final value. This is similar to the stationary phase procedure, in which only the contributions in proximity to the stationary value of the phase do interfere constructively and are appreciable. What we display here is the weak convergence to zero for the functions $\Upsilon_t(t)$ and $\Upsilon_u(t)$. ![Real and imaginary parts of the amplitude $g(p,q, \tilde{t})$ for $p=1$, $q=1.2$, and $\tilde{t}\in(1,1.001)$ (arbitrary units).\[figtqed2\]](weak.eps){width="7cm"} In this section, we investigated the generation of entanglement in momenta between two identical spin-1/2 particles which interact via QED. We showed how the correlations grow as the energy conservation is increasingly fulfilled with time. The previous calculation had, however, the approximation of considering a projectile particle with perfectly well defined momentum, something not achievable in practice. This is a first step towards a real experiment, where both fermions will have a dispersion in momenta and thus infinite entanglement will never be reached, due to the additional integrals of the Dirac delta $\delta(\Delta E)$ over the momentum spread. Conclusions =========== We analyzed the dynamical generation of entanglement between two electrons due to their mutual interaction by means of the Slater number. In the asymptotic limit, and for electrons whose initial momenta are sharply defined, entanglement divergencies may appear. We observe that considering finite-time intervals of interaction, and/or a certain spreading in the particles momentum, the entanglement remains finite. We have studied for the first time the dynamical generation of momentum entanglement of two spin-1/2 particles at lowest order QED, observing how the correlations increase as the particles exchange virtual photons. We obtain the Schmidt decomposition of the scattering amplitude, given in terms of Slater determinants, and the Slater number, which clearly shows the growth of entanglement with time. We also obtain analytic approximations of the Schmidt modes, both in momentum and configuration spaces. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ J.L. thanks I. Bialynicki-Birula for useful discussions and private communications. L.L. thanks I. Cirac for hospitality at Max-Planck Institute for Quantum Optics and acknowledges financial support from FPU grant AP2003-0014. The work of J.L. and L.L. was partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia under project BMF 2002-00834. E.S. acknowledges financial support from EU Project RESQ. Entanglement in finite and infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces \[entangfi\] =========================================================================== We consider a composite system ${\mathcal S}$ described by a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, which may be either finite or infinite dimensional. This space is constructed as the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces associated to each of the subsystems, ${\mathcal S}_{\alpha}$, of ${\mathcal S}$. For simplicity, and in view of our present purposes, we restrict ourselves to pure states of a bipartite system ${\mathcal S}$. Thus, $\alpha=1,2$, and $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_1\otimes\mathcal{H}_2$. [*Definition: product state*]{}. A vector state $|\Psi\rangle$ of the system ${\mathcal S}$ is a product state if it can be written as $$|\Psi\rangle=|\Psi^{(1)}\rangle |\Psi^{(2)}\rangle , \label{eqentan1}$$ where $|\Psi^{(1)}\rangle \in \mathcal{H}_1$ and $|\Psi^{(2)}\rangle \in \mathcal{H}_2$. [*Definition: entangled state*]{}. A vector state $|\Psi\rangle$ of the system ${\mathcal S}$ is entangled if it is not a product state. A relevant example, where $\dim(\mathcal{H}_1)=\dim(\mathcal{H}_2)=2$, is called the singlet state, $$|\Psi^-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\Psi^{(1)}_1\rangle |\Psi^{(2)}_2\rangle-|\Psi^{(1)}_2\rangle |\Psi^{(2)}_1\rangle).\label{eqentan2}$$ A very useful tool for analyzing the entanglement of pure states of bipartite systems is given by the Schmidt decomposition [@schmidtdisc2; @eberly1]. It basically consists in expressing the pure bipartite state as a sum of biorthonormal products, with positive coefficients $\sqrt{\lambda_n}$, as follows $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{n=0}^{d-1} \sqrt{\lambda_n}|\Psi^{(1)}_n\rangle |\Psi^{(2)}_n\rangle\label{eqentan3},$$ where $\{|\Psi^{(1)}_n\rangle\}$, $\{|\Psi^{(2)}_n\rangle\}$, are orthonormal bases associated to $\mathcal{H}_1$ and $\mathcal{H}_2$, respectively. In Eq. (\[eqentan3\]), $d= \min \{ \dim(\mathcal{H}_1),\dim(\mathcal{H}_2) \}$, and it may be infinite, as for in continuous variable systems, describing momentum, energy, position, frequency, or the like. In those cases, the states $|\Psi^{(\alpha)}_n\rangle$ would be (square integrable) $L^2$ wave functions, $$\begin{aligned} \langle p|\Psi^{(\alpha)}_n\rangle \! & = & \! \psi^{(\alpha)}_n(p) , \;\;\; \alpha = 1,2, \label{eqentan4}\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ denotes the corresponding continuous variable. For pure bipartite states a relevant measure of entanglement is the [*entropy of entanglement*]{}, $S$. Given a state $|\Psi\rangle$, it is defined as the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix with respect to $S_1$ or $S_2$, $$S=-\sum_{n=0}^{d-1}\lambda_n\log_2\lambda_n,\label{eqentan5}$$ where the $\lambda_n$’s are given in Eq. (\[eqentan3\]). In general, $S\geq0$, $S = 0$ for a product state, and the more entangled a state is, the larger $S$. For a maximally entangled state, $S=\log_2 d$, and if $d=\infty$, then $S$ diverges. An interesting work where the Schmidt decomposition for continuous variables is analyzed discretizing the corresponding integral equations can be found in Ref. [@eberly1]. Another method for obtaining the continuous variables Schmidt decomposition, based in decomposing the bipartite wave function in complete sets of orthonormal functions, is developed in Ref. [@lljl]. Entanglement transfer between momentum and spin\[maj\] ====================================================== Dynamical transfer and distillation ------------------------------------ In Sec.\[ges\] we computed the entanglement in momenta for a pair of identical spin-1/2 particles which interact through exchange of a virtual photon. The sharper the initial momentum distribution of the incident fermion, and the longer the interaction time, the larger the entanglement in momenta. Heisenberg’s principle, on the other hand, establishes a limit to the precision with which the momentum may be defined and hence to the achievable degree of entanglement. It is possible, in principle, to transform the entanglement in momenta into entanglement in spins. This is easily seen in terms of the majorization criterion [@majoriz; @NielsenChuang], which is of practical interest because the experimentalist usually manipulates spins. Here, we will analyze this entanglement transfer. Majorization is an area of mathematics which predates quantum mechanics. Quoting Nielsen and Chuang, “Majorization is an ordering on d-dimensional real vectors intended to capture the notion that one vector is more or less disordered than another”. We consider a pair of $d$-dimensional vectors, $x=(x_1,...,x_d)$ and $y=(y_1,...,y_d)$. We say $x$ is majorized by $y$, written $x\prec y$, if $\sum_{j=1}^k x_j^{\downarrow}\leq\sum_{j=1}^k y_j^{\downarrow}$ for $k=1,...,d$, with equality instead of inequality for $k=d$. We denote by $z^{\downarrow}$ the components of $z$ in decreasing order $(z_1^{\downarrow}\geq z_2^{\downarrow}\geq...\geq z_d^{\downarrow})$. The interest of this work in the majorization concept comes from a theorem which states that a bipartite pure state $|\psi\rangle$ may be transformed to another pure state $|\phi\rangle$ by Local Operations and Classical Communication (LOCC) if and only if $\lambda_{\psi}\prec\lambda_{\phi}$, where $\lambda_{\psi}$, $\lambda_{\phi}$ are the vectors of (square) coefficients of the Schmidt decomposition of the states $|\psi\rangle$, $|\phi\rangle$, respectively. LOCC adds to those quantum operations effected only locally the possibility of classical communication between spatially separated parts of the system. According to this criterion, it would be possible in principle to obtain a singlet spin state $|\phi\rangle$ beginning with a momentum entangled state $|\psi\rangle$ whenever $\lambda_{\psi}\prec\lambda_{\phi}$. The possibility of obtaining a singlet spin state from a momentum-entangled state can be extended to a more efficient situation: the possibility of distillation of entanglement. This idea consists on obtaining multiple singlet states beginning with several copies of a given pure state $|\psi\rangle$. The distillable entanglement of $|\psi\rangle$ consists in the ratio $n/m$, where $m$ is the number of copies of $|\psi\rangle$ we have initially, and $n$ the number of singlet states we are able to obtain via LOCC acting on these copies. It can be shown [@NielsenChuang] that for pure states the distillable entanglement equals the entropy of entanglement, S. Thus, in the continuous case (infinite-dimensional Hilbert space), the distillable entanglement is not bounded from above, because neither is S. According to this, the larger the entanglement in momenta the more singlet states could be obtained with LOCC. To illustrate the possibility of entanglement transfer with a specific example, we consider a momentum-entangled state for two distinguishable fermions $$|\psi\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\psi^{(1)}_1(p)\psi^{(2)}_1(q) +\psi^{(1)}_2(p)\psi^{(2)}_2(q)] |\uparrow\uparrow\rangle.\label{eqmced1}$$ This state has associated a vector $\lambda_{\psi}^{\downarrow}=(1/2,1/2,0,0,...)$. On the other hand, the singlet state $$|\phi\rangle=\psi^{(1)}_1(p)\psi^{(2)}_1(q) \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle-|\downarrow \uparrow\rangle)\label{eqmced2}$$ has associated a vector $\lambda_{\phi}^{\downarrow}=(1/2,1/2,0,0...)$. These vectors obey $\lambda_{\psi}\prec\lambda_{\phi}$, and thus the state entangled in momenta may be transformed into the state entangled in spins via LOCC. Kinematical transfer and Lorentz boosts --------------------------------------- Another approach to the study of entanglement transfer between momentum and spin degrees of freedom is the kinematical one. In fact, the Lorentz transformations may entangle the spin and momentum degrees of freedom. To be more explicit, and following the notation of Ref. [@GA02], we consider a certain bipartite pure wave function $g_{\lambda\sigma}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})$ for two spin-1/2 fermions, where $\lambda$ and $\sigma$ denote respectively the spin degrees of freedom of each of the two fermions, and $\mathbf{p}$ and $\mathbf{q}$ the corresponding momenta. This would appear to an observer in a Lorentz transformed frame as $$g_{\lambda\sigma}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})\begin{array}{c}\Lambda \\ \longrightarrow\end{array} \sum_{\lambda'\sigma'}U_{\lambda\lambda'}^{(\Lambda^{-1}\mathbf{p})} U_{\sigma\sigma'}^{(\Lambda^{-1}\mathbf{q})}g_{\lambda'\sigma'} (\Lambda^{-1}\mathbf{p},\Lambda^{-1}\mathbf{q}) , \label{eqmced4}$$ where $$U_{\lambda\lambda'}^{(\mathbf{p})}\equiv D_{\lambda\lambda'}^{(1/2)}(R(\Lambda,\mathbf{p}))\label{eqmced5}$$ is the spin 1/2 representation of the Wigner rotation $R(\Lambda,\mathbf{p})$. The Wigner rotations of Eq. (\[eqmced5\]) can be seen as conditional logical operators, which rotate the spin a certain angle depending on the value of the momentum. Thus, a Lorentz transformation will modify in general the entanglement between momentum and spin of each individual electron. We distinguish the following three cases. i\) *Product state in all variables.* In this case, $$g_{\lambda\sigma}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}) = g_1(\mathbf{p})g_2(\mathbf{q})|\lambda\rangle|\sigma\rangle ,$$ and the entanglement at the rest reference frame is zero. Under a boost, the Wigner rotations of Eq. (\[eqmced5\]) entangle the momentum of each fermion with its spin, and thus the entanglement momentum-spin grows [@PST02]. ii\) *Entangled state spin-spin and/or momentum-momentum.* We consider now a state $$g_{\lambda\sigma}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})=f(\mathbf{p} , \mathbf{q})|\phi\rangle$$ with $|\phi\rangle$ an arbitrary state of the spins, and $f(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})$ an arbitrary state of the momenta. In this case, a Lorentz boost will entangle in general each spin with its corresponding momentum, and a careful analysis shows that the spin-spin entanglement never grows [@GA02]. Of course, by applying the reversed boost the entanglement momentum-spin would be transferred back to the spin-spin one, and thus the latter would grow. This particular case shows that, for the state we considered in Sec. \[ges\], given by Eqs. (\[eqsges1\]), (\[eqsges1bis\]) and (\[eqsges3\]), the entanglement could not be transferred from momenta into spins via Lorentz transformations. Thus, the dynamical approach would be here more suitable. iii\) *Entangled state momentum-spin.* According to the previous theorem, the momentum-spin entanglement may be lowered, transferring part of the correlations to the spins, or increased, taking some part of the correlations from them. To our knowledge, there is not a similar result for the momentum, that is, whether the momentum entanglement can be preserved under boosts, or it suffers decoherence similarly to the spins, and part of it is transferred to the momentum-spin part. This is a very interesting question, which we will treat more deeply in future works. [24]{} A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. [**47**]{}, 777 (1935). J. S. Bell, Physics [**1**]{}, 195 (1964). C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993). L. K. Grover, quant-ph/9704012; J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 4249 (1999). A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 661 (1991). M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000). A. Galindo and M. A. Martín-Delgado, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 347 (2002). B.-G. Englert and K. Wódkiewicz, Int. J. of Quant. Inf. [**Vol. 1**]{}, No. 2, 153 (2003). M. Czachor, Phys. Rev. A, [**55**]{}, 72 (1997). A. Peres, P. F. Scudo, and D. R. Terno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 230402 (2002). P. M. Alsing and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Inf. Comput. [**2**]{}, 487 (2002). R. M. Gingrich and C. Adami, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 270402 (2002). R. M. Gingrich, A. J. Bergou, and C. Adami, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 042102 (2003). J. Pachos and E. Solano, Quantum Inf. Comput. [**3**]{}, 115 (2003). H. Terashima and M. Ueda, Quantum Inf. Comput. [**3**]{}, 224 (2003). D. Ahn, H. J. Lee, Y. H. Moon, and S. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. A [**67**]{}, 012103 (2003). A. Peres and D. R. Terno, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 93 (2004). E. B. Manoukian and N. Yongram, Eur. Phys. J. D [**31**]{}, 137 (2004). R. Grobe, K. Rzażewski, and J. H. Eberly, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**27**]{}, L503 (1994). E. E. Salpeter and H. E. Bethe, Phys. Rev. [**84**]{}, 1232 (1951). M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev. [**84**]{}, 350 (1951). L. Lamata and J. León, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [**7**]{}, 224 (2005). J. Schliemann, J. I. Cirac, M. Kuś, M. Lewenstein, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 022303 (2001). K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein, Ann. Phys. [**299**]{}, 88 (2002). G. Ghirardi and L. Marinatto, Fortschr. Phys. [**52**]{}, 1045 (2004). M. Moshinsky, Phys. Rev. [**88**]{}, 625 (1952). I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{} (Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, 1980), Equation 7.374.8. A. Ekert and P. L. Knight, Am. J. Phys. [**63**]{}, 415 (1995). C. K. Law, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5304 (2000). M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 436 (1999).

--- abstract: 'The video and action classification have extremely evolved by deep neural networks specially with two stream CNN using RGB and optical flow as inputs and they present outstanding performance in terms of video analysis. One of the shortcoming of these methods is handling motion information extraction which is done out side of the CNNs and relatively time consuming also on GPUs. So proposing end-to-end methods which are exploring to learn motion representation, like 3D-CNN can achieve faster and accurate performance. We present some novel deep CNNs using 3D architecture to model actions and motion representation in an efficient way to be accurate and also as fast as real-time. Our new networks learn distinctive models to combine deep motion features into appearance model via learning optical flow features inside the network.' author: - | Ali Diba\ ESAT-KU Leuven\ [ali.diba@esat.kuleuven.be]{} - | Ali Pazandeh\ Sharif UTech\ [pazandeh@ee.sharif.ir]{} - | Luc Van Gool\ ESAT-KU Leuven, ETH Zurich\ [luc.vangool@esat.kuleuven.be]{} bibliography: - 'egbib.bib' title: | Efficient Two-Stream Motion and Appearance 3D CNNs for\ Video Classification --- Introduction ============ Recent efforts on human action recognition focused on using the spatio-temporal information of the video as efficient as possible [@2stream; @TDD]. To do so there are many different view points to the problem. Considering the video as a 3D Volume or a sequence of 2D frames are the most common ones [@c3d; @TDD]. Despite the promising results of convolutional networks on most of the visual recognition tasks, having temporal information, and fine-grained classes exclude action recognition task from other recognition task in having a significant gap between the results of deep and handcrafted features based methods. The two base factors of the case are first, having not enough number of videos in proposed datasets and second, disability of the proposed works in handling the temporal information as well as other tasks [@2stream-cvpr16]. As it can be inferred from the results which reported in number of the works, the network which works on optical flow have more discrimination on action classes. Also it needs a pre-process for each set of frames to compute the optical flow which is time consuming. In the other hand, the works which does not compute the flow and try to handle the temporal information by the network like C3D[@c3d] have less accuracy than two stream works. We believe that the main cause of this occurrence is insufficiency of training data. So the network can not be learnt to handle the temporal information of the video, considering training phase is from the scratch due to the differences of the proposed network to common networks. ![We use 3D-Convnet to learn motion from optical flow and extract the mid-level features to combine with regular C3D features as a new representations for videos. This figure shows our initial idea to combine these features.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1){width="250pt"} In conclusion we need a network with power of two-stream networks in handling temporal information beside the performance of C3D in time and handling spatial data. To reach this goal we proposed our two-stream 3D network which use 3D convolutions in both spatial and temporal streams. Also it uses the abstract feature vector of the optical flow estimation network. This abstract feature is obtained from the last layer of the convolution part in the flow estimation network. In the fallowing, we discuss related works in section \[Related\], in section \[Method\] we describe our proposed networks. Finally in section \[Experiments\] the results of the proposed networks reported on the common datasets. Related works {#Related} ============= Most of the recent works on visual recognition tasks and specially human action recognition based their works on using convolutional neural networks to perform better than previous works. As usually action recognition datasets contain videos, proposed methods effort to benefit from the temporal information beside the spatial information of each frame. ![Our second idea to train an end-to-end 3D CNN with two loss function to classify video and estimate the optical flow. The 3D-Convnet part is shared for the two tasks.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig2){width="200pt"} The two stream architecture [@2stream] proposed by simonyan et al. extracts the temporal data by training a CNN alexnet network on the optical flow which computed between consecutive frames. Many works offer to extend the proposed idea of two stream network by different views. Wang et al.[@verydeep] tried to improve the result by using deeper networks. Gkioxari et al.[@actiontubes] proposed an action detection method based on the two stream network. Feichtenhofer et al. [@2stream-cvpr16] extended the two stream network by implementing different fusion methods in different layers instead of the late fusion in the score layer of the two stream network of [@2stream]. As they claimed in their work, in contrast with most of the works, their results got state of the art without combining with IDT[@IDT] method. Donahue et al.[@LongRecurrent] handled the temporal information by using a long short term memory on the extracted features of frames. Duo to not having an end-to-end network, the results have not improve as much as expected. The handcrafted features of improved trajectory proposed by wang et al.[@IDT] have considerable results as well as having the power of improving convolutional neural network based results in combination with them. Hence most of the proposed works got advantage of this power by concatenating the IDT feature with the proposed feature. Wang et al.[@TDD] use the power of IDT by extracting convolutional neural network based features locally around the trajectory and then encode the local features by fisher vector encoding. As it can be inferred from the reviewed methods, most of them use either optical flow or handcrafted features (IDT) to improve the performance. In one hand both of the ideas are time consuming, and in the other a network exist which can perform better than the handcrafted features or inputs. In the following we describe our proposed network on raw images, which handles the temporal information, despite using a network architecture which is trained on the Imagenet dataset. {width="500pt"} Learning Appearance and Motion CNNs {#Method} =================================== We will explain in detail the concepts of our proposed methods and analyze different architectures for 3D ConvNets of appearance and motion to achieve better performing CNNs for action and video classification empirically, and a training scheme on large scale video datasets for feature learning. Inspired by the recently proposed C3D method [@c3d; @dc3d] to learn 3d convolution and deconvolution networks, we designed our networks to learn a new feature representation of videos by exploiting a novel way of training two stream 3D-CNNs. The proposed method is able to classify videos based on the learned spatio-temporal networks which does not need optical flow as input and it is benefited from learned optical flow information embedded. We let the network learn the best aspects of optical flow and appearance together in one network by an end-to-end manner using only the RGB frames of the video. We will show that, the mid-level motion features, which are extracted from the trained convolutional neural network can be a good replacement of optical flow with a considerable lower computational cost for video classification. It’s shown that the learning motion representation in the way which also is involved in classification problem and inherited action clues performing well in terms of speed and accuracy. Initial Method -------------- Our first proposed and initial method is to train a 3D Conv-Deconv network to compute optical flow from sequence of video frames and then combine the mid-level motion features with the RGB 3D-Convnet features to do classification. Figure \[fig:1\] shows the detail of this initial approach to use a new motion feature with C3D features. Using this method instead of other two stream networks which need optical flow as input has benefits in manner of speed, since it is incomparable faster than those methods. However it gains comparable results but the method still needs to be improved. In the next parts we propose our new two stream networks to train both on class label and flow estimation together and address the issues of speed and accuracy. Combined Network ---------------- The second idea is to train an end-to-end network using 3D-Convnet and 3D-Deconvnet to train on both action class and motion structure together. The 3D-Convnet part is shared between the action classification and flow estimation networks. In an other view the shared 3D-Conv network is the main network with two loss function. The first one is a softmax loss for action classification and the second one is a 3D-Deconv network followed by a voxel-wise loss. So the end-to-end network is providing a more solid solution to perform better than the first method since the new learned representation is optimized to exploit appearance and motion model together obtained from frames and is as fast as C3D method in the test time. 3D Conv-Deconv Two-Stream Net ----------------------------- Our main proposal is to train a 3D two stream network by an end-to-end learning. Figure \[fig:3\] shows the details of the proposed idea. The appearance stream is an RGB 3d-convnet and the motion estimation stream is a 3d-convnet followed by a 3d-deconvnet which has optical flow as output to learn motion information. As it has been shown in the figure, The softmax loss performs on the concatenation of the last layers of both 3d-convnets. Which it adds the abstract temporal information of the motion stream to the appearance stream to make more rich representation in categorizing of action. In the test time, this method performs similar to single frame two-stream nets in accuracy, by 20 times faster frames per second rate. This single-step training algorithm is beneficial to accuracy of 3D-CNN on videos by exploiting new convolutional features which are shared among the motion learning and action classification tasks. This method also can be considered as a multi-task network for different purposes. Based on some works [@multi_task_CNN], It’s proved that network with different sub-tasks can be more efficient and learn stronger feature representation considering all tasks together.\ Our method improves the C3D to learn and use better motion representation than knowledge which is just extracted from sequences of RGB frames without using optical flow in training. In this two-stage cascade, optical flow information is stored via training phase and in the test time, there is no need to computer optical flow, so we can classify videos very fast. The Networks Architecture ------------------------- For our proposed method, we use the networks for 3D-convnet and 3D-deconvnet which are inspired by [@c3d; @dc3d]. The 3D-convnet has 5 layers of convolution and 2 fully connected layers plus the layer of classes. The filter numbers for each convolution layer are 64, 128, 256, 256 and 256 respectively and 2048 for fully connected layers. Same as [@c3d], we use filters with size of 3$\times$3$\times$3 for convolutional layers. 3D-deconvnet is the same network as the V2V network in [@dc3d] (Refer to the paper for more details). Experiments {#Experiments} =========== We have evaluated our proposed networks on the UCF101[@UCF101] action video dataset and will try other datasets in future. In this section, first we explain details of the dataset, then results of the experiments and discussion will come. Dataset and Experiments ----------------------- The UCF101[@UCF101] action dataset have 101 action classes which categories in 5 main types: human-object interaction, body-motion only, human-human interaction, playing musical instruments, and sports. It contains 13320 video clips, split to 3 different sets of train, validation and test data. The reported results will be the average of the accuracy on these 3 sets. For training the networks, we use the C3D pre-trained model on the Sports-1M dataset for 3D-Convnet parts and finetune it on the UCF101 dataset. We trained the 3D-Deconv network from scratch by optical flow extracted from UCF101 frames as groundtruth by the Brox’s method [@brox_opticalFlow]. For evaluation, we train a linear SVM on the extracted features from each network. Method Average Accuracy --------------------------- ------------------ C3D (1 net) [@c3d] 82.3 C3D (3 nets) [@c3d] 85.2 Two-stream CNNs[@2stream] 88.0 Very-Deep[@verydeep] 91.4 TDD[@TDD] 90.3 Ours-Initial 85.2 Ours-Combined net 87.0 Ours-Twostream 3Dnet 90.2 : Comparing the Average Accuracy of our proposed networks with previous works, on the 3 sets of the UCF101 dataset. Method frames per sec ---------------------------- ---------------- C3D (1 net) [@c3d] 313 Two-stream CNNs [@2stream] 14.3 iDT+FV [@IDT] 2.1 Ours-Initial 210 Ours-Combined net 300 Ours-Twostream 3Dnet 246 : Comparing the number of processed frames in one second in our proposed methods with the related works Results ------- In this section we compare the results of the proposed networks with the previous methods in two main factors, accuracy and test time. Comparing the mean accuracy of methods has been shown in Table 1. The baseline of the work, which is the appearance stream of our proposed networks, has been reported in the first row of the table (C3D), they also trained 3 different nets and reported the results using these three networks which improved their mean accuracy with about 3 percents. The two stream, very deep two stream and trajectory-pooled deep convolutional descriptors methods are reported in the next rows. The bottom part shows the mean accuracy of our proposed method on the UCF101 dataset. The initial method which has separate training on the appearance stream and action labels and motion stream and optical flows, outperforms the C3D method using a single network, which means that the abstract mid-level feature of the motion stream has the ability of improving the accuracy. Our second proposed network have an end-to-end training phase. With the shared weights which is trained to learn both action and optical flow simultaneously, we expect an improvement on the accuracy, the results support the expectation with 2 percent improvements. Our third proposed network is also an end-to-end network, with more degree of freedom, because of having two separate networks for appearance and motion. The classification of this network performs on the concatenated feature of both layers. The results show that training the networks without weight sharing outperforms the previous proposed networks. The comparison of the methods in term of speed of the algorithm in frames per second has been made in Table 2. As our proposed methods work without using any optical flow extraction method they have a considerable difference in speed with other methods. Comparing our methods show that the second network with shared weights have the highest speed between our three proposed networks and the other two with two separate networks have a slightly lower speed. Conclusion {#Conclusion} ========== We presented novel convolutional neural networks to embed both appearance and motion in human actions video. Our two-stream 3D network demonstrates efficient scheme to apply 3D-ConvNets and achieve good performance for video classification. We showed the effectiveness of the method in terms of speed and accuracy in run-time. It can obtain accurate results in a speed of very faster than real time.

--- abstract: | Near-infrared, $JHKL$, photometry of 239 Galactic carbon-rich variable stars is presented and discussed. From these and published data the stars were classified as Mira or non-Mira variables and amplitudes and pulsation periods, ranging from 222 to 948 days for the Miras, were determined for most of them. A comparison of the colour and period relations with those of similar stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud indicates minor differences, which may be the consequence of sample selection effects. Apparent bolometric magnitudes were determined by combining the mean $JHKL$ fluxes with mid-infrared photometry from IRAS and MSX. Then, using the Mira period luminosity relation to set the absolute magnitudes, distances were determined – to greater accuracy than has hitherto been possible for this type of star. Bolometric corrections to the $K$ magnitude were calculated and prescriptions derived for calculating these from various colours. Mass-loss rates were also calculated and compared to values in the literature. Approximately one third of the C-rich Miras and an unknown fraction of the non-Miras exhibit apparently random obscuration events that are reminiscent of the phenomena exhibited by the hydrogen deficient RCB stars. The underlying cause of this is unclear, but it may be that mass loss, and consequently dust formation, is very easily triggered from these very extended atmospheres. author: - | Patricia A. Whitelock$^{1,2,3}$[^1], Michael W. Feast$^2$, Freddy Marang$^1$ and M.A.T. Groenewegen$^4$\ $^1$ South African Astronomical Observatory, P.O.Box 9, 7935 Observatory, South Africa\ $^2$ Astronomy Department, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa\ $^3$ National Astrophysics and Space Science Programme, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa\ $^4$ Instituut voor Sterrenkunde, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200B, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium date: 'Received date; accepted date' title: 'Near-Infrared Photometry of Carbon Stars[^2]' --- stars: individual: EV Eri, R Lep, R Vol, IRAS09164–5349, IRAS10136–5743, IRAS16406–1406 - stars: variable: other - dust, extinction - infrared: stars - stars: carbon - stars: AGB and post-AGB - stars: distances. Introduction ============ Intrinsic carbon stars are produced when asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars experience sufficient dredge-up to change their surface carbon to oxygen ratios from $\rm C/O<1$ to $\rm C/O>1$. Exactly how and when this occurs depend on the initial mass and the abundances of the star in question, but the details remain controversial. It has been known for a long while that the majority of the C stars in the Magellanic Clouds were low mass objects (e.g. Iben 1981), but it has only recently been possible to model the production of C stars among relatively low mass stars (e.g. Stancliffe et al. 2005). In attempting to find an appropriate group of local C stars to study it is natural to examine the large amplitude variables. First, the amplitude of their variability identifies them as AGB stars and therefore one can be reasonably certain that their carbon enrichment is intrinsic rather than the result of binary mass transfer. Secondly, observations of extragalactic C Miras suggest that they obey a well defined period luminosity relation (Feast et al. 1989, Whitelock et al. 2003) and it should therefore be possible to establish their distances, provided their periods and apparent luminosities can be measured. This particular project arose from the requirement to identify a significant local population of Galactic C stars with distances and radial velocities which could be used for kinematic studies. From these it should be possible to gain insight into the nature, in particular the ages and masses, of the local C star population which will be invaluable for comparison with theory and with similar populations in Local Group galaxies (e.g. Menzies et al. 2002). In this paper, the first of three, we discuss infrared photometry of C variables observable from the southern hemisphere. Subsequent papers will deal with radial velocities and northern C-rich Miras (Menzies et al. 2006, Paper II) and the kinematics of the full sample (Feast et al. 2006, Paper III). Source Selection {#sources} ================ Much of the $JHKL$ photometry reported here comes from two specific programmes; first, stars selected from the catalogue of Aaronson et al. (1989) and secondly, stars selected from the IRAS Point Source Catalogue (IRAS Science Team 1985), henceforth referred to as the ‘Aaronson’ and ‘IRAS’ samples, respectively. The stars from each group were monitored for several years to determine their pulsation periods and to establish the characteristics of their variability. These data were supplemented by observations of C stars that had been obtained from SAAO over the years as part of other programmes. In general stars were selected to be south of declination $+30^{\rm o}$ for ease of monitoring from Sutherland. Aaronson et al. (1989) published velocities and $JHK$ photometry for C stars. The stars selected for monitoring were chosen on the basis of their colours ($(H-K)_0>0.8$) (using a very rough estimate of the reddening correction) or their $K$ variability as potential Mira variables which could be used to establish the kinematic properties of the C Miras (the colour criterion may have resulted in the omission of some C Miras, but the objective was to find stars with a high probability of being C Miras rather than to be complete). These stars are identified with an ‘A’ in column 10 (G) of Table \[names\]. Data are reported here for 60 such stars, including three which are probably not C stars. The IRAS sample was selected from the Point Source Catalogue (PSC) using the following 3 criteria: spectral types 4n, indicating SiC features in the LRS spectra; 25 to 12 $\mu$m flux ratio, $\rm F_{25}/F_{12}>0.4$; 12 $\mu$m flux, $F_{12}>40$Jy. The flux ratio criterion was intended to isolate stars with dust shells; while the limit to the 12 $\mu$m flux was intended to ensure that the stars would be observable, at least at $K$ and $L$, on the 0.75m at Sutherland. Note that the spectral-type criterion will have resulted in the omission of C Miras without SiC shells, but again the objective was to find stars with a high probability of being C-rich Miras rather than to be complete. Some of the stars selected in this way were already being observed as part of other programmes; nevertheless, they will be identified as part of the ‘IRAS’ sample for the purpose of the discussion below. These stars are identified with an ‘I’ in column 10 (G) of Table \[names\]. Data are presented for 96 such IRAS sources, including five which are unlikely to be C stars. A further 32 C-stars with IRAS photometry have $\rm F_{25}/F_{12}>0.4$, but with $F_{12}<40$. These were not chosen on the basis of their IRAS characteristics but are identified here with an ‘i’ in column 10 (G) as an interesting group to compare with their brighter counterparts. Five of the stars selected in this way are probably not C stars. A number of sources from the Aaronson and IRAS samples were identified by the selection criteria mentioned above, but observations proved impossible because of severe crowding. There are only two stars in common between the Aaronson and the IRAS samples, although another 8 are found in the faint IRAS sample. This might suggest that the fainter IRAS sources are not simply more distant but that they actually have thinner shells than their brighter counterparts. The names of the C stars are listed in Table \[names\] in one of the forms recognizable by the SIMBAD data base, with preference being given to a variable star designation (from Samus et al. 2004, henceforth GCVS) where one exists. IRAS names are also listed, and are used throughout this paper without the ‘IRAS’ prefix. The C numbers listed in the table are from the updated version of Stephenson’s Catalogue of Galactic Carbon Stars (Alksnis et al. 2001). Most of the coordinates were taken from Cutri et al. (2003, henceforth 2MASS). At the end of Table \[names\] 18 stars are listed which were observed as part of the programme, but which are either peculiar in some way or are probably not bona fide C stars. Peculiarities include transitional objects, i.e. SC stars. Infrared Photometry {#ir_phot} =================== The detailed SAAO photometry is reported in Table \[irdata\] for the first star only, the full dataset of photometry is available electronically. The table gives times of the observations as Julian Date (JD) followed by the $JHKL$ mags measured for that date. It is organized in order of right ascension with the dubious C stars (the 18 listed at the end of Table 1) mixed among the definite ones. Where measurements were not made, usually at $J$ or $L$ because the star was too faint, the column is left blank. Most of the $JHKL$ measurements were made with the MkII infrared photometer on the 0.75-m telescope at SAAO, Sutherland. They are on the current SAAO system as defined by Carter (1990). A few measurements were made on the SAAO 1.9-m and these have been transformed to the SAAO system[^3]. These are marked ‘1.9m’ in the last column of the table. The post-1979 photometry is accurate to better than $\pm 0.03$ mag at $JHK$, and to better than $\pm 0.05$ mag at $L$; observations with $J>13.0$, measured using the 1.9m telescope, or $J>10.4$ measured using the 0.75m, are good to $\pm 0.06$ at $J$. Measurements marked with a colon are accurate to better than $0.1$ mag. Some older (pre-1979) measurements were reported by Catchpole et al. (1979). The measurements listed here differ slightly from those in Catchpole et al., because they have been corrected to Carter’s improved values for the standard stars. These measurements are slightly less accurate than the more modern values, but see Catchpole et al. for details. [lcrrrrrccrrc]{} \ name & IRAS && & MSX & G & C & comment\ & &\ name & IRAS && & MSX & G & C & comment\ & &\ \ \ R Scl & 01246–3248 & 1& 26& 58& –32& 32& 36& & I& 234\ YY Tri & 02152+2822 & 2& 18& 6& +28& 36& 45& & I& 6028\ R For & 02270–2619 & 2& 29& 15& –26& 5& 56& & & 361\ EV Eri & 04067–0922 & 4& 9& 6& – 9& 14& 12& & i& 6070\ $[$TI98$]$0418+0122 & 04188+0122 & 4& 21& 27& + 1& 29& 14& & & 6075\ V718 Tau & 04284+1732 & 4& 31& 22& +17& 39& 10& & & 714\ TT Tau & 04483+2826 & 4& 51& 31& +28& 31& 37& & & 794&\ R Lep & 04573–1452 & 4& 59& 36& –14& 48& 23& & & 833\ TU Tau & 05421+2424 & 5& 45& 14& +24& 25& 12&X& & 1038\ Y Tau & 05426+2040 & 5& 45& 39& +20& 41& 42& & & 1042\ QS Ori & 05428+1215 & 5& 45& 37& +12& 16& 15& & & 395\ 05418–3224 & 05418–3224 & 5& 43& 43& –32& 23& 29& & I& 1045\ V1259 Ori & 06012+0726 & 6& 4& 00& + 7& 25& 52& & I& 6113\ 06088+1909 & 06088+1909 & 6& 11& 48& +19& 8& 20&X& I& 1187&1\ BN Mon & 06192+0722 & 6& 21& 58& + 7& 20& 58&X& & 1246\ ZZ Gem & 06209+2503 & 6& 24& 01& +25& 1& 53& & & 1251\ V617 Mon & 06210+0831 & 6& 23& 48& + 8& 29& 51&X& & 1254\ V636 Mon & 06226–0905 & 6& 25& 1& – 9& 7& 16& & & 6146\ V477 Mon & 06268+0849 & 6& 29& 35& + 8& 47& 16&X& I& 1287\ CR Gem & 06315+1606 & 6& 34& 24& +16& 4& 30&X& i& 1309\ GM CMa & 06391–2213 & 6& 41& 15& –22& 16& 43& & i& 1357\ V503 Mon & 06422+0953 & 6& 44& 57& + 9& 50& 48&X& & 1377\ RT Gem & 06436+1840 & 6& 46& 35& +18& 36& 54& & & 1389\ 06487+0551 & 06487+0551 & 6& 51& 24& + 5& 47& 34&X& I& 1430\ CG Mon & 06487+0517 & 6& 51& 27& + 5& 13& 23&X& & 1431\ CL Mon & 06529+0626 & 6& 55& 37& + 6& 22& 43& & & 1465\ 06531–0216 & 06531–0216 & 6& 55& 40& – 2& 20& 16&X& & 1471\ NP Pup & 06528–4218 & 6& 54& 27& –42& 21& 56& & & 1478\ 06564+0342 & 06564+0342 & 6& 59& 6& + 3& 37& 56&X& I& 1494\ W CMa & 07057–1150 & 7& 8& 3& –11& 55& 24&X& i& 1565\ 07080–0106 & 07080–0106 & 7& 10& 35& – 1& 11& 26& & I& 1580\ VX Gem & 07099+1441 & 7& 12& 49& +14& 36& 4& & & 1595\ 07097–1011 & 07097–1011 & 7& 12& 8& –10& 16&39&X&A & 1597\ R Vol & 07065–7256 & 7& 5& 36& –73& 0& 52& & & 1599\ HX CMa & 07098–2012 & 7& 12& 4& –20& 17& 23& & I& 1601\ 07136–1512 & 07136–1512 & 7& 15& 57& –15& 18& 08&X&A & 1630\ 07161–0111 & 07161–0111 & 7& 18& 39& – 1& 16& 52& & I& 1642\ 07217–1246 & 07217–1246 & 7& 24& 3& –12& 52& 28&X&AI& 1696\ 07220–2324 & 07220–2324 & 7& 24& 7& –23& 30& 46& & I& 1699\ 07223–1553 & 07223–1553 & 7& 24& 35& –15& 59& 52&X&A & 1701\ 07293–1832 & 07293–1832 & 7& 31& 31& –18& 39& 4&X&A & 1751\ 07319–1940 & 07319–1940 & 7& 34& 6& –19& 46& 56&X&A & 1775\ $[$W71b$]$W007–02 & 07348–1926 & 7& 37& 2& –19& 32& 54&X&A & 1798\ 07373–4021 & 07373–4021 & 7& 39& 4& –40& 28& 47& & & 1825\ $[$W71b$]$W008–03 & & 7& 40& 55& –26& 1& 31&X&A & 1831\ V471 Pup & 07390–2618 & 7& 41& 6& –26& 25& 19&X&A & 1834\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup 3 & 07403–2943 & 7& 42& 17& –29& 51& 4&X&Ai& 1847\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup 17 & & 7& 49& 32& –27& 23& 36&X&A & 1897\ 07454–7112 & 07454–7112 & 7& 45& 2& –71& 19& 46& & I& 1901\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup 21 & 07506–2819 & 7& 52& 43& –28& 26& 52&X&A & 1924\ V831 Mon & 07551–0032 & 7& 57& 43& – 0& 41& 6& & & 1960\ 07576–4054 & 07576–4054 & 7& 59& 24& –41& 3& 16& & I& 1992\ 07582–1933 & 07582–1933 & 8& 0& 25& –19& 42& 11& & I& 1993\ V509 Pup & 08004–3023 & 8& 2& 26& –30& 32& 16&X&A & 2010\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup 38 & 08010–2626 & 8& 3& 7& –26& 34& 31&X&A & 6268\ FF Pup & 08014–2356 & 8& 3& 35& –24& 4& 35& & & 2022\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup 42 & 08029–2942 & 8& 4& 58& –29& 51& 26&X&A & 2043\ V518 Pup & 08045–1524 & 8& 6& 51& –15& 33& 23& & I& 2056\ 08050–2838 & 08050–2838 & 8& 7& 6& –28& 47& 40&X& I& 2062\ RU Pup & 08053–2246 & 8& 7& 30& –22& 54& 45& & & 2064\ FK Pup & 08073–3608 & 8& 9& 11& –36& 17& 7&X& & 2086\ 08074–3615 & 08074–3615 & 8& 9& 20& –36& 24& 27&X& I& 6267\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx19 & 08080–3259 & 8& 10& 2& –33& 8& 29&X&A & 2091\ $[$W71b$]$021–05 & 08083–3145 & 8& 10& 18& –31& 54& 22&X&A & 2095\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx22 & 08085–3351 & 8& 10& 29& –34& 0& 36&X&A & 2099\ V346 Pup & 08088–3243 & 8& 10& 49& –32& 52& 6&X&AI& 2101\ $[$W71b$]$026–01 & 08160–3822 & 8& 17& 52& –38& 32& 16&X&A & 2146\ RY Hya & 08174+0255 & 8& 20& 6& + 2& 45& 56& & & 2150\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx40 & 08197–3447 & 8& 21& 41& –34& 57& 24&X&A & 2173\ $[$W71b$]$029–02 & 08233–4110 & 8& 25& 10& –41& 20& 2&X&A & 2203\ $[$W71b$]$029–04 & 08266–4110 & 8& 28& 26& –41& 20& 43&X&A & 2224\ 08340–3357 & 08340–3357 & 8& 36& 3& –34& 7& 34& & I& 2260\ R Pyx & 08434–2801 & 8& 45& 31& –28& 12& 3& & & 2326\ UW Pyx & 08450–3407 & 8& 47& 00& –34& 18& 59& & & 2334\ T Cnc & 08538+2002 & 8& 56& 40& +19& 50& 57& & & 2384\ 08535–4724 & 08535–4724 & 8& 55& 11& –47& 35& 56&X& I& 2389\ 08534–5055 & 08534–5055 & 8& 55& 2& –51& 7& 20&X& I& 2390\ IQ Hya & 09112–2311 & 9& 13& 32& –23& 23& 31& & & 2450\ CQ Pyx & 09116–2439 & 9& 13& 54& –24& 51& 25& & I& 6325\ 09164–5349 & 09164–5349 & 9& 18& 2& –54& 2& 27&X& I& 2473\ 09176–5147 & 09176–5147 & 9& 19& 17& –52& 0& 28&X& I& 2476\ $[$ABC89$]$Vel19 & & 9& 26& 19& –52& 6& 4&X&A & 2508\ $[$W71b$]$046–02 & 09249–4909 & 9& 26& 45& –49& 22& 25&X&A & 2512\ $[$ABC89$]$Vel44 & 09331–5010 & 9& 34& 57& –50& 24& 30&X&A & 2563\ 09433–6233 & 09433–6233 & 9& 44& 41& –62& 47& 32& & i& 6339\ CW Leo & 09452+1330 & 9& 47& 57& +13& 16& 43& & I& 2619\ W Sex & 09484–0147 & 9& 50& 58& – 2& 1& 43& & & 2635\ 09484–6242 & 09484–6242 & 9& 49& 49& –62& 56& 9& & & 2645\ 09513–5324 & 09513–5324 & 9& 53& 7& –53& 38& 54&X& I& 2653\ 09529–5506 & 09529–5506 & 9& 54& 41& –55& 20& 16&X& I& 2660\ 09533–6021 & 09533–6021 & 9& 54& 52& –60& 35& 26& & i& 2663\ 09521–7508 & 09521–7508 & 9& 52& 30& –75& 22& 28& & I& 2664\ 09586–6150 & 09586–6150 & 10& 0& 9& –62& 5& 19& & i& 6344\ 10019–6156 & 10019–6156 & 10& 3& 29& –62& 10& 37& & & 2691\ 10023–5946 & 10023–5946 & 10& 3& 58& –60& 0& 37&X& & 2692\ 10026–5849 & 10026–5849 & 10& 4& 20& –59& 4& 0&X& & 6347\ 10052–5906 & 10052–5906 & 10& 6& 57& –59& 21& 25&X& & 2703\ 10098–5742 & 10098–5742 & 10& 11& 35& –57& 57& 53&X& i& 6352\ 10109–5958 & 10109–5958 & 10& 12& 40& –60& 13& 30&X& & 2720\ RW LMi & 10131+3049 & 10& 16& 2& +30& 34& 19& & & 2724\ 10130–5703 & 10130–5703 & 10& 14& 49& –57& 18& 45&X& i&\ 10136–5743 & 10136–5743 & 10& 15& 27& –57& 58& 11&X& & 2729\ 10145–6046 & 10145–6046 & 10& 16& 13& –61& 1& 43& & & 2734\ 10149–5919 & 10149–5919 & 10& 16& 43& –59& 34& 52&X& & 2735\ 10151–6008 & 10151–6008 & 10& 16& 50& –60& 23& 55&X& i& 6354\ 10175–5957 & 10175–5957 & 10& 19& 17& –60& 12& 52&X& & 2745\ 10199–5801 & 10199–5801 & 10& 21& 44& –58& 16& 35&X& i& 6363\ 10220–5858 & 10220–5858 & 10& 23& 49& –59& 13& 54&X& & 6366\ CPD–58 2175 & 10231–5823 & 10& 24& 58& –58& 39& 17&X& i& 2760\ CZ Hya & 10249–2517 & 10& 27& 18& –25& 32& 56& & & 2764\ $[$ABC89$]$Car5 & & 10& 29& 44& –62& 28& 29& &A & 2776\ $[$ABC89$]$Car11 & & 10& 32& 22& –60& 42& 29&X&A & 2784\ TV Vel & 10324–5358 & 10& 34& 28& –54& 14& 28& & & 2790\ U Ant & 10329–3918 & 10& 35& 13& –39& 33& 45& & & 2793\ $[$ABC89$]$Car28 & & 10& 37& 9& –60& 59& 34&X&A & 6391\ $[$ABC89$]$Car32 & 10366–5950 & 10& 38& 29& –60& 5& 57&X&A & 2817\ FU Car & 10390–5907 & 10& 41& 0& –59& 23& 13&X&Ai& 2832\ $[$ABC89$]$Car54 & 10442–5809 & 10& 46& 16& –58& 25& 21&X&A & 2850\ $[$ABC89$]$Car59 & & 10& 48& 30& –60& 11& 32&X&A & 2862\ V Hya & 10491–2059 & 10& 51& 37& –21& 15& 00& & I& 2877\ $[$ABC89$]$Car73 & 10509–6036 & 10& 52& 55& –60& 52& 10&X&A & 6426\ $[$ABC89$]$Car81 & & 10& 54& 27& –60& 19& 50&X&A & 2897\ $[$ABC89$]$Car84 & & 10& 56& 45& –60& 3& 37&X&A & 2907\ $[$ABC89$]$Car87 & 10558–6203 & 10& 57& 47& –62& 19& 16&X&A & 2911\ $[$ABC89$]$Car93 & & 10& 59& 5& –60& 31& 49& &A & 2917\ $[$ABC89$]$Car105 & 11009–6117 & 11& 3& 1& –61& 33& 28&X&Ai& 2941\ 11145–6534 & 11145–6534 & 11& 16& 39& –65& 50& 56& & I& 2987\ $[$W65$]$ c1 & & 11& 20& 34& –59& 30& 51&X& & 2997\ $[$W65$]$ c2 & & 11& 22& 5& –59& 38& 45&X&A & 3003\ $[$W65$]$ c13 & 11299–6103 & 11& 32& 19& –61& 20& 34&X&A & 3051\ $[$TI98$]$1130–1020 & 11308–1020 & 11& 33& 25& –10& 36& 59& & & 3052\ 11318–7256 & 11318–7256 & 11& 33& 58& –73& 13& 19& & & 3062\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen3 & & 11& 35& 54& –60& 33& 41&X&A & 3068\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen4 & 11339–6012 & 11& 36& 17& –60& 29& 18&X&A & 3071\ 11463–6320 & 11463–6320 & 11& 48& 48& –63& 37& 28&X& I& 6455\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen32 & 11468–5950 & 11& 49& 21& –60& 7& 5&X&Ai& 3108\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen43 & 11510–6046 & 11& 53& 31& –61& 3& 33&X&A & 3120\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen60 & 11556–6357 & 11& 58& 8& –64& 14& 54&X&A & 3139\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen78 & & 12& 4& 10& –62& 42& 26&X&A & 6464\ CF Cru & 12023–6230 & 12& 4& 55& –62& 47& 39&X&A & 3165\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen97 & 12100–6122 & 12& 12& 44& –61& 39& 01&X&A & 6473\ 12194–6007 & 12194–6007 & 12& 22& 10& –60& 24& 15&X& I& 3220\ SS Vir & 12226+0102 & 12& 25& 14& + 0& 46& 11& & & 3236\ 12298–5754 & 12298–5754 & 12& 32& 41& –58& 11& 29&X& I& 3251\ CGCS3268 & 12374–5706 & 12& 40& 15& –57& 22& 46& &A & 3268\ 12394–4338 & 12394–4338 & 12& 42& 10& –43& 55& 03& & I& 3275\ 12421–6217 & 12421–6217 & 12& 45& 7& –62& 33& 38&X& I& 6489\ RU Vir & 12447+0425 & 12& 47& 18& + 4& 8& 41& & & 3286\ V Cru & 12536–5737 & 12& 56& 36& –57& 53& 57&X& & 3310\ 12540–6845 & 12540–6845 & 12& 57& 16& –69& 1& 51& & I& 3311\ $[$ABC89$]$Cru17 & 13022–6400 & 13& 5& 26& –64& 16& 11&X&Ai& 3327\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir1 & 13342–6232 & 13& 37& 44& –62& 48& 28&X&Ai& 3410\ 13343–5807 & 13343–5807 & 13& 37& 41& –58& 23& 10&X& I& 3411\ 13477–6532 & 13477–6532 & 13& 51& 29& –65& 46& 56&X& I& 3439\ 13482–6716 & 13482–6716 & 13& 52& 4& –67& 30& 56& & I& 3441\ 13509–6348 & 13509–6348 & 13& 54& 34& –64& 3& 23&X& I& 3446\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir18 & & 13& 55& 26& –59& 22& 24&X&A & 6547\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir26 & 14004–6047 & 14& 4& 5& –61& 01& 50&X&Ai& 6549\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir27 & 14010–5927 & 14& 4& 33& –59& 41& 22&X&Ai& 3470\ $[$W71b$]$093–02& 14192–6327 & 14& 23& 8& –63& 41& 9&X&A & 3487\ 14395–5656 & 14395–5656 & 14& 43& 14& –57& 8& 45&X&A & 3523\ 14404–6320 & 14404–6320 & 14& 44& 26& –63& 33& 28&X& I& 3525\ 14443–5708 & 14443–5708 & 14& 48& 4& –57& 20& 37&X& I& 6565\ 15082–4808 & 15082–4808 & 15& 11& 41& –48& 19& 59& & I& 3570\ 15084–5702 & 15084–5702 & 15& 12& 15& –57& 13& 28&X& I& 6572\ II Lup & 15194–5115 & 15& 23& 5& –51& 25& 59&X& I& 3592\ 15261–5702 & 15261–5702 & 15& 30& 2& –57& 12& 46&X& I&\ 15471–5644 & 15471–5644 & 15& 51& 6& –56& 53& 24&X& I& 6600\ CGCS3660 & & 16& 2& 44& –41& 21& 32& & & 3660\ 16079–4812 & 16079–4812 & 16& 11& 34& –48& 19& 51&X& I& 3670\ NP Her & 16150+2558 & 16& 17& 9& +25& 51& 02& & & 3679\ 16171–4759 & 16171–4759 & 16& 20& 50& –48& 6& 53&X& I& 3681\ V Oph & 16239–1218 & 16& 26& 44& –12& 25& 36& & & 3698\ SU Sco & 16374–3217 & 16& 40& 39& –32& 22& 48& & & 3720\ CGCS3721 & 16387–5401 & 16& 42& 45& –54& 7& 10& & & 3721\ 16406–1406 & 16406–1406 & 16& 43& 27& –14& 12& 00& & i&\ 16538–4633 & 16538–4633 & 16& 57& 32& –46& 37& 47&X& I& 3747\ 16545–4214 & 16545–4214 & 16& 58& 6& –42& 19& 24&X& I& 3748\ T Ara & 16584–5459 & 17& 2& 33& –55& 4& 16& & i& 3756 &2\ V901 Sco & 16595–3239 & 17& 2& 46& –32& 43& 31&X& & 3762\ 17047–2848 & 17047–2848 & 17& 7& 56& –28& 52& 06& & I& 3772\ V2548 Oph & 17049–2440 & 17& 7& 58& –24& 44& 31& & I& 6661\ SZ Ara & 17065–6153 & 17& 11& 7& –61& 57& 15& & & 3774\ V617 Sco & 17103–3551 & 17& 13& 41& –35& 55& 21&X& I& 3786\ 17105–3746 & 17105–3746 & 17& 13& 59& –37& 50& 8&X& I& 6670& 3\ 17130–3907 & 17130–3907 & 17& 16& 33& –39& 10& 46&X& I& 3794\ 17209–3318 & 17209–3318 & 17& 24& 15& –33& 21& 20&X& I& 6674 & 4\ 17217–3916 & 17217–3916 & 17& 25& 13& –39& 19& 22&X& I& 3823\ 17222–2328 & 17222–2328 & 17& 25& 18& –23& 30& 46& & I& 3825\ V833 Her & 17297+1747 & 17& 31& 55& +17& 45& 21& & I& 6677\ V Pav & 17389–5742 & 17& 43& 19& –57& 43& 26& & & 3861\ 17446–4048 & 17446–4048 & 17& 48& 12& –40& 49& 36& & I& 6685\ 17446–7809 & 17446–7809 & 17& 52& 35& –78& 10& 42& & I& 6687\ 17463–4007 & 17463–4007 & 17& 49& 50& –40& 7& 58& & & & 5\ V348 Sco & 17478–4315 & 17& 51& 30& –43& 16& 23& & i& 3886\ 17581–1744 & 17581–1744 & 18& 1& 6& –17& 44& 23&X& I& 3925\ 18036–2344 & 18036–2344 & 18& 6& 42& –23& 44& 22&X& I& 6709\ FX Ser & 18040–0941 & 18& 6& 50& – 9& 41& 16& & I& 6711\ V1280 Sgr & 18073–2652 & 18& 10& 28& –26& 51& 58&X& & 3960\ 18119–2244 & 18119–2244 & 18& 15& 1& –22& 43& 58&X& I& 6729\ 18147–2215 & 18147–2215 & 18& 17& 43& –22& 14& 39&X& I& 6733\ V5104 Sgr & 18194–2708 & 18& 22& 35& –27& 6& 29& & & 6738\ V2548 Sgr & 18234–2206 & 18& 26& 29& –22& 4& 15&X& I& 4007\ 18239–0655 & 18239–0655 & 18& 26& 39& – 6& 54& 4&X& I& 6743\ 18244–0815 & 18244–0815 & 18& 27& 7& – 8& 13& 10&X& i&\ V1076 Her & 18240+2326 & 18& 25& 6& +23& 28& 47& & I&\ 18248–0839 & 18248–0839 & 18& 27& 34& – 8& 37& 23&X& I& 4014\ 18269–1257 & 18269–1257 & 18& 29& 47& –12& 54& 58&X& I& 4024\ 18320–0352 & 18320–0352 & 18& 34& 40& – 3& 50& 14&X& I& 6750\ V627 Oph & 18321+0910 & 18& 34& 34& + 9& 12& 42& & & 4045\ 18367–0452 & 18367–0452 & 18& 39& 22& – 4& 48& 45&X& I& 6754& 3\ V1417 Aql & 18398–0220 & 18& 42& 25& – 2& 17& 27&X& I& 4077\ 18400–0704 & 18400–0704 & 18& 42& 45& – 7& 1& 10&X& i& 6757\ V821 Her & 18397+1738 & 18& 41& 55& +17& 41& 8& & I& 4078\ 18424+0346 & 18424+0346 & 18& 44& 59& + 3& 49& 35&X& I& 4093\ V874 Aql & & 18& 45& 41& + 9& 38& 39& & & 4099\ V2045 Sgr & 18463–1706 & 18& 49& 15& –17& 3& 25& & & 4117\ S Sct & 18476–0758 & 18& 50& 20& – 7& 54& 28&X& & 4121\ 18475+0926 & 18475+0926 & 18& 49& 55& + 9& 30& 07&X& I& 6761\ AI Sct & 18481–0647 & 18& 50& 52& – 6& 44& 23&X& & 4124\ V1418 Aql & 19008+0726 & 19& 3& 18& + 7& 30& 45&X& I& 4162\ 19029+2017 & 19029+2017 & 19& 5& 7& +20& 22& 4& & I& 6767\ 19068+0544 & 19068+0544 & 19& 9& 16& + 5& 49& 10&X& I& 6772\ V1420 Aql & 19175–0807 & 19& 20& 18& – 8& 2& 12& & I& 6780\ V374 Aql & 19276–0056 & 19& 30& 15& – 0& 50& 9& & I& 4301\ V1965 Cyg & 19321+2757 & 19& 34& 10& +28& 4& 8&X& I& 4347\ 19358+0917 & 19358+0917 & 19& 38& 13& + 9& 24& 9& & I& 4378\ 19455+0920 & 19455+0920 & 19& 47& 56& + 9& 28& 9& & I& 4475\ R Cap & 20084–1425 & 20& 11& 18& –14& 16& 3& & & 4701\ RT Cap & 20141–2128 & 20& 17& 7& –21& 19& 4& & & 4774\ BD Vul & 20351+2618 & 20& 37& 18& +26& 29& 13& & & 4915\ V442 Vul & 20570+2714 & 20& 59& 10& +27& 26& 39& & I& 5063\ RV Aqr & 21032–0024 & 21& 5& 52& – 0& 12& 42& & & 5120\ Y Pav & 21197–6956 & 21& 24& 17& –69& 44& 2& & & 5239\ $[$TI98$]$2223+2548 & 22239+2548 & 22& 26& 19& +26& 3& 38& & &\ $[$TI98$]$2259+1249 & 22592+1249 & 23& 1& 47& +13& 5& 14& & &\ LL Peg & 23166+1655 & 23& 19& 13& +17& 11& 33& & I& 6913\ RU Aqr & 23217–1735 & 23& 24& 24& –17& 19& 9& & i&\ IZ Peg & 23257+1038 & 23& 28& 17& +10& 54& 37& & I& 6916\ \ \ R Ori & 04562+0803 & 4& 58& 59& + 8& 7& 49& & & 828& 6\ R CMi & 07059+1006 & 7& 8& 42& +10& 1& 26& & & 1561& 6\ 08276–5125 & 08276–5125 & 8& 29& 8& –51& 35& 5& & i& & C?\ 08439–2734 & 08439–2734 & 8& 46& 6& –27& 45& 49& & I& 2329 & 7\ UX Pyx & 09075–2758 & 9& 9& 41& –28& 10& 21& & i& & 8\ MU Vel & 09450–4716 & 9& 46& 54& –47& 29& 51& & i& & C?\ 10226–5229 & 10226–5229 & 10& 24& 34& –52& 43& 29& & I& & C?\ $[$ABC89$]$Car10& 10293–5912 & 10& 31& 9& –59& 28& 16&X&Ai& 6382& 9\ TU Car & 10331–6027 & 10& 34& 55& –60& 42& 35&X&A & 2795&10\ V354 Cen & & 11& 50& 59& –47& 55& 21& & & &C?\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen50 & 11529–6350 & 11& 55& 29& –64& 7& 23&X&A && 9\ BH Cru & 12135–5600 & 12& 16& 16& –56& 17& 7& & & & 6\ TT Cen & 13163–6031 & 13& 19& 34& –60& 46& 44&X& i& 3367& 6\ RV Cen & 13343–5613 & 13& 37& 35& –56& 28& 33& & & 3412& 11\ 16316–5026 & 16316–5026 & 16& 35& 30& –50& 32& 10& & I& & 8\ VX Aql & 18575–0139 & 19& 0& 9& – 1& 34& 56&X& & &6\ 18595–3947 &18595–3947 & 19 & 3& 2& –39 & 42& 56& & I& & 12\ V1293 Aql & 19306+0455 & 19& 33& 6& + 5& 1& 45& & I& & 13\ Notes:\ 1. Complex flattened circumstellar shell (Richichi et al. 1998).\ 2. Super lithium rich star (Catchpole & Feast 1976).\ 3. No 2MASS photometry; image blended.\ 4. C star $35''$ east of OH353.81+1.45; IRAS probably blend of two.\ 5. 17463–4007 is the only known cool C star in the Bulge as noted from an objective prism survey by S. Hughes (private communication).\ 6. SC star (Keenan & Boeshaar 1980).\ 7. SC star (Lloyd Evans 1991).\ 8. SIMBAD quotes spectral type other than C.\ 9. S star (Lloyd Evans & Catchpole 1989).\ 10. Not a C star (Aaronson et al. 1989).\ 11. C star with silicate shell (Skinner et al. 1990).\ 12. Not a C star (Chen et al. 2003).\ 13. Not a C star, e.g. Groenewegen (1994) and references therein.\ C? These have been suggested as C rich on the basis of their infrared colours or IRAS spectra, but the evidence is inconclusive.\ [lrrrrrrrrlllr]{} \ \ Name & $J$& $H$ & $K$ & $L$ & $\Delta J$ &$\Delta H$ &$\Delta K$ & $\Delta L$ &${\rm P}_K$ &P$_{lit}$ & Var& no.\ & &\ \ \ Name & $J$& $H$ & $K$ & $L$ & $\Delta J$ &$\Delta H$ &$\Delta K$ & $\Delta L$ &${\rm P}_K$ &P$_{lit}$ & Var& no.\ \ \ \ R Scl & 2.02& 0.66& –0.08& –0.73& 0.86& 0.64& 0.36& 0.28& 375 &363&20 &157\ YY Tri & & 9.82& 6.81& 3.06& & 1.80& 1.74& 1.40& 624 & &10 & 74\ R For & 4.08& 2.41& 1.21& –0.07& 1.10& 0.92& 0.66& 0.58& 385 &389 &11$^\dag$ &100\ EV Eri & 5.55& 4.30& 3.60& 3.00& & & & & 226 & &21$^\dag$ & 59\ $[$TI98$]$0418+0122 & 9.23& 7.36& 6.01& 4.53& 1.64& 1.42& 1.08& 0.78& 422 & &10 & 31\ V718 Tau & 5.92& 4.07& 2.84& 1.63& 1.46& 1.18& 0.78& 0.80& 388 &405&13$^*$ & 14\ TT Tau & 2.78& 1.45& 0.97& 0.54& & & & & &166 &20 & 1\ R Lep & 2.49& 1.03& 0.07& –0.94& 0.94& 0.78& 0.52& 0.50& 438 &427 &11$^\dag$ & 71\ TU Tau & 3.62& 2.25& 1.68& 1.09& & & & & &190:&20 & 1\ Y Tau & 2.13& 0.83& 0.27& –0.29& & & & & &242 &20 & 6\ QS Ori & 6.40& 4.82& 3.80& 2.73& 1.58& 1.44& 1.02& 1.00& 483 &476 &10 & 12\ 05418–3224 & 9.15& 6.68& 4.86& 2.75& 1.70& 1.56& 1.36& 1.30& 483&&11:$^*$ & 15\ V1259 Ori & & 11.29& 7.73& 3.44& & & & & &696 &10 & 2\ 06088+1909 & 8.57& 6.07& 4.26& 2.25& 1.38& 1.20& 1.00& 0.86& 493 & &10 & 13\ BN Mon & 4.44& 2.99& 2.24& 1.59& & & & & &600:&20 & 3\ ZZ Gem & 5.41& 4.02& 3.21& 2.60&$>$0.8&$>$0.6&$>$0.4&$>$0.2&316:&317&10&9\ V617 Mon & 7.24& 5.45& 4.17& 2.83& 0.88& 0.84& 0.72& 0.62& 444 &375:&14$^*$ & 13\ V636 Mon & 5.01& 3.13& 1.82& 0.41& 1.62& 1.26& 0.86& 0.56& 543 & &10 & 15\ V477 Mon & 8.87& 6.45& 4.55& 2.26& 1.66& 1.48& 1.22& 0.96& 619 &820:&10 & 12\ CR Gem & 3.36& 1.91& 1.38& 0.92& & & & & &250 &20 & 1\ GM CMa & 4.52& 3.10& 2.22& 1.39& 0.76& 0.54& 0.30& 0.22& 403 & &21 & 94\ V503 Mon & 8.11& 6.59& 5.69& 4.9:& 0.60& 0.40& 0.16& 0.16& 357 &355 &20 & 11\ RT Gem & 6.51& 5.21& 4.62& 4.21& 0.76& 0.74& 0.58& 0.72& 350 &350 &10 & 9\ 06487+0551 & 9.14& 6.58& 4.62& 2.24& 1.34& 1.20& 1.02& 0.74& 536 & &10 & 12\ CG Mon & 5.33& 3.96& 3.30& 2.75& 0.82& 0.74& 0.60& 0.70& 424 &419 &10 & 9\ CL Mon & 4.78& 3.06& 1.88& 0.59& 1.28& 1.02& 0.74& 0.52& 511 &497 &10 & 10\ 06531–0216 & 6.95& 4.89& 3.35& 1.61& 1.32& 1.18& 0.98& 0.64& 595:& &14$^*$ & 13\ NP Pup & 2.49& 1.38& 1.03& 0.64& & & & & & &20 & 3\ 06564+0342 &10.26& 7.59& 5.43& 2.84& 1.50& 1.32& 1.16& 1.02& 584 & &10 & 12\ W CMa & 2.59& 1.40& 0.96& 0.50& & & & & & &20 & 13\ 07080–0106 &11.5 & 8.68& 6.23& 3.49& & 2.54& 1.60& 1.04& 594 & &10 & 12\ VX Gem & 4.96& 3.74& 3.13& 2.78& 1.14& 1.06& 0.66& 0.78& 391 &379 &10 & 9\ 07097–1011 & 8.91& 7.04& 5.92& 4.95& 0.50& 0.36& 0.22& 0.24& 437 & &20 & 13\ R Vol & 5.08& 3.14& 1.71& 0.08& 1.46& 1.26& 0.98& 0.80& 452 &454&11$^\dag$ & 88\ HX CMa & 7.92& 5.46& 3.62& 1.42& & & & & &725 &10 & 1\ 07136–1512 & 8.12& 6.50& 5.57& 4.74& 0.36& 0.28& 0.16& 0.10& 486:& &20 & 12\ 07161–0111 & 7.40& 5.26& 3.58& 1.64& & & & & & &23 & 12\ 07217–1246 & 8.88& 6.32& 4.30& 1.91& 1.42& 1.32& 1.12& 0.88& 620:& &10 & 12\ 07220–2324 & 9.51& 6.80& 4.77& 2.46& 1.58& 1.24& 1.06& 0.88& 560 & &10 & 13\ 07223–1553 & 7.98& 6.23& 5.23& 4.38& 0.56& 0.44& 0.24& 0.18& 457 & &20 & 13\ 07293–1832 & 8.80& 6.99& 6.02& 5.17& & & & & & &20 & 12\ 07319–1940 & 7.91& 6.36& 5.64& 4.99& & & & & & &20 & 6\ $[$W71b$]$007–02 & 7.85& 6.08& 4.93& 3.79& 1.12& 0.94& 0.70& 0.40& 460:& &13 & 15\ 07373–4021 & 5.39& 3.52& 2.23& 0.77& 1.40& 1.20& 0.90& 0.78& 459 &471 &13 & 15\ $[$W71b$]$008–03 & 9.50& 8.01& 7.30& & & & & & & &20 & 6\ V471 Pup & 7.08& 5.78& 5.13& 4.63& 1.04& 0.98& 0.76& 0.92& 390 & &10 & 16\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup3 & 7.79& 6.31& 5.37& 4.61& 0.24& 0.22& 0.10& & 309 & &20 & 9\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup17 & 9.42& 7.86& 7.12& 6.54& & & & & & &20 & 6\ 07454–7112 & 8.03& 5.08& 2.82& 0.07& 2.08& 1.98& 1.72& 1.46& 511 & &10 & 11\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup21 & 9.27& 7.55& 6.38& 5.34& & & & & & &23 & 17\ V831 Mon & 6.53& 4.99& 3.89& 2.76& 1.38& 1.04& 0.74& 0.58& 331 &319 &10 & 13\ 07576–4054 & & 9.29& 6.62& 3.39& & 1.98& 1.80& 1.40& 519 & &10 & 16\ 07582–1933 &10.70& 7.74& 5.39& 2.69& 1.84& 1.82& 1.62& 1.42& 541 & &10 & 14\ V509 Pup & 5.95& 4.48& 3.72& 3.01& & & & & & &20 & 8\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup38 &10.65& 8.79& 7.43& 6.06& 1.26& 1.08& 0.88& 1.00& 431 & &10 & 15\ FF Pup & 6.64& 5.38& 4.69& 4.00& 1.10& 1.16& 0.94& 1.06& 431 &436 &10 & 8\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup42 & 8.52& 6.97& 6.16& 5.45& 0.28& 0.22& 0.14& 0.06& 199 & &20 & 15\ V518 Pup & 6.96& 4.90& 3.52& 2.07& 1.06& 0.94& 0.76& 0.80& 228 &448 &13 & 13\ 08050–2838 &10.40& 7.28& 5.08& 2.57& 2.10& 1.80& 1.48& 1.26& 555 & &13 & 11\ RU Pup & 3.65& 2.52& 2.04& 1.48& & & & & &425 &20 & 2\ FK Pup & 3.55& 2.16& 1.46& 0.78& & & & & &502 &20 & 2\ 08074–3615 & & 13.13& 9.09& 4.50& & 2.14& 1.74& 1.46& 832 & &10 & 13\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx19 & 9.98& 7.77& 6.11& 4.23& 1.78& 1.30& 0.88& 0.46& 474 & &13 & 16\ $[$W71b$]$021–05 & 6.66& 5.19& 4.40& 3.71& & & & & & &20:& 4\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx22 & 6.59& 5.10& 4.34& 3.62& & & & & & &20:& 4\ V346 Pup & 8.67& 5.92& 3.75& 1.16& 1.78& 1.60& 1.38& 1.14& 568 &571 &10 & 51\ $[$W71b$]$026–01 & 8.27& 6.51& 5.58& 4.72& & & & & & &20:& 4\ RY Hya & 4.36& 2.98& 2.24& 1.46& 0.46& 0.30& 0.14& 0.12& 516 &529 &20 & 61\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx40 & 7.68& 6.15& 5.36& 4.73& 1.20& 1.04& 0.74& 0.78& 428 &439 &10 & 13\ $[$W71b$]$029–02 & 9.48& 7.28& 5.63& 3.86& 1.06& 0.92& 0.72& 0.52& 470 & &10 & 19\ $[$W71b$]$029–04 & 8.62& 6.80& 5.82& 5.01& & & & & & &20:& 4\ 08340–3357 &11.29& 8.14& 5.61& 2.56& 2.32& 1.56& 1.46& 1.16& 590 & &10 & 18\ R Pyx & 4.55& 3.28& 2.53& 1.81&$>$0.74&$>$0.46&$>$0.22&$>$0.34&369&365&13 &11\ UW Pyx & 4.87& 3.46& 2.68& 1.85& & & & & &423 &10 & 5\ T Cnc & 3.21& 1.81& 1.07& 0.43& & & & & &482 &20 & 1\ 08535–4724 & & 10.78& 7.58& 4.05& & 1.84& 1.72& 1.54& 570:& &13 & 14\ 08534–5055 & & 11.96& 8.50& 4.55& & 2.56& 1.92& 1.60& 703 & &10 & 15\ IQ Hya & 5.68& 4.06& 2.89& 1.64& 1.14& 0.94& 0.70& 0.68& 382 &397 &10 & 15\ CQ Pyx & & 9.31& 5.98& 2.09& & 1.84& 1.82& 1.48& 659 & &10 & 33\ 09164–5349 & 4.14& 2.73& 2.11& 1.40& & & & & &&25$^\dag$ & 12\ 09176–5147 &11.57& 8.59& 6.31& 3.63& 1.50& 1.54& 1.36& 1.02& 431:& &13 & 16\ $[$ABC89$]$Vel19 &10.11& 7.98& 6.75& 5.64& & & & & & &21 & 20\ $[$W71b$]$046–02 & 9.03& 7.27& 6.38& 5.78& 1.00& 0.76& 0.40& 0.34& 265 & &10 & 15\ $[$ABC89$]$Vel44 & 8.02& 6.25& 5.15& 4.09& 0.74& 0.60& 0.40& 0.32& 413 & &10 & 16\ 09433–6233 &11.33& 8.94& 7.18& 5.17& 1.06& 1.10& 1.10& 1.10& 590:& &13 & 12\ CW Leo & 7.34& 4.04& 1.19& –2.54& 2.06& 2.14& 2.06& 1.74& 651 &630 &10 & 37\ W Sex & 5.11& 3.95& 3.49& 3.06& 0.32& 0.26& 0.16& 0.12& 195 &134 &20 & 17\ 09484–6242 & 7.63& 6.27& 5.56& 4.89& 0.06& 0.10& 0.08& 0.06& 244:& &20 & 7\ 09513–5324 &10.92& 7.60& 5.07& 2.04& 1.92& 1.70& 1.54& 1.30& 630 & &10 & 12\ 09529–5506 &10.66& 7.91& 5.82& 3.11& 2.56& 2.08& 1.72& 1.50& 688:& &10 & 8\ 09533–6021 &12.78& 9.54& 7.03& 4.04& 1.96& 1.90& 1.72& 1.38& 714 & &10 & 12\ 09521–7508 & 8.11& 5.36& 3.22& 0.70& 1.98& 1.96& 1.74& 1.28& 539 & &10 & 9\ 09586–6150 & & 12.02& 9.19& 5.90& & 1.78& 1.68& 1.38& 506 & &10 & 11\ 10019–6156 & 7.87& 6.55& 5.99& 5.49& & & & & & &20 & 7\ 10023–5946 & 6.94& 5.53& 4.90& 4.20& 0.32& 0.26& 0.18& 0.12& 571:& &20 & 11\ 10026–5849 & 9.80& 7.49& 5.90& 4.22& 1.04& 0.94& 0.68& 0.52& 531 & &13 & 10\ 10052–5906 & & 7.46& 6.47& 5.67& 0.52& 0.38& 0.20& 0.10& 448 & &20 & 12\ 10098–5742 & & 10.29& 7.55& 4.24& & 1.38& 1.26& 1.16& 585 & &10 & 14\ 10109–5958 & 7.26& 5.49& 4.27& 3.03& 0.78& 0.70& 0.58& 0.50& 423:& &13 & 11\ RW LMi & 6.18& 3.43& 1.32& –1.21& 1.86& 1.72& 1.50& 1.28& 617 &640 &10 & 14\ 10130–5703 & 6.30& 4.07& 3.07& 2.23& & & & & & &20 & 5\ 10136–5743 & 8.33& 6.40& 5.23& 3.94& & & & &&&15:$^\dag$ & 13\ 10145–6046 & 5.78& 4.35& 3.65& 2.97& & & & & & &20 & 11\ 10149–5919 & 6.68& 5.18& 4.53& 3.90& & & & & & &20 & 6\ 10151–6008 & 9.28& 7.86& 7.21& 6.51& & & & & & &20 & 6\ 10175–5957 & 8.28& 6.61& 5.66& 4.86& & & & & & &20 & 12\ 10199–5801 &11.81& 8.51& 6.20& 3.52& 1.66& 1.56& 1.28& 1.02& 675 & &10 & 14\ 10220–5858 & 8.54& 6.62& 5.39& 4.20& 0.86& 0.64& 0.42& 0.32& 585:& &10 & 11\ CPD–58 2175 &12.33& 9.39& 7.14& 4.54& 1.74& 1.58& 1.42& 1.22& 548 & &10 & 10\ CZ Hya & 4.73& 3.32& 2.39& 1.38& 1.42& 1.30& 0.96& 0.92& 444 &442 &10 & 12\ $[$ABC89$]$Car5 & 9.76& 8.28& 7.53& 6.83& 0.20& 0.20& 0.14& & 168 & &20 & 12\ $[$ABC89$]$Car11 & 8.50& 6.99& 6.17& 5.41& & & & & & &20:& 4\ TV Vel & 5.08& 3.82& 3.24& 2.74& 0.60& 0.54& 0.40& 0.40& 404 &365 &10 & 14\ U Ant & 1.24& 0.01& –0.49& –1.11& & & & & & &20 & 25\ $[$ABC89$]$Car28 & 8.95& 7.29& 6.36& 5.47& 0.56& 0.42& 0.24& 0.20& 495 & &20 & 16\ $[$ABC89$]$Car32 & 7.67& 5.85& 4.84& 3.90& & & & & & &20 & 15\ FU Car & 6.41& 4.81& 3.85& 2.89& 0.70& 0.58& 0.32& 0.28& 431:&365:&20 & 13\ $[$ABC89$]$Car54 & 6.98& 5.16& 4.26& 3.44& 0.22& 0.22& & & 232:& &20 & 6\ $[$ABC89$]$Car59 & 7.22& 5.56& 4.62& 3.78& & & & & & &20:& 4\ V Hya & 1.78& 0.29& –0.70& –1.86&$>$0.52&$>$0.42&$>$0.30&$>$0.28& 532 &531 &22$^\dag$ & 75\ $[$ABC89$]$Car73 &10.69& 8.10& 6.34& 4.41& 1.88& 1.32& 1.06& 0.84& 483 & &10 & 14\ $[$ABC89$]$Car81 & 9.12& 7.28& 6.28& 5.46& & & & & & &20:& 3\ $[$ABC89$]$Car84 & 8.07& 6.37& 5.34& 4.25& 1.00& 0.80& 0.52& 0.46& 501 & &10 & 15\ $[$ABC89$]$Car87 & 8.66& 7.10& 6.12& 5.43& 1.08& 0.88& 0.52& 0.38& 473 & &10 & 9\ $[$ABC89$]$Car93 & 8.64& 6.64& 5.54& 4.56& 0.72& 1.06& 0.86& 0.44& 416 & &10 & 12\ $[$ABC89$]$Car105 & 7.32& 5.47& 4.24& 2.91& 0.90& 0.70& 0.46& 0.34& 497 &&11:$^*$ & 15\ 11145–6534 &10.00& 6.93& 4.49& 1.69& 1.72& 1.72& 1.58& 1.46& 623 & &10 & 12\ $[$W65$]$ c1 & 9.16& 7.59& 6.81& & & & & & & &20 & 8\ $[$W65$]$ c2 & 8.03& 6.70& 6.26& & & & & & & &24$^*$ & 8\ $[$W65$]$ c13 & 8.68& 6.92& 5.85& 4.91& 0.96& 0.74& 0.44& 0.34& 395 & &10 & 14\ $[$TI98$]$1130–1020& 7.82& 5.68& 4.04& 2.20& 1.38& 1.24& 1.12& 0.94& 443 & &10 & 20\ 11318–7256 & 4.01& 2.13& 0.85& –0.66& 1.38& 1.14& 0.90& 0.68& 526 &535 &10 & 9\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen3 & 9.63& 7.87& 7.00& & & & & & & &20:& 5\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen4 & 7.12& 5.53& 4.68& 3.83& 0.76& 0.68& 0.46& 0.44& 514 & &10 & 16\ 11463–6320 &10.39& 7.50& 5.44& 2.99& 2.02& 2.06& 1.80& 1.60& 615 & &10 & 14\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen32 & 8.95& 6.67& 5.05& 3.28& 1.14& 1.04& 0.84& 0.70& 652 & &10 & 14\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen43 & 9.16& 7.18& 5.82& 4.41& 1.36& 1.10& 0.78& 0.50& 535 & &10 & 13\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen60 & 8.66& 6.84& 5.71& 4.56& 1.02& 0.86& 0.60& 0.68& 414 & &10 & 13\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen78 & 9.39& 7.51& 6.48& 5.65& 0.54& 0.34& 0.20& & 401 & &20 & 13\ CF Cru & 8.91& 7.14& 6.21& & 0.72& 0.62& 0.42& & 430 & &10 & 15\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen97 &10.3 & 7.90& 6.57& 5.27& 2.12& 1.32& 0.80& 0.46& & &23 & 14\ 12194–6007 & 9.59& 7.00& 4.96& 2.57& 1.66& 1.54& 1.26& 0.94& 627 & &10 & 12\ SS Vir & 2.93& 1.56& 0.75& 0.01& 0.92& 0.68& 0.36& 0.20& 359 &364 &20 & 55\ 12298–5754 & 9.28& 6.65& 4.40& 1.70& 1.56& 1.66& 1.54& 1.24& 580 & &10 & 10\ CGCS3268 & 5.63& 4.28& 3.43& 2.78& & & & & &396 &10 & 1\ 12394–4338 & 7.49& 4.89& 2.91& 0.72& 1.68& 1.62& 1.30& 1.24& 551 & &14$^*$ & 12\ 12421–6217 & & & 8.47& 4.50& & & 2.40& 2.02& 806 & &10 & 8\ RU Vir & 4.86& 3.09& 1.80& 0.29& 1.40& 1.24& 0.98& 0.90& 444 &433 &10 & 46\ V Cru & 4.71& 3.46& 2.88& 2.45& 0.76& 0.68& 0.50& 0.64& 380 &376 &10 & 96\ 12540–6845 & 8.20& 5.52& 3.52& 1.15& 2.04& 1.78& 1.56& 1.30& 586 & &10 & 10\ $[$ABC89$]$Cru17 &10.16& 8.39& 7.45& 6.15& & & & & & &20:& 1\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir1 & 7.91& 5.95& 4.85& 3.56& & & & & & &25 & 11\ 13343–5807 & 9.75& 7.04& 4.98& 2.57& 1.86& 1.88& 1.62& 1.42& 556 & &10 & 13\ 13477–6532 & & 9.67& 6.62& 2.78& & 1.46& 1.68& 1.36& 690 & &10 & 13\ 13482–6716 & 8.47& 5.79& 3.78& 1.49& 1.66& 1.66& 1.44& 1.18& 500 & &10 & 12\ 13509–6348 & & & 5.12& 2.72& & 1.70& 1.46& 1.36& 678 & &10 & 16\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir18 &10.04& 8.27& 7.33& 6.5 & & & & & & &20 & 13\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir26 & 9.13& 6.71& 5.12& 3.36& 1.74& 1.36& 0.96& 0.74& 495 & &10 & 15\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir27 & 9.50& 7.12& 5.27& 3.10& 1.18& 1.22& 1.02& 0.84& 538 & &13$^*$ & 12\ $[$W71b$]$093–02 &10.5 & 8.67& 7.41& & & & & & & &10:& 4\ 14395–5656 & 9.15& 7.21& 6.01& 4.73& 0.86& 0.66& 0.44& 0.28& 488 & &10 & 11\ 14404–6320 & & 11.46& 8.32& 4.39& & 2.08& 2.18& 1.70& 643 & &10 & 9\ 14443–5708 & & 12.77& 8.93& 4.94& & 2.98& 2.16& 1.80& 723 & &10 & 8\ 15082–4808 &10.00& 7.00& 4.36& 0.86& 1.76& 1.68& 1.64& 1.48& 632 & &10 & 13\ 15084–5702 & & 10.85& 7.33& 3.37& & 2.38& 2.36& 1.94& 948 & &10 & 10\ II Lup & 5.92& 3.58& 1.79& –0.33& 1.04& 0.92& 0.82& 0.88& 576 &580 &11$^\dag$ & 28\ 15261–5702 & & 8.45& 5.96& 3.07& & 2.34& 2.02& 1.40& 716 & &10 & 15\ 15471–5644 & & & & 7.78& & & & & & &10$^*$ & 1\ CGCS3660 & 6.82& 5.67& 5.38& 5.19& & & & & & &20:& 2\ 16079–4812 & & 10.24& 6.85& 2.88& & 2.02& 2.32& 1.96& 710 & &10 & 12\ NP Her & 5.79& 4.36& 3.50& 2.79& & & & & &448 &10 & 1\ 16171–4759 & 9.58& 6.89& 4.89& 2.70& 1.26& 1.28& 1.06& 0.86& 560 & &13 & 14\ V Oph & 3.65& 2.35& 1.61& 0.99& 1.20& 0.86& 0.48& 0.38& 294 &297 &10 & 11\ SU Sco & 3.08& 1.77& 1.11& 0.56& & & & & &414:&20 & 5\ CGCS3721 & 6.56& 5.08& 4.12& 3.28& & & & & &353 &10 & 1\ 16406–1406 & & 11.79& 8.74& 5.10& & & &&&&15:$^\dag$ & 28\ 16538–4633 & 8.84& 6.07& 4.27& 2.30& 1.18& 1.04& 0.84& 0.72& 527 & &13 & 12\ 16545–4214 & 7.14& 4.50& 2.52& 0.38& 1.62& 1.68& 1.46& 1.28& 534 & &10 & 12\ T Ara & 4.53& 3.27& 2.77& 2.27& 0.20& 0.12& 0.10& 0.08& 327 & &20 & 13\ V901 Sco & 5.52& 4.01& 3.18& 2.38& 0.70& 0.58& 0.38& 0.34& 439:& &20 & 10\ 17047–2848 & 9.45& 7.09& 5.36& 3.28& 1.88& 1.74& 1.52& 1.38& 531 & &10 & 12\ V2548 Oph & & 8.48& 5.61& 1.98& & 2.08& 2.06& 1.80& 747 & &10 & 40\ SZ Ara & 6.16& 5.00& 4.45& 4.06& 0.94& 0.68& 0.44& 0.42& 222 &220 &10 & 8\ V617 Sco & 4.67& 3.15& 2.17& 1.23& 1.42& 1.48& 1.14& 1.04& &524 &10 & 6\ 17105–3746 & 9.74& 7.16& 5.14& 2.60& 1.98& 2.18& 2.10& 1.82& 568 & &10 & 10\ 17130–3907 & 8.92& 6.15& 4.23& 2.09& 2.32& 1.82& 1.36& 1.18& 628 & &13 & 14\ 17209–3318E &12.63& 9.04& 6.24& 3.18& & & & & & &10 & 4\ 17217–3916 & & 9.30& 6.42& 3.14& & 1.90& 1.94& 1.60& 630 & &10 & 11\ 17222–2328 & 9.67& 6.66& 4.60& 2.30& 1.88& 1.74& 1.58& 1.48& 603 & &13 & 9\ V833 Her & 9.58& 6.66& 4.19& 1.00& 2.36& 2.80& 2.72& 2.10& 540 & &13 & 13\ V Pav & 2.08& 0.76& 0.19& –0.39& & & & & 437 &225 &20 & 69\ 17446–7809 & 7.22& 4.69& 2.72& 0.55& & & & & & &10 & 4\ 17446–4048 & 8.15& 5.54& 3.60& 1.47& 1.34& 1.24& 1.10& 1.18& 545 & &13$^*$ & 12\ 17463–4007 &10.04& 8.37& 7.22& 5.92& 1.58& 1.32& 0.98& 0.90& 399 & &10 & 14\ V348 Sco & 7.09& 6.11& 5.66& & 0.26& 0.30& 0.26& 0.12& &274 &20 & 6\ 17581–1744 & 8.26& 5.77& 4.03& 2.12& 1.70& 1.40& 1.08& 0.94& 628 & &10 & 8\ 18036–2344 &10.71& 7.37& 4.93& 2.17& 2.66& 2.78& 2.22& 1.96& 664 & &13$^*$ & 9\ FX Ser & 7.03& 4.45& 2.59& 0.54& 1.70& 1.54& 1.28& 1.02& 519 & &10 & 26\ V1280 Sgr & 5.33& 3.58& 2.39& 1.02& 1.10& 1.02& 0.78& 0.70& 532 &523 &13 & 57\ 18119–2244 & & 8.39& 5.60& 2.65& & 2.24& 1.82& 1.56& 611 & &10 & 12\ 18147–2215 & & 9.92& 6.50& 2.91& & & & & & &10 & 5\ V5104 Sgr & 9.05& 5.87& 3.52& 0.78& 1.80& 1.72& 1.52& 1.34& 655 & &10 & 44\ V2548 Sgr & 4.47& 2.96& 2.11& 1.22& & & & & &159 &23 & 11\ 18239–0655 &10.31& 7.23& 4.64& 1.69& 1.58& 1.48& 1.44& 1.24& 635 & &10 & 9\ 18244–0815 &11.4 & 8.58& 5.97& 3.27& & & & & & &10 & 6\ V1076 Her & & 9.14& 5.84& 1.95& & 2.20& 1.98& 1.62& 609 & &10 & 12\ 18248–0839 &12.8 & 9.14& 6.13& 2.88& & & 2.04& 2.04& 659:& &10 & 7\ 18269–1257 &13.1 & 8.98& 5.85& 2.53& & & & & & &10$^*$ & 5\ 18320–0352 & & 11.61& 8.31& 4.45& & & & & & &10 & 4\ V627 Oph & 7.90& 5.97& 4.66& 3.17& & & & & &452 &10 & 3\ 18367–0452 & & 10.47& 7.11& 3.17& & & & & & &10:& 2\ V1417 Aql & 6.23& 3.78& 1.96& –0.08& 1.30& 1.10& 0.92& 0.72& 617 & &13 & 25\ 18400–0704 & & & 8.28& 4.64& & & & & & &10 & 3\ V821 Her & 5.98& 3.68& 1.85& –0.25& 1.88& 1.78& 1.52& 1.22& 524 &511 &10 & 15\ 18424+0346 & 9.73& 6.99& 4.87& 2.48& & & & & & &10 & 6\ V874 Aql & 8.71& 7.61& 7.22& 6.79& & & & & &145 &10 & 3\ V2045 Sgr & 6.21& 4.50& 3.46& 2.42& & & & & &451 &10 & 7\ S Sct & 2.43& 1.13& 0.57& 0.05& & & & & &148 &20 & 16\ 18475+0926 & & & 5.91& 2.36& & & & & & &10 & 3\ AI Sct & 6.12& 4.50& 3.48& 2.63& & & & & &408 &10 & 5\ V1418 Aql & 8.29& 5.44& 3.14& 0.47& 2.02& 1.74& 1.42& 1.08& 562 &577 &10 & 20\ 19029+2017 & 8.17& 5.68& 3.87& 1.86& & & & & & &10 & 5\ 19068+0544 & 8.01& 5.41& 3.75& 2.07& & & & & & &10 & 7\ V1420 Aql & 5.94& 3.68& 2.08& 0.06& 1.68& 1.44& 1.22& 1.18& 694 &676 &12 & 18\ V374 Aql & 4.91& 3.30& 2.29& 1.26& & & & & &456 &20 & 8\ V1965 Cyg & 7.64& 5.00& 2.95& 0.55& 2.52& 2.08& 1.68& 1.26& 577 &625 &13 & 11\ 19358+0917 & & 11.91& 8.36& 4.46& & & & & & &10:& 1\ 19455+0920 &12.1 & 9.32& 6.73& 3.5 & & & & & & &10 & 5\ R Cap & 5.31& 3.94& 3.05& 2.09& 1.42& 1.18& 0.86& 0.96& 349 &345 &10 & 15\ RT Cap & 2.48& 1.15& 0.54& –0.06& 0.30& 0.24& 0.14& 0.10& 359 &393 &20 & 23\ BD Vul & 5.84& 4.30& 3.37& 2.63& & & & & &430 &10 & 4\ V442 Vul & 9.78& 6.84& 4.22& 1.14& 2.14& 2.28& 2.02& 1.56& 661 & &10 & 12\ RV Aqr & 4.68& 2.75& 1.39& –0.13& 1.58& 1.32& 1.04& 0.94& 433 &454 &10 & 7\ Y Pav & 1.89& 0.69& 0.26& –0.08& & & & & &233 &20 & 2\ $[$TI98$]$2259+1249 & 6.97& 5.78& 5.24& 4.90& 0.78& 0.74& 0.54& 0.68& 306 &294 &10 & 36\ LL Peg & & & 10.50& 4.27& & & & & &696 &10 & 7\ RU Aqr & 3.10& 2.08& 1.78& 1.51& & & & & & 69&20 & 1\ IZ Peg & & 10.26& 7.09& 3.04& & 1.98& 1.94& 1.56& 486 &486 &10 &103\ $[$TI98$]$2223+2548 & 7.19& 5.56& 4.35& 3.06& 1.40& 1.18& 0.90& 0.80& 343 & &10 & 16\ \ \ R Ori & 5.82& 4.70& 4.15& 3.76& 0.92& 1.00& 0.78& 0.96& 381 &377 & & 14\ R CMi & 4.03& 2.97& 2.48& 2.22& 0.88& 0.82& 0.86& 0.74& 335 &338 & & 12\ 08276–5125 & & & 11.69& 6.63& & & & & & & & 1\ 08439–2734 & 6.56& 4.85& 3.79& 2.40& 1.66& 1.52& 1.28& 1.26& 475 & & & 14\ UX Pyx & 3.93& 2.91& 2.59& 2.26& & & & & &423 & & 1\ MU Vel & & & 9.49& 5.30& & 1.54& 1.56& 1.48& 597 & & & 33\ 10226–5229 & 8.89& 6.25& 4.56& 2.60& 2.98& 2.32& 1.86& 1.50& 756 & & & 10\ $[$ABC89$]$Car10 & 7.00& 5.59& 4.99& 4.37& 1.14& 1.00& 0.88& 0.88& 397 & & & 15\ TU Car & 7.16& 6.07& 5.52& 4.92& 0.78& 0.86& 0.74& 0.58& 254 &258 & & 10\ V354 Cen & 9.22& 8.33& 8.04& 7.6 & 0.38& 0.32& 0.18& & 150:&150 & & 11\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen50 & 9.73& 7.54& 6.01& 4.34& 0.92& 0.82& 0.70& 0.60& 512 & & & 12\ BH Cru & 3.21& 2.03& 1.56& 1.23& 0.62& 0.66& 0.58& 0.64& 491 &421 & & 46\ BH Cru & 3.15& 1.98& 1.40& 1.01& 0.72& 0.70& 0.50& 0.64& 524 &421 & & 36\ TT Cen & 4.35& 2.99& 2.43& 1.91&$>$0.72&$>$0.76&$>$0.68&$>$0.80& 448 &462 & & 89\ RV Cen & 3.33& 2.08& 1.47& 1.00& 0.68& 0.56& 0.36& 0.46& 447 &446 & & 87\ 16316–5026 & 4.28& 2.56& 1.82& 1.00& 1.48& 0.96& 0.84& 0.74& 565 & & & 13\ VX Aql & 4.90& 3.59& 3.06& 2.41& & & & & &604 & & 2\ 18595–3947 & 3.30& 1.52& 0.51& –0.69& 2.02& 1.50& 1.10& 0.98& 449 & & & 22\ V1293 Aql & 2.10& 1.11& 0.83& 0.59& & & & & & & & 5\ These stars are discussed in the section \[trends\] on long term trends.\ $*$These are stars for which the second parameter of the variable type depends on the combination of our observations and photometry from other sources. [**V718 Tau**]{} Epchtein et al. (1990) and 2MASS data obtained before and after SAAO observations, at phases which are similar to our faintest measurements (i.e. not in the gap) suggest that it has been much fainter ($K$=3.94, 3.88 respectively, $\Delta K\sim 0.7$) and redder, than the faintest SAAO measurements. [**05418–3224**]{} An observation by Epchtein et al. (1990) predating ours is 3 and 5 mag brighter at $K$ and $J$ respectively. 2MASS photometry contemporaneous with ours and Fouqué et al. (1992) measurements predating ours are within the range shown in our light curve. We therefore class this star as showing obscuration events, but note that the evidence is very limited. [**V617 Mon**]{} Although Noguchi et al. (1981) present measures distinctly different from ours, a comparison with 2MASS suggests they actually observed BD+08$^{\rm o}$1312, an M star about one arcmin away from V617 Mon. [**06531–0216**]{} Note that the 2MASS ($K=4.45$) and Epchtein et al. (1990) ($K=2.89$) observations do not agree with the phasing of the SAAO data. The period must therefore be regarded as uncertain. [**\[ABC89\]Car105**]{} The Aaronson et al. (1989) observation ($K=5.41$), which predates the SAAO photometry, is much fainter than our minimum ($K=4.48$). This may indicate an obscuration event. [**\[W65\] c2**]{} While the 2MASS, the 1985 Aaronson et al. (1989) and the SAAO observations differ by less than 0.1 mag at $K$, the 1988 Aaronson et al. photometry is considerably fainter ($J=9.14$, $K=7.21$). [**12394–4338**]{} The Fouqué et al. (1992) observation ($J=8.55$, $K=4.48$) is significantly fainter at $K$, but not at $J$, than the SAAO minimum ($J=8.60$, $K=3.74$), while the 2MASS and Epchtein et al. (1990) observations are comparable to those listed here. [**\[ABC89\]Cir27**]{} The Aaronson et al. (1989) measurement ($K=3.87$) is significantly brighter than the SAAO maximum ($K=4.57$) and may indicate that the source was obscured during the SAAO observations. [**15471–5644**]{} Too crowded for measurement at $JHK$, but 2MASS has $K=14.8$ and Groenewegen et al. (1993) have $K=11.4$, $L=4.6$, so it is certainly a large amplitude variable. [**17446–4048**]{} The Fouqué et al. (1992) measurement ($K=4.81$) is significantly fainter than the SAAO minimum ($K=4.21$) and may indicate the star was being obscured at the time the observation was made. 2MASS is also faint ($K=4.65$). [**18036–2344**]{} The Guglielmo et al. (1993) measurement ($K=6.53$) is significantly fainter than the SAAO minimum ($K=5.81$) and may indicate that the star was in an obscuration phase. [**18269–1257**]{} 2MASS has $K=8.02$ on JD2450937, so all our observations are near maximum and $P\sim 700$ days. Some of the photometry discussed in the present paper has already been published by Whitelock et al. (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000), Olivier et al. (2001), Feast et al. (1985, 2003), Groenewegen et al. (1998) or by Lloyd Evans (1997). All of these data are included in the electronic table for ease of reference. A small number of measurements were made at SAAO as part of other programmes by T. Lloyd Evans and/or by S. Bagnulo and I. Short. These are used in the means quoted and in the diagrams, but the basic data will be published elsewhere. Individual observations of some objects also appeared in other papers without dates (e.g. Gaylard & Whitelock 1988; Gaylard et al. 1989); these measurements are included in the present tabulation. [rrrrrc]{} & & & & & Tel.\ &\ \ 2443123.5 & 1.75 & 0.60 & –0.03 & –0.62\ 2443405.5 & 2.04 & 0.76 & 0.01 & –0.54\ 2444187.2 & 1.87 & 0.61 & –0.04 & –0.67\ 2446265.8 & 2.17 & 0.74 & –0.05 & –0.79\ 2446300.5 & 2.44 & 0.95 & 0.09 & –0.74\ 2446303.5 & 2.53 & 1.03 & 0.13 & –0.61\ 2446334.5 & 2.55 & 1.07 & 0.15 & –0.64\ 2446356.5 & 2.55 & 1.06 & 0.13 & –0.65\ 2446373.5 & 2.46 & 0.98 & 0.10 & –0.70\ 2446391.2 & 2.43 & 0.96 & 0.10 & –0.69\ 2446640.5 & 2.02 & 0.62 & –0.14 & –0.83\ 2446655.5 & 2.15 & 0.71 & –0.09 & –0.80\ 2446662.5 & 2.18 & 0.75 & –0.07 & –0.84\ 2446690.5 & 2.40 & 0.91 & 0.02 & –0.76\ 2446695.5 & 2.44 & 0.97 & 0.08 & –0.68\ 2446712.5 & 2.53 & 1.02 & 0.11 & –0.67\ 2446741.5 & 2.54 & 1.04 & 0.13 & –0.63\ 2446749.5 & 2.50 & 1.00 & 0.11 & –0.62\ 2446754.2 & 2.45 & 0.98 & 0.09 & –0.67\ 2446775.2 & 2.31 & 0.88 & 0.05 & –0.62\ 2446782.2 & 2.26 & 0.85 & 0.03 & –0.64\ 2446805.2 & 2.14 & 0.77 & 0.02 & –0.56\ 2446984.8 & 1.61 & 0.33 & –0.28 & –0.90\ 2447014.5 & 1.80 & 0.44 & –0.26 & –0.94\ 2447056.5 & 2.15 & 0.69 & –0.13 & –0.88\ 2447073.5 & 2.28 & 0.79 & –0.09 & –0.84\ 2447113.5 & 2.32 & 0.86 & –0.03 & –0.74\ 2447144.2 & 2.19 & 0.75 & –0.07 & –0.79\ 2447176.2 & 2.07 & 0.67 & –0.07 & –0.65\ 2447191.2 & 2.03 & 0.67 & –0.08 & –0.66\ 2447364.8 & 1.62 & 0.32 & –0.35 & –0.98\ 2447379.5 & 1.70 & 0.36 & –0.31 & –1.03\ 2447394.5 & 1.73 & 0.41 & –0.32 & –1.01\ 2447427.5 & 2.02 & 0.61 & –0.19 & –0.94\ 2447447.5 & 2.16 & 0.73 & –0.12 & –0.89\ 2447497.2 & 2.36 & 0.92 & 0.01 & –0.69\ 2447512.2 & 2.30 & 0.88 & 0.01 & –0.73\ 2447534.2 & 2.19 & 0.80 & –0.04 & –0.72\ 2447732.8 & 1.56 & 0.27 & –0.35 & –0.93\ 2447745.5 & 1.55 & 0.25 & –0.38 & –1.03\ 2447761.5 & 1.57 & 0.26 & –0.39 & –1.01\ 2447779.5 & 1.74 & 0.38 & –0.31 & –1.01\ 2447805.5 & 2.03 & 0.61 & –0.18 & –0.88\ 2447816.5 & 2.14 & 0.74 & –0.09 & –0.88\ 2447821.5 & 2.21 & 0.78 & –0.06 & –0.84\ 2447841.5 & 2.42 & 0.96 & 0.05 & –0.77\ 2447873.5 & 2.54 & 1.11 & 0.16 & –0.61\ 2448073.8 & 1.98 & 0.65 & –0.05 & –0.68\ 2448077.8 & 1.96 & 0.64 & –0.05 & –0.73\ 2448109.8 & 1.91 & 0.55 & –0.14 & –0.74\ 2448141.8 & 2.00 & 0.61 & –0.12 & –0.77\ 2448172.5 & 2.13 & 0.70 & –0.08 & –0.78\ 2448211.2 & 2.43 & 0.96 & 0.08 & –0.67\ 2448224.5 & 2.50 & 1.03 & 0.11 & –0.69\ 2448252.2 & 2.53 & 1.06 & 0.14 & –0.61\ 2448280.2 & 2.41 & 0.97 & 0.10 & –0.58\ 2448492.5 & 1.76 & 0.46 & –0.19 & –0.87\ 2448519.5 & 1.92 & 0.55 & –0.16 & –0.85\ 2448873.5 & 1.82 & 0.47 & –0.22 & –0.88\ 2448900.5 & 2.03 & 0.62 & –0.15 & –0.87\ \ [rrrrrc]{} & & & & & Tel.\ &\ 2448933.5 & 2.29 & 0.81 & –0.04 & –0.82\ 2448960.2 & 2.41 & 0.92 & 0.04 & –0.75\ 2448990.2 & 2.42 & 0.94 & 0.04 & –0.73\ 2449000.2 & 2.41 & 0.94 & 0.04 & –0.70\ 2449022.2 & 2.26 & 0.86 & 0.02 & –0.65\ 2449146.8 & 1.83 & 0.56 & –0.08 & –0.65\ 2449204.8 & 1.61 & 0.35 & –0.27 & –0.84\ 2449212.8 & 1.62 & 0.35 & –0.28 & –0.86\ 2449271.5 & 1.63 & 0.35 & –0.28 & –0.87\ 2449223.5 & 1.65 & 0.35 & –0.28 & –0.88\ 2449236.5 & 1.67 & 0.37 & –0.29 & –0.85\ 2449263.5 & 1.85 & 0.48 & –0.24 & –0.92\ 2449282.5 & 2.01 & 0.60 & –0.18 & –0.88\ 2449289.5 & 2.09 & 0.65 & –0.15 & –0.92\ 2449296.2 & 2.14 & 0.69 & –0.14 & –0.86\ 2449346.2 & 2.37 & 0.90 & 0.01 & –0.76\ 2449497.8 & 1.73 & 0.47 & –0.16 & –0.69\ 2449518.8 & 1.68 & 0.44 & –0.17 & –0.70\ 2449581.5 & 1.46 & 0.24 & –0.34 & –0.90\ 2449614.5 & 1.64 & 0.34 & –0.29 & –0.95\ 2449637.5 & 1.88 & 0.50 & –0.22 & –0.89\ 2449642.5 & 1.93 & 0.56 & –0.19 & –0.96\ 2449668.5 & 2.33 & 0.89 & 0.03 & –0.78\ 2449672.5 & 2.37 & 0.92 & 0.04 & –0.72\ 2449709.2 & 2.57 & 1.11 & 0.16 & –0.62\ 2449728.2 & 2.53 & 1.09 & 0.16 & –0.64\ 2449772.2 & 2.25 & 0.85 & 0.03 & –0.65\ 2449941.8 & 1.71 & 0.43 & –0.16 & –0.70\ 2449975.5 & 1.84 & 0.51 & –0.18 & –0.83\ 2449986.5 & 1.95 & 0.58 & –0.12 & –0.73\ 2450019.5 & 2.25 & 0.83 & 0.00 & –0.72\ 2450029.2 & 2.34 & 0.90 & 0.04 & –0.66\ 2450052.5 & 2.52 & 1.04 & 0.13 & –0.61\ 2450057.2 & 2.54 & 1.08 & 0.15 & –0.64\ 2450062.2 & 2.55 & 1.09 & 0.15 & –0.65\ 2450082.5 & 2.59 & 1.13 & 0.18 & –0.62\ 2450109.2 & 2.50 & 1.03 & 0.14 & –0.59\ 2450144.2 & 2.24 & 0.84 & 0.04 & –0.55\ 2450260.8 & 1.81 & 0.55 & –0.07 & –0.60\ 2450274.5 & 1.69 & 0.45 & –0.14 & –0.66\ 2450299.5 & 1.48 & 0.28 & –0.27 & –0.82\ 2450317.5 & 1.43 & 0.24 & –0.30 & –0.84\ 2450362.5 & 1.73 & 0.42 & –0.25 & –0.88\ 2450398.2 & 2.19 & 0.76 & –0.07 & –0.80\ 2450414.5 & 2.37 & 0.91 & 0.03 & –0.71\ 2450420.5 & 2.43 & 0.96 & 0.06 & –0.69\ 2450437.2 & 2.55 & 1.05 & 0.14 & –0.70\ 2450469.2 & 2.52 & 1.04 & 0.10 & –0.66\ 2450471.2 & 2.50 & 1.01 & 0.08 & –0.64\ 2450503.2 & 2.25 & 0.83 & –0.02 & –0.69\ 2450681.5 & 1.61 & 0.35 & –0.26 & –0.77\ 2450712.5 & 1.67 & 0.38 & –0.27 & –0.83\ 2450721.5 & 1.73 & 0.42 & –0.26 & –0.82\ 2450753.5 & 2.03 & 0.63 & –0.13 & –0.80\ 2450792.2 & 2.33 & 0.87 & 0.00 & –0.76\ 2450830.2 & 2.40 & 0.92 & 0.02 & –0.71\ 2451025.2 & 1.64 & 0.40 & –0.20 & –0.76\ 2451052.2 & 1.56 & 0.34 & –0.26 & –0.79\ 2451115.5 & 1.87 & 0.50 & –0.20 & –0.86\ 2451154.2 & 2.26 & 0.82 & –0.01 & –0.82\ 2451186.2 & 2.49 & 1.01 & 0.10 & –0.69\ 2451417.5 & 1.61 & 0.38 & –0.22 & –0.75\ 2451481.5 & 1.64 & 0.31 & –0.33 & –0.95\ \ ----------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ Tel. 2451502.5 1.75 0.38 –0.31 –0.94 2451575.2 2.33 0.86 –0.04 –0.78 2451600.2 2.39 0.91 0.01 –0.71 2451738.8 1.80 0.54 –0.09 –0.70 2451743.8 1.76 0.51 –0.11 –0.68 2451782.5 1.55 0.33 –0.24 –0.83 2451785.5 1.58 0.33 –0.25 –0.87 2451859.5 1.75 0.41 –0.27 –0.98 2451869.5 1.81 0.46 –0.25 –0.93 2451881.2 1.89 0.52 –0.20 –0.94 2451809.5 1.57 0.29 –0.31 –0.90 2451831.5 1.62 0.32 –0.31 –0.91 2451929.2 2.26 0.81 –0.04 –0.79 2452182.5 1.57 0.30 –0.28 –0.87 2452208.5 1.55 0.26 –0.35 –1.00 2452226.2 1.63 0.32 –0.34 –0.98 2452241.2 1.72 0.38 –0.30 –0.95 2452257.2 1.88 0.50 –0.25 –0.94 2452285.2 2.14 0.71 –0.09 –0.86 2452321.2 2.45 0.98 0.06 –0.68 2452529.5 1.76 0.49 –0.15 –0.78 2452572.5 1.69 0.38 –0.27 –0.88 2452602.2 1.75 0.43 –0.26 –0.89 2452691.2 2.32 0.87 –0.01 –0.75 2452888.5 1.64 0.39 –0.23 –0.81 2452932.5 1.61 0.37 –0.28 –0.89 2452960.5 1.69 0.38 –0.28 –0.96 ----------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ : continued... Some of these observation of R Scl were published by Lloyd Evans (1997) and by Whitelock et al. (1995, 1997). IRAS and MSX data ----------------- Because energy distributions of C stars typically peak between 3 and 10 $\mu$m, a measure of the energy output beyond the $L$ band is important for estimating their bolometric flux. Following earlier work (e.g. Whitelock et al. 2000, 2003) we use the IRAS 12 and 25 fluxes and, where possible, supplement these with data from the MSX survey (Egan et al. 2003) using the $A$- ($8.28\mu$m), $C$- ($12.13\mu$m) and $D$- ($14.65\mu$m) bands. IRAS photometry was taken preferentially from the IRAS Faint Source Catalogue (FSC Moshir et al. 1989) or from the PSC (IRAS Science Team 1989). The IRAS fluxes for CW Leo were taken from the PSC rather than the FSC as these were more consistent with comparable values from the literature (Gezari, Pitts & Schmitz 1997). The IRAS photometry was colour corrected using the prescription from the IRAS explanatory supplement for the purpose of calculating bolometric magnitudes only. For the discussion of colours etc. the raw magnitudes were used. There are 18 stars which have no IRAS fluxes, but 13 of these have been measured in the MSX $A$-band. The remaining 5 sources all have $K-L<1.0$ and the long wavelength fluxes will not make a significant contribution to their bolometric magnitude (in fact one of them, V354 Cen, is probably not a C star and only two, V874 Aql and \[ABC\]Car93, are classed as C Miras). The MSX data were extracted from the complete MSX6C catalogue in the Galactic Plane ($|b|\leq 6^{\rm o}$) and the high latitude, $|b|> 6^{\rm o}$, subsections only. A few of our sources have detections in the low reliability sources (\[ABC89\]Car5) and singleton source (extracted from a single scan but with good fluxes: Y Tau, CL Mon, 07080–0106, 07220–2324, FF Pup, 08340–3357, MU Vel, 09533–6021, 10145–6046, TV Vel, 11145–6534) sections of the catalogue, but a close examination suggested these were unreliable, e.g. some singleton sources showed unphysical colours. ![ The MSX $A-C$ colour as a function of the MSX-$C$ magnitude. Symbols: crosses: well observed Miras without obvious peculiarities; open crosses: other Miras; open circles: well observed small amplitude variables without obvious peculiarities; close circles: other non-Miras. The four sources with large $A-C$ colours are saturated in the $A$ band. Note the difference between the typical $A-C$ colour for the stars brighter and fainter than $C\sim 1$, particularly the Miras.[]{data-label="fig_msxcac"}](fig_msxcac.eps){width="8.5cm"} The very bright sources appear to be saturated in the MSX-$A$ band, which is more sensitive than any of the others, as can be seen in the plot of $A-C$ against $C$ (Fig. \[fig\_msxcac\]). The four very bright stars are II Lup, V1417 Aql, V1418 Aql and V1965 Cyg. Their MSX-$A$ magnitudes are inconsistent with other MSX and IRAS magnitudes, although this is not clear from the flags provided with the catalogue. It appears that among this type of object anything brighter than 270Jy at $C$ will be saturated at $A$. Note also from Fig. \[fig\_msxcac\], the difference in the $A-C$ colours of stars, particularly Miras, that are brighter and fainter than $C\sim 1$ mag. This occurs because the bright Miras are intrinsically different from the faint ones - the stars with large colour indexes, i.e. the “red” stars, are all relatively bright. There are various selection effects contributing to this, but critically we would have been unable to perform $JHK$ photometry of faint red stars. A similar dichotomy is seen in the IRAS data, in that most of the Miras with $[12]>0$ have $[12-25]<0.5$ and those with $[12]<0$ have $[12-25]>0.5$. There are, however, some notable faint non-Miras with $[12-25]>1$: EV Eri (see Section \[trends\]) , 10151–6008, \[ABC89\]Cru17 and \[ABC89\]Cir1. Figs. \[fig\_k1225\] & \[fig\_msx1\] illustrate the types of two-colour diagram which are frequently used to distinguish between O- and C-rich stars (e.g. Ortiz et al. 2005) using IRAS and MSX data respectively. The solid line on both figures is the blackbody locus, while the dashed line provides a rough division between C- and O-rich stars, which in the case of the MSX figure has been copied directly from Ortiz et al. The division is far from being a precise one and stars close to the line must be regarded as having uncertain chemical type unless spectroscopic information is available. Nevertheless, most of the programme stars fall in the region you would have expected given their C-rich nature. A similar separation can be achieved using slightly different combinations of colours, as was discussed, e.g., by Guglielmo et al. (1993). In the MSX diagram the four peculiar non-Miras lying above the upper line are: 09164–5349 (see Section \[trends\]), \[ABC89\]Cir1, V2548 Sgr and \[ABC89\]Cru17, the latter being the only point well away from the line (NB the differences between Miras and non-Miras and between ‘peculiar’ and ‘normal’ relate to the variability characteristics and are described in Section \[var\_class\]). The normal non-Mira above the line is \[ABC89\]Pup3. The stars in a comparable position on the IRAS diagram are these same peculiar non-Miras plus EV Eri and 10151–6008, while the normal non-Miras are R Scl (which has a detached dust shell, Bujarrabal & Cernicharo 1994) and T Ara (which is super lithium rich, Feast 1954). ![ Combined IRAS near-infrared two-colour diagram; symbols as in Fig. \[fig\_msxcac\]. The solid line is the blackbody locus while the dashed line roughly separates C- from O-rich stars. Note that sources selected according to the IRAS selection criterion described in Section \[sources\] will only find sources with $[12-25]>0.565$. Symbols are the same as in Fig. \[fig\_msxcac\].[]{data-label="fig_k1225"}](fig_k1225.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![ Combined MSX near-infrared two-colour diagram; symbols and lines as in Fig. \[fig\_k1225\].[]{data-label="fig_msx1"}](fig_msx1.eps){width="8.4cm"} Pulsation Characteristics {#pulsation} ========================= Pulsation Periods ----------------- Periods (P$_K$) were determined from a Fourier transform of the $K$ light curve for all of the stars with SAAO near-infrared observations on 8 or more dates; these are listed in Table \[jhkl\]. Where a pulsation period has been published elsewhere it is listed in column 11 (P$_{\rm lit}$) of Table \[jhkl\]. These are taken from the following sources, in order of preference: GCVS, Le Bertre (1992), Jones et al. (1990), Hipparcos (ESA 1997) or Pojmański (2002). Figure \[fig\_pp\] shows our period plotted against the value from the literature. The agreement is generally better than 5 percent and a brief discussion of the exceptional cases follows: ![ Periods, P$_K$, derived from data discussed here plotted against those from the literature, P$_{\rm lit}$; Symbols: crosses are Mira C-stars (outstanding points represent V477 Mon and V518 Pup), open circles are non-Mira C stars; solid squares are various peculiar sources including non-C stars, SC stars and C-stars with silicate shells (the two outstanding points represent BH Cru, which has a variable period, at different times).[]{data-label="fig_pp"}](pp.eps){width="8.4cm"} [**V477 Mon**]{} The original period is from Maffei (1966) who indicated it as “M? P=820:: days”. The near-infrared observations are not consistent with this value and we use the newly determined 619 days which provides a very good fit to these data. [**V1965 Cyg**]{} The original period is from Jones et al. (1990) (who incorrectly associates AFGL 2417 with V1129 Cyg) and there is evidence for rather erratic behavior in both their and our light curves. Analyzing the two data sets together (using only the 6 observations actually listed in their paper) suggests a period of 617 days. [**BH Cru**]{} This is known to have a lengthening period (Bateson et al. 1988; Walker et al. 1995; Zijlstra et al. 2004) and our data, which were obtained in two batches with a gap in the middle, suggests a change from 491 to 524 days, between 1984/9 and 1997/2004. [**V617 Mon**]{} The GCVS period is 375: days with which the near-infrared observations are not consistent. We use the newly determined 444 days which provides a very good fit to our data. [**FU Car**]{} The GCVS variability type and period of M: and P=365: days respectively, come from Luyten (1927) who records FU Car’s variability along with that of another star and notes “The available plates are insufficient for a determination of the light curves, but the possibility is indicated that both variables have a period of nearly one year, and a range of at least two magnitudes”. This is consistent with our determination of 431 days and our assertion that it is not a Mira. [**TV Vel**]{} GCVS records this as variability type M with P=365 days and no indication of any uncertainty. There is no clear source for the period. We also classify TV Vel as a Mira, but it is certainly a border-line case. Our data are inconsistent with the 365 day period. [**W Sex**]{} The difference between the GCVS period of 134 days and the Hipparcos period of 200 days was noted by Whitelock et al. (2000). Our newly determined period of 195 days is consistent with the Hipparcos value. It is not a Mira. [**RT Cap**]{} This is not a Mira and the GCVS period of 393 days is inconsistent with the 359 days derived here. [**V518 Pup**]{} The 448 day period comes from the ASAS database of Pojmański (2002) who also classifies it as a Mira. The 228 day period derived from the IR data is inconsistent with the ASAS data. While 228 days is the best fit to the infrared photometry, 448 days is also a possible solution. In this case 448 days would be preferred and is in fact the value we adopt, but the Mira classification must be regarded as uncertain. Figs. \[fig\_lcmira\] and \[fig\_lcsr\], in the appendix, illustrate for Miras and other variables, respectively, the $K$ light curves plotted as a function of phase for the stars with sufficient data to determine a period. From this it can be seen that the accuracy of the derived periods and amplitudes varies considerably from one star to the next, depending on the number of observations, their distribution in time and the stability of the light curve over the sampling interval. Most of the illustrations show the $K$ magnitude phased at the period determined from the $K$ data. Where satisfactory periods could not be determined from our data they are shown phased at the GCVS period. For 10220–5858 a period of 585: days is given, but 290: is also possible. Although we use the 585 day period in the following discussion the blue colours and low amplitude would fit better with the shorter period. Variability Class {#var_class} ----------------- In view of the fact that we wish to use the Mira Period-Luminosity (PL) relation to estimate the distance to the C-stars it is vital that we decide if particular stars can be classed as Miras or not. According to the classical GCVS definition Miras have characteristic late-type emission spectra (Ce in the cases we are discussing) and $V$ light amplitudes greater than 2.5 mag. Their periodicity is well pronounced, and periods lie in the range from 80 to 1000 days. For many of the stars of interest very little is known about the $V$ magnitude and we must make the best estimate we can from other sources of information. Unfortunately the distinction between Miras and other types of long period variable is not as clearcut for C-rich stars as it is for O-rich ones, where the $JHKL$ colours of Miras and non-Miras are distinctly different (e.g. Whitelock et al. 1995). Where there are sufficient observations we determine if a star is a Mira or not on the basis of the SAAO infrared photometry; if it is clearly periodic and has a peak-to-peak $K$ amplitude over 0.4 mag we call it a Mira and assign it to class 1n. If the variations are not periodic or are less than 0.4 mag at $K$ we assign it to class 2n, and call it a non-Mira. If there are insufficient data to do this we use the GCVS or ASAS classification if there is one. Otherwise, if our $K$ magnitudes differ from published values (Aaronson, 2MASS ...) by 0.4 mag or more we assign it to class 1n else to class 2n. Stars classified in this last way are labeled with a colon after the classification in Table \[jhkl\] as they are clearly less certain than the others. There are 74 class 2n and 165 class 1n in the table. n description of light curve --- ---------------------------------------------------------- 0 sinusoidal and reasonably repeatable 1 evidence of obscuration events or a long term trend 2 for pronounced second peak in light curve (Miras only) 3 for erratic behavior, includes large amplitude non-Miras 4 inconsistent with other published photometry 5 star with peculiarities described in text : Second parameter, n, of the variability type 1n or 2n.[]{data-label="vclass"} The assignment of the second digit, or sub-class, of the variability classification is described in Table \[vclass\]. The sub-class to which a variable is assigned obviously depends strongly on how many observations we have, e.g. many objects of type 13 would probably be classed as type 11 given more data. There is actually only one star, V1420 Aql, catalogued as type 12, which is illustrated in the last panel of Fig. \[fig\_lcmira\], although there are several marginal cases, e.g. \[ABC89\]Cir27, as can be seen from the illustrated light curves. Even with V1420 Aql there is some uncertainty in its period and if it is plotted at the other period given in Table \[jhkl\] (676 days from Le Bertre 1992) then the second peak is less pronounced. Our classification agrees reasonably well with the GCVS for most of the 102 stars in common and we briefly discuss the 10 differences here. We classify the following stars as Miras whereas the GCVS provided the classification given in parenthesis after the name: V471 Pup (SR:), V518 Pup (SR: also Mira in ASAS), UW Pyx (Lb: also Mira in ASAS), RW LMi (SRa), CF Cru (Lb), FX Ser (Lb:). The ASAS classification, based on optical data, is relevant as they have many more observations than we do and can do a better job with classifying visually bright variables. However, we agree with the GCVS classification of V374 Aql (SR) rather than the M: assigned by ASAS. The following were classed as Miras in the GCVS: FU Car, V354 Cen, V348 Sco and V503 Mon, but are classed as non-Miras here, because their $K$ amplitudes are much less than expected from Miras. The Mira nature of 10220–5858 is uncertain, it has a low amplitude and small $K-[12]$ for its period and limited data suggest an erratic light curve. A number of authors have noted that the IRAS colours of \[ABC89\]Cir1 are those expected for a silicate shell (e.g. Chen et al. 1993 and references therein) and it has been investigated on this basis. We note that it has a slightly larger $K-L$ than normal non-Miras. Of the 57 C stars in the Aaronson sample, 26 are Miras, and periods in the range 265 to 652 days have been determined for 24 of them, while the other 31 are erratic or low amplitude variables. Of the 93 C-stars in the IRAS sample, 86 are Miras and periods ranging from 431 to 948 days were determined for 69 of them, while the other 7 are low amplitude or erratic variables. Of the 26 C-stars in the faint IRAS sample 12 are Miras, and periods in the range 495 to 714 days were determined for 10 of them, while the other 14 are erratic or low amplitude variables. Mean Magnitudes and Amplitudes {#amps} ------------------------------ Table \[jhkl\] gives the Fourier-mean magnitudes and amplitudes for all of the stars discussed here. These were derived by fitting first order sine curves to the light curves, and the peak-to-peak amplitudes of those curves are also tabulated. The number of points used in the fit is listed in the last column. This may be less than the full number of observations available, as it is for stars showing obscuration events where we have excluded cycles showing heavy obscuration (see section \[trends\]). This is somewhat subjective and the results dependent on how well any particular light curve is covered. The pulsation amplitude generally decreases with increasing wavelength, although there are a few examples of $\Delta J < \Delta H$. Where the source is faint at $J$ a low amplitude may indicate contamination of the $J$ flux by another source in the aperture; there are, however, examples, e.g. CW Leo, where the measured amplitudes are definitely a true reflection of the C star variations. Fig. \[delkk12\] shows the dependence of pulsation amplitude on colour. Although there is a great deal of scatter, the amplitude and colour are clearly correlated. While there will be several effects contributing to this dependence, the primary one will be the amplitude’s direct or indirect dependence on temperature fluctuations of the star. We also anticipate a correlation between the stellar pulsation amplitude, as measured by $\Delta K$, and the mass-loss rate, as measured by $K-[12]$ which is proportional to the optical depth of the shell (see section 6 and Whitelock, Pottasch & Feast (1987). It is not possible to separate the effects of temperature fluctuations and pulsation amplitude changes with the available information. The peaks of the energy distributions for these stars is at wavelengths over 2.5$\mu$m (the combined effect of low temperature and thick circumstellar dust shells), therefore at $J$ and $H$ and usually also at $K$ and $L$, we are sampling the Wien part of the energy distribution which is extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations. The cooler the star the larger the flux changes at $JHKL$ that will be caused by small changes of the stellar temperature. Molecular opacity fluctuations in the $JHKL$ bands, also in response to temperature changes of the star, will serve to magnify the amplitude dependence on stellar temperature. Thus to a first approximation we might expect the $JHKL$ amplitudes to tell us more about the temperature of the C star, and changes in its temperature around the pulsation cycle, than about the bolometric amplitude of the pulsations themselves. The colours that we discuss here, including $K-[12]$, are much more strongly influenced by reddening of the circumstellar shell than they are by the temperature of the underlying star (see Section \[ir\_cols\]). Nevertheless, the cooler stars will tend to have the thicker dust shells, so we still understand the correlation in Fig. \[delkk12\] to be very considerably a consequence of fluctuations in the stellar temperature, but with a good deal of scatter as the thickness of the shell is not a simple function of the temperature of the star. ![For the Miras, $K-[12]$ colour as a function of the pulsation amplitude at $K$, $\Delta K$. Symbols as in Fig. \[fig\_msxcac\].[]{data-label="delkk12"}](fig_delk.eps){width="8.5cm"} Mira Period-Luminosity Relation {#pl} =============================== The existence of a PL relationship for Mira variables was discussed in detail by Feast et al. (1989) for O- and C-rich Miras in the LMC. Subsequently Whitelock et al. (2003) discussed the PL relation for longer-period, thick-shelled Miras also in the LMC, including photometry from IRAS and ISO. The studies by Feast et al. and by Whitelock et al. encompassed stars with multiple near-IR observations and therefore well defined mean magnitudes. Groenewegen & Whitelock (1996) used data for spectroscopically confirmed C stars only, but included those with single observations to provide a larger sample of LMC stars. All of these papers found rather similar bolometric PL relations for the C stars. Here we combine the data from Feast et al. (1989) and Whitelock et al. (2003) to derive a PL relation for the C stars that covers the period range of interest for the Galactic C stars under discussion. We omit four stars classed by Whitelock et al. as C-rich: WBP14 for which the data were uncertain; 04496–6958 and SHV05210–6904, which lie above the PL relation (Whitelock et al. suggested that this may be the result of extra energy from hot bottom burning, although that conclusion is controversial for a carbon star and more detailed studies are required to investigate these luminous stars); 05128–6455 which Matsuura et al. (2005) have shown to be O-rich. Thus we have 38 C-rich Miras which are illustrated in a PL diagram (Fig. \[fig\_pl\]), for which a least squares fit gives: $$M_{bol}= -2.54 \log P +1.87, \ \ (\sigma=0.17) \label{lmc_pl}$$ assuming that the distance modulus of the LMC is 18.50 mag. This is close to the relationships given in the various references cited above and is what we use in Section \[is\_ext\] to derive distances. Some of the 0.17 mag dispersion will be introduced by the limited temporal coverage of IRAS (the satellite did not observe long enough to provide mean magnitudes for these long period stars). ![The PL relation for C-rich Miras in the LMC. The crosses and circles represent stars from Feast et al. (1989) and from Whitelock et al. (2003), respectively. The straight line is the locus given by equation \[lmc\_pl\].[]{data-label="fig_pl"}](fig_pl.eps){width="8.5cm"} This PL is distinctly different from that derived for O-rich Miras (Feast et al. 1989; Whitelock et al. 2003). Due to the differences in slope the relations, which are close at short periods, diverge at long period. At a period of 500 days the C-Miras are 27 percent fainter than their O-rich counterparts at the same period. Part of this difference may be due to the different energy distributions of the O- and C-rich stars which can lead to different systematic errors affecting the estimates of total luminosity (e.g. the strong water features which are present in O-rich, but not C-rich Miras). However, the large differences at long periods suggest that there may be real luminosity differences between the two types of Mira at a given period. The PL relationship is revisited in Paper III of this series, where the kinematics of the Galactic C Miras are used to derive a zero-point. Infrared Colours {#ir_cols} ================ In the following analysis we compare various data on Galactic C-rich Miras with comparable measurements of LMC objects. The LMC samples are taken from Feast et al. (1989) (with updated periods from Glass & Lloyd Evans (2003)) and Whitelock et al. (2003). Note that the Feast et al. stars, which were optically selected, do not have $L$ or IRAS observations; many of the Whitelock et al. sample, which were selected from IRAS sources, do not have $J$ measurements; thus not all the stars appear in all the diagrams. Two bright LMC C stars with distinctly blue colours for their period are always distinguished in the illustrations. These stars, which also lie above the bolometric period-luminosity relation, are thought to be undergoing hot bottom burning (Whitelock et al. 2003). Figs. \[fig\_jhhku\] and \[fig\_hkklu\] illustrate the colours prior to correction for reddening. The stars illustrated here are those with 10 and 20 classifications in Table \[jhkl\] and with at least 9 observations contributing to the mean. Thus they represent well-characterized [*normal*]{} Miras and non-Miras as far as it is possible to define them. It is clear that the Miras spread to much redder colours than the non-Miras as one might expect given their higher mass-loss rates and resultant circumstellar shells. At the blue extreme the non-Miras and Miras follow slightly different loci in the two-colour diagrams, but the differences are subtle and it is not possible to distinguish between individuals in the two groups simply on the basis of their colours. This is in marked contrast to the situation for O-rich stars (e.g. Whitelock et al. 1995). The lines illustrated in these two figures represent a maximum likelihood fit to the Mira data and are given in equations \[jhhk\] and \[hkkl\], which are discussed later. ![A two-colour diagram comparing Miras (crosses) having known periods, with non-Miras (open circles); stars from both groups are well observed (at least 9 measurements) and lack obvious peculiarities. The locus for the Miras, given in equation \[jhhk\], is illustrated as is a reddening vector for $A_V=10$ mag.[]{data-label="fig_jhhku"}](fig_jhhku.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![As Fig. \[fig\_jhhku\], but after correcting for interstellar extinction as described in section \[is\_ext\] and showing only the Miras, but including those with peculiarities (open crosses). The filled circles are the LMC Miras, with the two large open circles representing LMC stars suspected of undergoing hot bottom burning.[]{data-label="fig_jhhk"}](fig_jhhk.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![As Fig. \[fig\_jhhku\], but for alternative colours. The locus described by equation \[hkkl\] is shown.[]{data-label="fig_hkklu"}](fig_hkklu.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![ As Fig. \[fig\_hkklu\], but after correcting for interstellar extinction as described in section \[is\_ext\] and showing only the Miras; the symbols are as in Fig. \[fig\_jhhk\].[]{data-label="fig_hkkl"}](fig_hkkl.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![ Period $(H-K)$ colour relationship for Galactic (crosses) and LMC (closed circles) C stars. The open crosses represent Galactic Miras with 1n (n$>$1) classifications. The two LMC points with circles around them are luminous Miras thought to be undergoing hot bottom burning. The locus described by equation 4 is shown.[]{data-label="fig_hkp"}](fig_hkp.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![ Period $(K-L)$ colour relationship with symbols as in Fig \[fig\_hkp\]. The locus described by equation 5 is shown.[]{data-label="fig_klp"}](fig_klp.eps){width="8.4cm"} The reddening-corrected colours for the Miras only are illustrated in Figs. \[fig\_jhhk\] and \[fig\_hkkl\] where they are compared to the colours of Miras in the LMC (the derivation of the reddening corrections is given in Section \[is\_ext\], below). The colours of the Miras with peculiarities (class 1n, n=1,5), which are illustrated as open crosses, do not differ significantly from the class 10 Miras. The loci illustrated in the two figures were fitted by maximum likelihood to the class 10 objects only: $$(H-K)_0=-0.549+1.002(J-H)_0, \ \ (\sigma=0.010),$$ $$(K-L)_0=-0.252+1.295(H-K)_0, \ \ (\sigma=0.014),$$ Note that the $J$ values for some of the faint LMC sources in Fig. \[fig\_jhhk\] are uncertain by up to 0.2 mag, as are the $H$ values for the faintest LMC sources in Fig \[fig\_hkkl\]. There appears to be a small shift between the LMC and the Galactic $JHK$ colours in that $(J-H)$ for the LMC sources is on average $\leq 0.1$ mag less for the LMC stars than for the Galactic ones at the same $(K-L)$. Cohen et al. (1981) discuss a colour difference between Galactic and LMC C-stars in the same sense, but few of their sample are Miras and their stars are in the colour range $0.4<(H-K)_0<0.8$. For $(H-K)_0<0.8$ we find that LMC and Galactic C-rich Miras occupy the same part of the two-colour diagram. This diagram is obviously rather sensitive to reddening corrections and to errors in transformation between different photometric systems, which tend to be largest for $J$. The Galactic $(H-K)_0$ and $(K-L)_0$ period-colour relationships are compared to those for Miras in the LMC in Figs. \[fig\_hkp\] and \[fig\_klp\]. There is no obvious difference between the class 10 and class 1n (n$>$1) Miras. There appear to be differences between the distributions of LMC and Galactic Miras in these figures, but there is a great deal of overlap between the two samples and the differences could plausibly be attributed to the very different selection effects in the Galactic and LMC samples. In particular it is possible that we would have been unable to measure the $H$ flux for any LMC Miras with extremely red colours ($H-K>2.8$). It is also likely that our selection criteria for the Aaronson and for the IRAS samples would have excluded most short period Miras. The relatively blue $(H-K)$ and $(K-L)$ colours of the Galactic Miras, compared to the LMC ones, with periods less than 500 days is notable. Although neither $H-K$ nor $K-L$ shows a linear dependence on period there is certainly a trend to larger colours at longer period. The least-squares fit to the Galactic data in Figs. \[fig\_hkp\] and \[fig\_klp\] (omitting the points at the shortest period, SZ Ara, in both figures and the one with the largest $K-L$, LL Peg, in Fig. \[fig\_klp\]) gives the following relationships: $$(H-K)_0=-15.69+6.412\log P \ \ (\sigma=0.48),$$ and $$(K-L)_0=-20.56+8.300\log P \ \ (\sigma=0.61).$$ ![ $K-[12]$ as a function of period for all of the Miras (class 1n) discussed here, compared with C stars from the LMC (closed circles) C stars. The two LMC points with rings around them are luminous Miras thought to be undergoing hot bottom burning. The locus described by equation \[k12p\] is shown.[]{data-label="fig_k12p1"}](fig_k12p1.eps){width="8.4cm"} ![ As Fig. \[fig\_k12p1\] but showing only stars from the IRAS sample (asterisks), the faint IRAS sample (crosses) and the Aaronson sample (open crosses); note that four of the Aaronson sample are also faint IRAS sources. The line is equation \[k12p\].[]{data-label="fig_k12p2"}](fig_k12p2.eps){width="8.4cm"} Fig. \[fig\_k12p1\] shows $K-[12]$ as a function of period and compares it to LMC data. The straight line is a least squares fit to the Galactic data, which yields: $$K_0-[12]=-43.0 +17.7 \log P \ \ (\sigma=1.5) \label{k12p}$$ $K-[12]$ is a very good indicator of the optical depth of the dust shell and hence of the dust mass-loss rate (e.g. Whitelock et al. 1994). There has been some discussion in the literature of differences in mass-loss rates between the Magellanic Clouds and the Galaxy. Such differences might be expected if Magellanic Cloud Miras have lower metallicity than their Galactic counterparts and therefore form dust with lower efficiency. If, however, the pulsation period of the Mira is a function of its metallicity, as it is for O-rich Miras (Feast & Whitelock 2000), differences between the two systems will be more subtle. A recent analysis by van Loon (2006) suggests that, while the situation is very complex, there is no evidence for a mass-loss rate dependence on metallicity. The differences seen in Fig. \[fig\_k12p1\] seem to be relatively minor and may be due to selection effects in the various samples rather than to fundamental properties of the two galaxies. The very large effect of selection criteria is well illustrated by Fig. \[fig\_k12p2\] which shows only the Galactic C stars, but distinguished according to the original sample from which they were drawn. Note that there is almost no overlap between the bright IRAS selected stars, most of which have $K-[12]\geq 5$ mag, and the optically selected Aaronson sample which all have $K-[12]\leq 5$ mag. It is clear that the C Miras show a large range of colour at a given period and that selection criteria will determine how this range is sampled. Apparent Bolometric Magnitudes {#bol_mag} ============================== The bolometric magnitude was calculated by spline fitting to the $JHKL$, 12 and 25 $\mu$m flux as a function of frequency, as described in Section 6 of Whitelock et al. (1994) and/or by spline fitting to $JHKL$ MSX-$A$ flux in the same way. Some preliminary tests were done to compare the results of using spline fits to $JHKL$ and MSX-$A$, -$C$ and -$D$ fluxes with those on $JHKL$ and MSX-$A$. This because there were only 67 stars with the full data set. These tests indicated that a small colour correction was necessary if the integrations using only MSX-$A$ were to give the same result as the full dataset. Thus the bolometric magnitudes derived by spline fitting $JHKL$ and MSX-$A$ were corrected by $0.0119-0.0148\times(K-L)$; its largest effect is to change the bolometric magnitude by only –0.055 mag. There were 91 Miras with both MSX-$A$ and IRAS data and the mean difference in the bolometric magnitudes derived from the two sets (IRAS–MSX) was $-0.02\pm0.03$ mag, with extreme values of –0.73 and +0.35. The corrections with the largest absolute values were always for the redder sources, as the mid-infrared is less important for the bluer sources. Where there is no value for $J$ (24 stars), $H$ (3 stars) or $L$ (1 star) an estimate is made from one of the following relations, for the purpose of calculating the bolometric magnitude: $$(H-K)=-0.642 + 1.011(J-H), \label{jhhk}$$ $$(H-K)=+0.233 + 0.769(K-L). \label{hkkl}$$ These loci are illustrated in Figs. \[fig\_jhhku\] and \[fig\_hkklu\]. If the 12 $\mu$m flux has been measured, but the 25 $\mu$m flux has not, the colour corrected \[25\] is estimated from: $$([12]-[25])_{cc}=0.0337+0.109(K-[12]).$$ Because it is only for very red stars that $J$ or $H$ were not measured, and only for blue ones that \[25\] was not measured, these estimates do not compromise the quality of the final bolometric magnitude. The $L$ flux is much more important, but only one Mira with a known period, CF Cru, does not have a measured value for $L$, which is estimated from $H$ via equation \[hkkl\] above. Given that we chose to reject the faint cycles for the very well observed stars we examine briefly the difference it would make to the bolometric magnitudes if we used faint rather than bright cycles, assuming that the cause of the change is line of site obscuration and that the IRAS and/or MSX fluxes remain constant. R For would go from $m_{bol}=4.54$ to 4.97, R Lep from $m_{bol}=3.52$ to 4.13 and II Lup from $m_{bol}=3.89$ to 4.07, the size of the change being strongly dependent on the relative contributions to the total flux from $JHKL$ and from the mid-infrared. Bolometric Corrections {#bol_cor} ====================== The main interest in bolometric corrections is their use when limited data are available. With this in mind we provide, in Table \[bc\], the coefficients of the best fit least squares fourth order polynomials to the bolometric correction at $K$, BC$_K$ as a function of the colour $(x-y)$: $$BC_K= c_0+c_1 (x-y)+c_2(x-y)^2+c_3(x-y)^3+c_4(x-y)^4,$$ for a variety of colours. The table also includes the maximum (max) and minimum (min) values of the colour for which the fit was determined (this type of fit should not be extrapolated), the error ($\sigma$) associated with an individual observation and the number of stars used in the fit (No). $(J-K)_0$ $(H-K)_0$ $(K-L)_0$ $ (K-[12])_0$ $(K-A)_0$ ---------- -------------------- ------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- $c_0$ 0.972 2.360 3.228 2.801 3.130 $c_1$ 2.9292 3.1729 0.8720 0.7101 0.4807 $c_2$ –1.1144 –2.5747 –0.7042 –0.1958 –0.1655 $c_3$ 0.1595 0.5462 0.06350 0.01032 0.002241 $c_4$ $-9.5689\,10^{-3}$ $-0.043014$ $-1.6341\,10^{-3}$ $-2.2054\,10^{-4}$ $-2.2405\,10^{-4}$ max 6.5 4.0 6.2 14 10 min 1.5 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.5 $\sigma$ 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.11 0.13 No. 123 142 144 144 70 Two examples of these fits are shown in Fig. \[fig\_k12bc\] for $(J-K)_0$ and $K_0-[12]$. It is clearly possible to derive an accurate bolometric correction if observations in widely separated bands, such as $K$ and $[12]$, are available. In practice it will often only be possible to use something like $(J-K)$ when dealing with photometry from e.g. the 2MASS survey or typical measurements that are now being done on extragalactic C stars with large telescopes. The curves listed in Table \[bc\] provide excellent fits to the LMC C-star bolometric corrections discussed by Whitelock et al. (2003) and illustrated in their fig. 13, although the LMC data do show more scatter because the stars are fainter. There is no evidence of any difference between C stars in the Galaxy and the LMC in respect of the bolometric corrections as a function of colour. The lack of scatter in Fig. \[fig\_k12bc\] is largely a consequence of the way the bolometric magnitudes are calculated. Thus, for example, if we examine II Lup during a bright cycle ($\bar{K}=1.79$ mag) we derive $K-[12]=5.92$ and $BC_K=2.15$, while during a faint cycle ($\bar{K}=3.0$ mag) we obtain $K-[12]=7.12$ and $BC_K=1.2$; both of these points fit on the curve in Fig. \[fig\_k12bc\]. The bolometric magnitude derived from these data, $m_{bol}=0.48$ and 0.52, are not very different because the $JHKL$ flux is only a small part of the total. In contrast, for R Lep we obtain $K-[12]=2.81$ and $BC_K=3.47$ when it is bright ($\bar{K}=0.07$ mag) and $K-[12]=3.54$ and $BC_K=3.36$ when it is faint ($\bar{K}=0.8$ mag). Again the points fall close to the curve in Fig. \[fig\_k12bc\], but the resulting bolometric magnitudes, $m_{bol}=3.52$ and 4.13, differ considerably because the $JHKL$ flux is a major contributor to the total. Fig. \[fig\_k12bc\] also shows a comparison with the bolometric correction derived by Guandalini et al. (2005) for a slightly different colour ($K-[12.5]$). The two relations differ by at most 0.19 mag in the region in which there are many points, $3<K-[12]<4$, and this difference goes up to 0.36 mag at $K-[12]=14$. ![ The bolometric correction at $K$ as a function of (top) $(J-K)_0$ and (bottom) $K_0-[12]$. The curves are fourth order polynomials with the parameters given in Table \[bc\]. The lower figure also shows LMC values (solid circles) from Whitelock et al. (2003). The dashed curve is the relation for $K-[12.5]$ from Guandalini et al. (2005) fig. 5.[]{data-label="fig_k12bc"}](fig_k12bc.eps){width="8.4cm"} Interstellar Reddening and Distances {#is_ext} ==================================== We assume that the Galactic C-rich Miras obey the LMC bolometric PL relation as discussed above (Section \[pl\]). Thus a first estimate can be made of the distance to the star by comparing the measured and absolute bolometric magnitudes. The extinction is then estimated using the Drimmel et al. (2003) three dimensional Galactic extinction model, including the rescaling factors that correct the dust column density to account for small scale structure seen in the DIRBE data, but not described explicitly by the model. The measured mean $JHKL$ magnitudes are corrected for extinction following the reddening law given by Glass (1999) and the bolometric flux is recalculated. This process of calculating distance, extinction and bolometric magnitude is then iterated as necessary, typically two to five times, until the distance modulus changes by less than 0.01 mag. The extinction values, $A_V$, derived in this way are listed in Table \[derived\]. They range up to $A_V\sim 5.8$ and therefore have a significant effect on the $JHKL$ colours and on the derived distances. We have 70 stars in common with those of Groenewegen et al. (2002) for which the derived distances can be compared. Groenewegen et al. calculate distances either from the PL relation of Groenewegen & Whitelock (1996), for stars with known periods longer than 390 days, or from the 12 $\mu$m flux, with a bolometric correction that depends on the 25 to 12 $\mu$m flux ratio, for the others. The statistical agreement is good, with the average distance calculated by Groenewegen et al. for the 70 stars in common being only 8 percent larger than our value. [lrcrcccrrcr]{} \ name & dist & $A_V$ & $m_{bol}$ & $(J-H)_0$ & $(H-K)_0$ & $(K-L)_0$ & $K_0-[12]$ & $K_0$ & $\log \dot{M}$ &\ & (kpc) & & ($\rm M_{\odot} yr^{-1}$)&\ name & dist & $A_V$ & $m_{bol}$ & $(J-H)_0$ & $(H-K)_0$ & $(K-L)_0$ & $K_0-[12]$ & $K_0$ & $\log \dot{M}$ & BC$_K$\ & (kpc) & & ($M_{\odot} yr^{-1}$)& (mag)\ \ \ YY Tri & 2.25 & 0.24 & 6.53 & & 2.99 & 3.74 & 8.43 & 6.79 & –4.45 &–0.26\ R For & 0.70 & 0.04 & 4.54 & 1.67 & 1.20 & 1.28 & 3.62 & 1.21 & –5.87 & 3.33\ $[$TI98$]$0418+0122 & 6.42 & 0.37 & 9.24 & 1.83 & 1.33 & 1.46 & 3.61 &5.98 &–5.73 & 3.26\ V718 Tau & 1.46 & 1.35 & 6.12 & 1.70 & 1.15 & 1.15 & 3.42 & 2.72 & –5.85 & 3.41\ R Lep & 0.47 & 0.25 & 3.52 & 1.43 & 0.94 & 1.00 & 2.81 & 0.05 & –6.03 & 3.47\ QS Ori & 2.65 & 0.69 & 7.17 & 1.50 & 0.98 & 1.04 & 3.08 & 3.74 & –5.89 & 3.43\ 05418–3224 & 2.73 & 0.04 & 7.24 & 2.47 & 1.82 & 2.11 & 5.49 & 4.86 & –5.19 & 2.38\ 06088+1909 & 2.37 & 1.18 & 6.91 & 2.37 & 1.74 & 1.96 & 4.98 & 4.15 & –5.08 & 2.76\ ZZ Gem & 1.76 & 0.61 & 6.75 & 1.32 & 0.77 & 0.58 & 1.85 & 3.15 & –6.65 & 3.60\ V617 Mon & 2.94 & 1.01 & 7.48 & 1.68 & 1.22 & 1.29 & 3.05 & 4.08 & –5.96 & 3.41\ V636 Mon & 1.09 & 0.45 & 5.11 & 1.83 & 1.28 & 1.39 & 3.39 & 1.78 & –5.76 & 3.34\ V477 Mon & 2.61 & 1.01 & 6.86 & 2.31 & 1.84 & 2.24 & 5.12 & 4.46 & –4.83 & 2.40\ RT Gem & 3.43 & 0.54 & 8.08 & 1.24 & 0.56 & 0.39 & 1.44 & 4.57 & & 3.51\ 06487+0551 & 2.40 & 0.80 & 6.84 & 2.47 & 1.91 & 2.34 & 5.47 & 4.55 & –5.36 & 2.29\ CG Mon & 1.99 & 0.75 & 6.69 & 1.29 & 0.61 & 0.52 & 1.53 & 3.23 & & 3.46\ CL Mon & 1.11 & 0.47 & 5.22 & 1.67 & 1.15 & 1.27 & 3.34 & 1.84 & –5.85 & 3.38\ 06531–0216 & 2.01 & 0.86 & 6.35 & 1.97 & 1.49 & 1.70 & 3.86 & 3.27& & 3.07\ 06564+0342 & 2.99 & 0.83 & 7.24 & 2.58 & 2.11 & 2.55 & 5.84 & 5.35 & –5.27 & 1.89\ 07080–0106 & 3.76 & 0.16 & 7.70 & 2.80 & 2.44 & 2.73 & 6.63 & 6.22 & –4.71 & 1.48\ VX Gem & 1.88 & 0.03 & 6.66 & 1.22 & 0.61 & 0.35 & 1.92 & 3.13 & –6.54 & 3.53\ R Vol & 0.88 & 0.49 & 4.84 & 1.89 & 1.40 & 1.61 & 3.83 & 1.67 & –5.70 & 3.18\ HX CMa & 1.68 & 0.74 & 5.73 & 2.38 & 1.79 & 2.17 & 5.81 & 3.55 & –4.90 & 2.18\ 07217–1246 & 2.18 & 0.84 & 6.47 & 2.47 & 1.97 & 2.35 & 5.64 & 4.22 & –4.98 & 2.24\ 07220–2324 & 2.75 & 1.13 & 7.09 & 2.59 & 1.96 & 2.26 & 5.22 & 4.67 & –5.22 & 2.42\ $[$W71b$]$007–02 & 4.34 & 1.33 & 8.29 & 1.62 & 1.07 & 1.08 & 2.85 & 4.81 & & 3.49\ 07373–4021 & 1.09 & 0.54 & 5.30 & 1.81 & 1.26 & 1.44 & 4.21 & 2.18 &–5.51 & 3.12\ V471 Pup & 4.17 & 1.43 & 8.39 & 1.14 & 0.56 & 0.44 & 1.85 & 5.00 & & 3.39\ 07454–7112 & 0.83 & 0.45 & 4.60 & 2.90 & 2.23 & 2.73 & 6.08 & 2.78 &–5.14 & 1.82\ V831 Mon & 2.33 & 0.09 & 7.31 & 1.53 & 1.09 & 1.13 & 3.29 & 3.88 & –6.05 & 3.43\ 07576–4054 & 2.86 & 1.25 & 7.26 & & 2.59 & 3.17 & 7.45 & 6.51& –5.18 & 0.75\ 07582–1933 & 2.49 & 0.44 & 6.91 & 2.91 & 2.32 & 2.68 & 6.51 & 5.35 &–5.02 & 1.56\ $[$ABC89$]$Pup38 &12.30 & 0.98 & 10.63 & 1.75 & 1.30 & 1.33 & 3.75 & 7.34 & & 3.29\ FF Pup & 3.77 & 0.58 & 8.06 & 1.20 & 0.65 & 0.66 & 2.65 & 4.64 & & 3.42\ V518 Pup & 2.03 & 0.10 & 6.67 & 2.05 & 1.37 & 1.45 & 4.08 & 3.51 & –5.68 & 3.16\ 08050–2838 & 2.63 & 0.97 & 7.01 & 3.01 & 2.14 & 2.47 & 6.04 & 4.99& –5.10 & 2.01\ 08074–3615 & 2.40 & 1.52 & 6.37 & & 3.94 & 4.52 & 10.80 & 8.95& –4.32 &–2.59\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx19 & 5.89 & 2.19 & 8.93 & 1.97 & 1.52 & 1.78 & 4.12 & 5.91 & & 3.01\ V346 Pup & 1.36 & 0.88 & 5.57 & 2.65 & 2.11 & 2.55 & 6.40 & 3.67 & –4.85 & 1.90\ $[$ABC89$]$Ppx40 & 5.13 & 1.54 & 8.74 & 1.36 & 0.69 & 0.56 & 1.71 & 5.22 & & 3.52\ $[$W71b$]$029–02 & 4.88 & 3.04 & 8.53 & 1.87 & 1.46 & 1.63 & 3.41 & 5.35 & & 3.17\ 08340–3357 & 2.26 & 0.83 & 6.60 & 3.06 & 2.48 & 3.01 & 7.17 & 5.53 &–4.84 & 1.07\ R Pyx & 1.35 & 0.38 & 6.00 & 1.23 & 0.73 & 0.70 & 2.07 & 2.50 & –6.38 & 3.50\ UW Pyx & 1.50 & 0.67 & 6.11 & 1.34 & 0.74 & 0.80 & 2.36 & 2.62 & –6.28 & 3.49\ 08535–4724 & 3.51 & 4.53 & 7.64 & & 2.91 & 3.33 & 8.07 & 7.17 &–4.53 & 0.47\ 08534–5055 & 4.29 & 2.20 & 7.90 & & 3.32 & 3.85 & 9.22 & 8.30 & –4.24 &–0.40\ IQ Hya & 1.55 & 0.53 & 6.26 & 1.56 & 1.14 & 1.23 & 3.10 & 2.84 & –6.05 & 3.42\ CQ Pyx & 1.14 & 0.49 & 4.99 & & 3.30 & 3.87 & 9.30 & 5.94 & –4.76 &–0.94\ 09176–5147 & 3.17 & 3.64 & 7.69 & 2.58 & 2.05 & 2.52 & 6.49 & 5.98 & –4.77 & 1.71\ $[$W71b$]$046–02 & 5.12 & 5.63 & 9.26 & 1.15 & 0.54 & 0.35 & 1.37 & 5.87 & & 3.40\ $[$ABC89$]$Vel44 & 4.18 & 3.34 & 8.33 & 1.41 & 0.89 & 0.91 & 2.46 & 4.85 & & 3.48\ 09433–6233 & 8.66 & 0.90 & 9.60 & 2.29 & 1.70 & 1.97 & 5.31 & 7.10 &–5.02 & 2.50\ CW Leo & 0.14 & 0.07 & 0.40 & 3.29 & 2.85 & 3.73 & 9.25 & 1.18 & –4.65 &–0.78\ 09513–5324 & 1.79 & 1.87 & 6.05 & 3.12 & 2.41 & 2.95 & 6.75 & 4.90 & –4.82 & 1.15\ 09529–5506 & 2.80 & 1.82 & 6.90 & 2.55 & 1.98 & 2.63 & 6.87 & 5.65 & –4.69 & 1.25\ 09533–6021 & 4.81 & 1.48 & 8.03 & 3.08 & 2.42 & 2.92 & 6.97 & 6.90 & –4.74 & 1.14\ 09521–7508 & 1.12 & 0.72 & 5.19 & 2.67 & 2.09 & 2.49 & 5.83 & 3.15 & –5.19 & 2.03\ 09586–6150 & 9.13 & 1.03 & 9.80 & & 2.77 & 3.24 & 7.46 & 9.10 & –4.75 & 0.71\ 10026–5849 & 5.68 & 4.73 & 8.72 & 1.79 & 1.29 & 1.47 & 3.71 & 5.47 & & 3.25\ 10098–5742 & 3.91 & 3.54 & 7.81 & & 2.52 & 3.15 & 7.55 & 7.23 & & 0.58\ 10109–5958 & 2.95 & 1.70 & 7.55 & 1.58 & 1.11 & 1.16 & 3.05 & 4.12 & & 3.43\ RW LMi & 0.46 & 0.09 & 3.10 & 2.74 & 2.10 & 2.53 & 6.35 & 1.31 & –4.94 & 1.78\ 10199–5801 & 4.39 & 4.33 & 7.90 & 2.83 & 2.04 & 2.49 & 5.82 & 5.81 & –4.10 & 2.09\ 10220–5858 & 5.45 & 3.73 & 8.52 & 1.51 & 1.00 & 1.02 & 2.67 & 5.05 & & 3.47\ CPD–58 2175 & 5.76 & 4.53 & 8.72 & 2.45 & 1.96 & 2.40 & 6.04 & 6.73 & & 1.99\ CZ Hya & 1.35 & 0.13 & 5.80 & 1.40 & 0.92 & 1.00 & 3.05 & 2.38 & –6.06 & 3.42\ TV Vel & 1.84 & 1.08 & 6.57 & 1.14 & 0.51 & 0.45 & 1.53 & 3.14 & & 3.43\ $[$ABC89$]$Car73 & 6.05 & 4.52 & 8.97 & 2.10 & 1.48 & 1.73 & 3.83 & 5.93 & & 3.04\ $[$ABC89$]$Car84 & 4.54 & 4.45 & 8.30 & 1.21 & 0.75 & 0.89 & & 4.93 & & 3.36\ $[$ABC89$]$Car87 & 7.09 & 3.46 & 9.33 & 1.18 & 0.76 & 0.53 & 1.28 & 5.81 & & 3.53\ $[$ABC89$]$Car105 & 2.95 & 2.57 & 7.37 & 1.57 & 1.07 & 1.21 & 3.15 & 4.01 & & 3.36\ 11145–6534 & 1.73 & 1.51 & 5.96 & 2.91 & 2.34 & 2.73 & 6.37 & 4.35 &–4.82 & 1.61\ $[$W65$]$ c13 & 5.38 & 4.53 & 8.93 & 1.27 & 0.78 & 0.74 & 1.86 & 5.44 & & 3.49\ $[$TI98$]$1130–1020 & 2.16 & 0.09 & 6.82 & 2.13 & 1.63 & 1.84 &4.82&4.03 & –5.56 & 2.79\ 11318–7256 & 0.66 & 0.56 & 4.07 & 1.82 & 1.24 & 1.48 & 3.47 & 0.80 & –5.66 & 3.27\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen4 & 4.00 & 1.68 & 8.00 & 1.41 & 0.74 & 0.77 & 2.49 & 4.53 & & 3.47\ 11463–6320 & 3.13 & 2.77 & 7.27 & 2.59 & 1.89 & 2.33 & 5.56 & 5.19 & –4.84 & 2.08\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen32 & 4.40 & 2.58 & 7.94 & 2.00 & 1.46 & 1.65&3.75& 4.82 & –5.45 & 3.12\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen43 & 6.06 & 3.93 & 8.85 & 1.55 & 1.11 & 1.23 & 2.77 & 5.46 & & 3.39\ $[$ABC89$]$Cen60 & 5.25 & 3.50 & 8.82 & 1.44 & 0.91 & 0.99 & 2.85 & 5.39 & & 3.43\ CF Cru & 5.88 & 5.80 & 9.03 & 1.14 & 0.56 & & 1.79 & 5.68 & & 3.35\ 12194–6007 & 2.84 & 2.21 & 7.04 & 2.35 & 1.90 & 2.29 & 5.44 & 4.76 & –5.21 & 2.28\ 12298–5754 & 1.85 & 1.58 & 6.19 & 2.46 & 2.15 & 2.63 & 6.00 & 4.26 & –4.86 & 1.93\ CGCS3268 & 2.05 & 1.36 & 6.83 & 1.20 & 0.76 & 0.59 & 2.39 & 3.31 & & 3.52\ 12394–4338 & 1.33 & 0.34 & 5.53 & 2.56 & 1.96 & 2.17 & 4.76 & 2.88 & –5.41 & 2.65\ 12421–6217 & 4.87 & 5.42 & 8.03 & & & 3.73 & 8.76 & 7.98 & –4.24 & 0.06\ RU Vir & 0.91 & 0.08 & 4.94 & 1.76 & 1.28 & 1.51 & 4.08 & 1.79 & –5.69 & 3.15\ V Cru & 1.47 & 0.98 & 6.16 & 1.14 & 0.52 & 0.39 & 1.49 & 2.79 & & 3.37\ 12540–6845 & 1.37 & 0.65 & 5.52 & 2.61 & 1.96 & 2.34 & 5.89 & 3.46 & –4.71 & 2.06\ 13343–5807 & 2.40 & 1.94 & 6.82 & 2.50 & 1.94 & 2.32 & 5.66 & 4.80 & –5.14 & 2.01\ 13477–6532 & 2.32 & 1.36 & 6.49 & & 2.96 & 3.78 & 8.24 & 6.50 & –4.52 &–0.01\ 13482–6716 & 1.70 & 0.87 & 6.17 & 2.59 & 1.96 & 2.25 & 5.17 & 3.70 & –5.20 & 2.47\ 13509–6348 & 2.98 & 2.30 & 7.06 & & & 2.30 & 5.89 & 4.91 & –5.16 & 2.15\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir26 & 3.81 & 4.11 & 7.93 & 1.97 & 1.33 & 1.58 & 3.53 & 4.75 & & 3.18\ $[$ABC89$]$Cir27 & 3.57 & 4.14 & 7.70 & 1.93 & 1.59 &1.98 &4.50& 4.89 & –5.35 & 2.80\ 14395–5656 & 6.58 & 3.41 & 9.13 & 1.57 & 0.99 & 1.13 & 2.71 & 5.70 & & 3.43\ 14404–6320 & 3.62 & 2.55 & 7.53 & & 2.98 & 3.82 & 8.83& 8.09 & –4.75 &–0.55\ 14443–5708 & 5.17 & 3.43 & 8.27 & & 3.62 & 3.84 & 9.08& 8.62 & –4.15 &–0.35\ 15082–4808 & 0.95 & 0.60 & 4.65 & 2.93 & 2.60 & 3.47 & 7.92& 4.31 & –4.67 & 0.35\ 15084–5702 & 3.48 & 3.58 & 7.05 & & 3.29 & 3.80 & 8.36& 7.00 & –4.10 & 0.04\ II Lup & 0.64 & 0.48 & 3.89 & 2.29 & 1.76 & 2.10 & 5.92 & 1.75 & –4.82 & 2.15\ 15261–5702 & 3.31 & 1.51 & 7.23 & & 2.40 & 2.82 & 6.44& 5.82 & –4.72 & 1.41\ 16079–4812 & 2.13 & 3.36 & 6.28 & & 3.18 & 3.82 & 8.36& 6.54 & –4.69 &–0.26\ NP Her & 2.44 & 0.17 & 7.07 & 1.41 & 0.85 & 0.70 & 2.22 & 3.48 & –6.37 & 3.59\ 16171–4759 & 2.84 & 2.70 & 7.16 & 2.40 & 1.83 & 2.07 & 5.35 & 4.64 & & 2.52\ V Oph & 0.78 & 0.90 & 5.06 & 1.20 & 0.68 & 0.58 & 1.55 & 1.53 & –6.95 & 3.53\ CGCS3721 & 2.71 & 1.29 & 7.56 & 1.34 & 0.88 & 0.78 & 2.24 & 4.00 & & 3.56\ 16538–4633 & 2.42 & 2.57 & 6.88 & 2.49 & 1.64 & 1.85 & 4.65 & 4.04 & –4.67 & 2.84\ 16545–4214 & 1.03 & 0.75 & 5.01 & 2.56 & 1.93 & 2.11 & 5.23 & 2.45 & –5.02 & 2.56\ 17047–2848 & 3.22 & 1.31 & 7.49 & 2.22 & 1.65 & 2.02 & 5.62 & 5.24 & –5.07 & 2.25\ V2548 Oph & 1.09 & 0.87 & 4.75 & & 2.82 & 3.59 & 9.15 & 5.53 & –4.47 &–0.78\ SZ Ara & 2.44 & 0.47 & 7.84 & 1.11 & 0.52 & 0.37 & 1.40 & 4.41 & –6.48 & 3.44\ V617 Sco & 1.29 & 1.19 & 5.52 & 1.39 & 0.91 & 0.89 & 2.88 & 2.06 & & 3.46\ 17105–3746 & 2.73 & 3.20 & 7.07 & 2.23 & 1.82 & 2.40 & 5.81 & 4.85 & –4.75 & 2.22\ 17130–3907 & 2.24 & 1.62 & 6.52 & 2.59 & 1.82 & 2.07 & 5.13 & 4.08 & –4.90 & 2.44\ 17217–3916 & 2.88 & 2.03 & 7.10 & & 2.75 & 3.19 & 7.60 & 6.24 & & 0.86\ 17222–2328 & 2.64 & 2.58 & 6.92 & 2.73 & 1.90 & 2.18 & 4.84 & 4.37 & –5.14 & 2.55\ V833 Her & 1.07 & 0.14 & 5.08 & 2.90 & 2.46 & 3.18 & 7.17 & 4.18 & –4.68 & 0.91\ 17446–4048 & 1.40 & 0.80 & 5.66 & 2.52 & 1.89 & 2.09 & 5.89 & 3.53 & –5.06 & 2.13\ 17463–4007 &10.55 & 1.22 & 10.38 & 1.54 & 1.07 & 1.24 & 3.82 & 7.11 & & 3.27\ 17581–1744 & 2.34 & 1.72 & 6.62 & 2.30 & 1.63 & 1.83 & 4.67 & 3.87 & –5.25 & 2.75\ 18036–2344 & 2.25 & 2.61 & 6.47 & 3.06 & 2.28 & 2.64 & 6.32 & 4.69 & –4.59 & 1.78\ FX Ser & 1.13 & 1.39 & 5.25 & 2.43 & 1.77 & 1.99 & 4.66 & 2.46 & –5.12 & 2.78\ V1280 Sgr & 1.34 & 1.03 & 5.59 & 1.64 & 1.13 & 1.32 & 3.55 & 2.30 & –5.71 & 3.29\ 18119–2244 & 2.21 & 1.67 & 6.54 & & 2.68 & 2.87 & 6.84 & 5.45 & –4.78 & 1.09\ V5104 Sgr & 1.05 & 0.63 & 4.82 & 3.11 & 2.31 & 2.71 & 6.92 & 3.46 & –4.70 & 1.36\ 18239–0655 & 1.74 & 1.64 & 5.96 & 2.90 & 2.49 & 2.88 & 6.73 & 4.49 & –4.53 & 1.47\ V1076 Her & 1.14 & 0.36 & 5.07 & & 3.28 & 3.87 & 9.05 & 5.81 & –4.64 &–0.73\ 18248–0839 & 2.29 & 1.58 & 6.53 & 3.49 & 2.91 & 3.18 & 7.83 & 5.99 & –4.56 & 0.54\ V627 Oph & 3.34 & 0.85 & 7.75 & 1.84 & 1.26 & 1.45 & 4.13 & 4.58 & –5.59 & 3.16\ V1417 Aql & 0.87 & 0.36 & 4.49 & 2.41 & 1.80 & 2.02 & 5.17 & 1.93 & –4.85 & 2.56\ V821 Her & 0.75 & 0.69 & 4.34 & 2.22 & 1.79 & 2.07 & 5.17 & 1.79 & –5.36 & 2.55\ V2045 Sgr & 2.22 & 1.07 & 6.86 & 1.59 & 0.97 & 0.99 & 2.80 & 3.36 & –5.98 & 3.50\ AI Sct & 2.15 & 1.06 & 6.90 & 1.50 & 0.95 & 0.80 & 3.09 & 3.38 & –5.64 & 3.52\ V1418 Aql & 1.04 & 0.77 & 4.96 & 2.77 & 2.25 & 2.64 & 6.08 & 3.07 & –4.90 & 1.89\ V1420 Aql & 1.00 & 0.52 & 4.66 & 2.20 & 1.57 & 2.00 & 4.95 & 2.03 & –5.04 & 2.62\ V1965 Cyg & 1.13 & 0.56 & 5.11 & 2.58 & 2.01 & 2.37 & 5.55 & 2.90 & –4.89 & 2.21\ R Cap & 1.62 & 0.46 & 6.45 & 1.32 & 0.86 & 0.94 & 2.85 & 3.01 & –6.57 & 3.45\ BD Vul & 2.22 & 0.62 & 6.92 & 1.47 & 0.89 & 0.71 & 2.22 & 3.31 & –6.14 & 3.60\ V442 Vul & 1.41 & 0.58 & 5.45 & 2.88 & 2.58 & 3.05 & 6.81 & 4.17 & –4.82 & 1.29\ RV Aqr & 0.75 & 0.18 & 4.54 & 1.91 & 1.35 & 1.51 & 3.94 & 1.37 & –5.71 & 3.17\ $[$TI98$]$2259+1249 & 4.15 & 0.49 & 8.65 & 1.14 & 0.51 & 0.32 & 1.55&5.20& –5.88 & 3.45\ LL Peg & 1.05 & 0.09 & 4.75 & & & 6.23 & 13.96 & 10.49 & –4.28 &–5.74\ IZ Peg & 1.70 & 0.19 & 6.20 & & 3.16 & 4.04 & 9.14 & 7.07 & –4.86 &–0.87\ $[$TI98$]$2223+2548 & 2.84 & 0.16 & 7.69 & 1.61 & 1.20 & 1.28 & 3.37&4.34 & –5.94 & 3.36\ There are, however, some individually large differences and some systematic trends. For the bluer sources ($K-[12]<6$) our distances tend to be smaller because the apparent bolometric flux we derive is larger and there is a clear trend with colour. The Groenewegen et al. results for the 34 stars with $K-[12]<5.9$ are 24 percent more distant than we find. The most extreme case is R Cap (20084–1425), $K-[12]=2.85$, for which we find 1.52 kpc while Groenewegen et al. get 3.45 kpc (Le Bertre et al. (2001) got 1.33 kpc; see below). The main source of this difference is in the apparent bolometric magnitudes, which differ by 1.25 mag, although the absolute magnitudes also differ in such a way as to increase the difference in derived distance. Our results suggest that Groenewegen et al. systematically underestimated the contribution from $HKL$ to the total flux, thereby underestimating the apparent bolometric flux for blue sources. This will have had very little effect on the red sources that make up the bulk of their C-star sample. For the redder sources our distances tend to be slightly larger than the Groenewegen et al. ones, but there is no systematic trend with colour for stars with $K-[12]>6$ and the effect is not large. For the 36 stars with $K-[12]>5.9$ Groenewegen et al. get distances 6.5 percent less than ours. The most extreme examples are RW LMi, $K-[12]=6.35$, for which we and Groenewegen get 0.32 and 0.46 kpc respectively, and 08534–5055, $K-[12]=9.22$, for which the distances are 3.10 and 4.29 respectively. For RW LMi the difference is entirely in the apparent bolometric magnitude and for 08534–5055 it is largely so. Le Bertre et al. (2001) calculate distances using a \[2.20-3.77\]$\mu$m dependent bolometric correction to the \[2.20\] mag, applied to observations obtained with the Japanese IRTS. For this purpose they assume $M_{bol}=-5.01$ mag for all their sources (this is the bolometric magnitude we would associate with a Mira with a period of 530 days) indicating a factor of 1.8 uncertainty for the distances of individual sources owing to this latter assumption. They have only 3 sources in common with us, R Cap, HX CMa and 11318–7256, for which they estimate distances 9 to 30 percent smaller than we do. CW Leo is a very well studied, thick-shelled, C star for which numerous distance estimates, in the range 0.11 to 0.17 kpc, have been made. It is also one of the few stars for which a geometric distance, of 0.145 kpc, has been measured using the dust outflow speed combined with the proper motion of the shell (Tuthill et al. 2000). This value is in good agreement with our estimate of 0.14 kpc. Guandalini et al. (2005) tabulate distances (their tables 1 and 2) for various C stars including some Miras. For the four stars in common in their table 1 (which they describe as having “astrometric, or reliable, distance estimates") their distances are, in the mean, 7 percent larger than ours. For the 8 stars listed in both our Table 5 and in their table 2, the mean difference is zero. The distances in table 1 of Guandalini et al. (2005), which are described as “astrometric" are taken from Bergeat & Chevallier (2005) and are based on a procedure of Knapik et al. (1998) who corrected the Hipparcos parallaxes by a semi-empirical statistical method of their own. Contrary to a standard Lutz-Kelker type approach to this problem, which would have resulted in negative corrections to the parallaxes and absolute magnitudes, both positive and negative corrections result from their method. They do not discuss the uncertainties in the corrections applied. However, it is clear from table 1 of Bergeat et al. (1998) that these corrections are often large. Knapik et al. (1998) also say (their section 5), “: individual values \[of the corrections\] may occasionally be wrong and a few such cases were detected from data at hand...... In such cases the catalogue value can be kept if positive or the star is abandoned". So far as C-Miras are concerned, the possibility of using Hipparcos parallaxes to calibrate the zero-point of the PL($K$) relation was investigated by Whitelock & Feast (2000). A definitive result was not obtained due primarily to the small number of C-Miras with parallaxes of significant weight. It may be possible to re-investigate this matter when the revision of the Hipparcos catalogue is completed (see van Leeuwen 2005, van Leeuwen & Fantino 2005). The distances tabulated here probably represent the best currently available for carbon Miras, particularly for those where the light curve has been well characterized over many cycles. Noting the discussion in the last paragraph of Section \[bol\_mag\] there is a potential problem in calculating accurate apparent bolometric luminosities during obscuration events (see also Section \[trends\]). If we had made $JHKL$ observations of a C star with a thin dust shell (where most of the bolometric flux is emitted at near-infrared wavelengths) only during an obscuration event, then we would have underestimated its luminosity and overestimated its distance. It also remains possible that we have failed to identify a small number of bright hot-bottom-burning stars for which we will have underestimated the distances. Mass-loss Rates {#mdot} =============== Mass-loss rates can be derived for many of these stars using the expression given by Jura (1987): $$\dot{M}=1.7 \times 10^{-7} v_{15} d^2_{kpc}L_4^{-1/2}F_{\nu,60}\bar{\lambda}^{1/2}_{10}\ \rm M_{\odot}yr^{-1},\label{e_mdot}$$ where $v_{15}$ is the outflow velocity in units of 15 kms$^{-1}$, $d$ is the distance in kpc, $L_4$ is the luminosity in units of $10^4 \rm L_{\odot}$, $F_{\nu,60}$ is the flux from the dust at $60\mu$m and $\bar{\lambda}$ is the mean wavelength of the light emerging from the star and its shell in units of 10 $\mu$m. Note that this equation assumes a constant dust-to-gas ratio. The results are given in Table \[derived\]. For the outflow velocity ($v_{15}$) we use the expansion velocities tabulated by Groenewegen et al. (2002) while noting that those authors, in their own calculation of mass loss add an additional drift velocity (of the order of 2 or 3 kms$^{-1}$) to their expansion velocities to determine the outflow velocity. For the stars in our sample which have no measured expansion velocity we assume 19 kms$^{-1}$, this being the mean for the 68 stars in our sample which have all the other parameters necessary to calculate $\dot{M}$. We find that $\bar{\lambda}$ varies from 0.23 to 1.42, i.e. it is generally somewhat larger than the 0.3 assumed by Groenewegen et al. particularly for the very red stars which constitute the bulk of their sample. For $F_{\nu,60}$ we use the IRAS flux at $60\mu$m, and where there is no IRAS flux at this wavelength we do not attempt to calculate mass-loss rates. Note that this approach will result in an overestimate of the mass-loss rate if the shell is very thin and a significant fraction of the $60\mu$m flux actually originates from the underlying star. We can estimate the effect by assuming the stars radiate as blackbodies at the temperatures given by Bergeat et al. (2002) and using the $K$ mag given in Table \[derived\] to estimate the stellar contribution to the measured $60\mu$m flux. Bergeat et al. tabulate temperatures for 4 of the 5 stars (none for R Cap) listed with $\log \dot{M} < -6.4 \, \rm M_{\odot} yr^{-1}$ in Table \[derived\]. For V Oph, ZZ Gem, VX Gem and SZ Ara the stellar contribution to the $60\mu$m flux will be approximately 39, 32, 23 and 12 percent, respectively. For these 5 stars (including R Cap, where the contribution from the star is estimated at 20 percent) the mass-loss rates given in the table have been adjusted by the amount indicated; for all the others the effect will be negligible. For very close stars the $60\mu$m flux will have been spatially resolved and therefore not entirely included in the IRAS PSC estimate. In which case the mass-loss rates would be underestimated. The 3 stars with distances under 500pc are the only ones where the extended nature of the source is likely to be significant; these are CW Leo, R Lep and RW LMi. Two of these stars (CW Leo and R Lep) were examined by Young, Phillips & Knapp (1993) who found extended contributions from both, amounting to about 10 percent of the PSC flux. The mass-loss values tabulated for these three stars have therefore been increased by 10 percent. For all the other stars the effect will probably be insignificant, but certainly less than 10 percent. A number of authors have calculated mass-loss rates for C-rich Miras and the results differ quite significantly from one paper to another. There are many factors which contribute to these differences, but uncertainty in the distance, which appears squared in equation \[e\_mdot\], is always a major factor. This aspect has already been discussed in Section \[is\_ext\]. Whitelock et al. (1987) showed that mass-loss rates of relatively thin shelled O-rich Miras depended on their pulsation amplitudes, providing strong support for the role of pulsation in driving mass loss. While it would be very interesting to do a similar exercise for the C Miras under discussion, it is unfortunately not practical. As shown in Fig. \[delkk12\] and discussed in Section \[amps\] the $JHKL$ amplitudes tell us little about the pulsation amplitude of the star. Ideally we should measure the bolometric amplitude, but this must await monitoring at mid-infrared wavelengths. Fig. \[fig\_mdotk12\] shows how the mass-loss rates depend on colour. The line is a polynomial fit to the Galactic C Miras: $$\begin{aligned} \log \dot{M}=-7.668+0.7305(K-[12]) \nonumber \\ -5.398\times10^{-2}(K-[12])^2 +1.343\times10^{-3}(K-[12])^3. \label{mdotk12} \end{aligned}$$ The LMC Miras discussed by Whitelock et al. (2003) are shown for comparison. The two groups follow the same trend and the slight displacement of the LMC points with respect to the Galactic ones should not be seen as significant in view of the different assumptions that went into the mass-loss rate calculations (see van Loon et al. 1999 for the LMC data). The relationship is also qualitatively similar to that found for O-rich stars (Whitelock et al. 1994 fig. 21) and covers the transition from an optically thin dust shell, $K-[12]<5$, to optically thick one $K-[12]>7$. ![Mass-loss rate as a function of $K-[12]$ colour, for Galactic C Miras (crosses) and LMC C Miras (closed circles, van Loon et al. 1999), the line is equation \[mdotk12\].[]{data-label="fig_mdotk12"}](fig_mdotk12.eps){width="8.0cm"} Long Term Trends, Obscuration Events and the RCB phenomenon {#trends} =========================================================== The very extended atmospheres of Miras are intrinsically unstable and all their light curves show some level of variability from one cycle to another. However, some Miras show much greater variability (typically around $\Delta K\sim 1$ mag on top of the normal pulsation), which can be understood as the result of dramatically changing obscuration from dust. Detailed descriptions have been given for R For (Whitelock et al. 1997) and II Lup (Feast et al. 2003) where the obscurations are attributed to the ejection of dust puffs in our line of sight. It is clear from these references that the dust ejection cannot be in the form of a spherically symmetric shell. A similar phenomenon has been noted in the photographic red magnitudes of northern C stars, measured over a period of 30 years (Alksnis 2003). These obscuration events in C-rich Miras are phenomenologically similar to those observed in the H-deficient RCB C stars. The RCB stars are characterized by apparently random declines in brightness of 7 mag or more in visual light. The brightness variations are a consequence of the ejection of puffs of material at random times and in essentially random directions (e.g. Feast 1996). C-rich dust condensing in these puffs of material is responsible for the observed extinction. There is as yet no consensus on the evolutionary status of, or the mechanism for mass-loss from, RCB stars. As discussed by Feast et al. (2003) there are differences in the details of obscuration events in Miras and RCB stars, but these are to be expected given the differences in the sizes, outflow velocities and temperatures of the stars involved. In this section we look at the additional information provided on this phenomenon by the data presented here. The frequency of occurrence is obviously important; we see clear obscuration events in 5 out of 18 Miras for which we have at least 25 observations. This should probably be regarded as a lower limit as some of those with photometry over a limited time may eventually show obscuration events if observed for long enough. We therefore estimate the fraction of C-rich Miras exhibiting obscuration events at very roughly one third. Furthermore, we demonstrated above (see Figs. \[fig\_jhhk\] to \[fig\_k12p1\]) that there is no difference in the infrared properties of the Miras in which obscuration events have been observed and those in which they have not. It is therefore possible that all Miras will be seen to do this if monitored for long enough. Although, as we discuss below, the phenomenon is also observed among non-Miras, the statistics for this group are not reliable. Our primary interest in this work has been the Miras and we generally stopped observing other stars when we had sufficient observations to establish that they were not large amplitude variables. In the following some individual examples are briefly discussed. Given in brackets after each star name is the variability type (M or SR) and the number of SAAO near-infrared observations that are available. Although more data are presented here we do not reconsider the behaviour of [**R For**]{} (M 209) or [**II Lup**]{} (M 264) mentioned at the start of this section. ![EV Eri at $K$; note the obscuration event at around JD 2450700.[]{data-label="fig_everi"}](fig_everi.eps){width="8.0cm"} [**EV Eri**]{} (SR 92) was discussed by Whitelock et al. (1997) who estimated its period at 228 days, not significantly different from the 226 days derived here from a slightly larger dataset. Since then it has undergone an obscuration phase (Fig. \[fig\_everi\]) similar to those shown by the Miras R For (Whitelock et al. 1997) and R Lep (see below and Fig. \[fig\_rlep\]). At its dimmest EV Eri was fainter than usual by $\Delta J\sim 1.1$, $\Delta H\sim 0.9$, $\Delta K\sim 0.8$ and $\Delta L\sim 0.7$ mag. Gigoyan et al. (1998) classified it as C-type (R or N) on an objective prism spectrum and identify it with CGCS611 (Ste85-21), presumably incorrectly as the coordinates differ significantly (EV Eri: 04 09 07.48 -09 14 12.0; CGCS611: 04 03 39.20 -09 13 17.3 (Equinox 2000)). In view of the similarity of the light curve of EV Eri to those of RCB stars it would be interesting to see what a higher resolution spectrum revealed. As discussed above this star shows IRAS colours (see Fig. \[fig\_k1225\], where $K-[12]=2.14$ and $[12]-[25]=1.02$) that are unusual among non-Mira C-rich variables. RCB stars show an excess at near-infrared wavelengths (e.g. Feast et al. 1997; Feast 1997). ![(top) R Lep at $K$. (bottom) R Lep at $K$ after removal of the 438 day pulsations. []{data-label="fig_rlep"}](fig_rlep.eps){width="8.0cm"} [**R Lep**]{} (M 154) was discussed by Whitelock et al. (1997). The light curve from the larger dataset is illustrated in the top part of Fig. \[fig\_rlep\], while the bottom part shows the $K$ curve after removing the 438 day periodic term (modelled as a sine curve plus its harmonic). The smoothness of this residual is a measure of the regularity of the underlying 438 day pulsation. An analysis of data from the AAVSO archive gives a period of 436 days and shows an earlier deep minimum around JD2443700 in addition to the one illustrated here. [**R Vol**]{} (M 88). There is little to add to the discussion by Whitelock et al. (1997), but to note that R Vol is brighter now, at $JHK$ and $L$ than it has ever been in the 24 years we have been observing it. The most recent maximum recorded by the AAVSO, around JD2453000, is the brightest in almost 100 years. The star may be emerging from a prolonged obscuration event. [**09164–5349**]{} (SR 14) has a rather remarkable light curve, illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_long\], which was typical of a very low amplitude SR variable for more than 1000 days before it started a slow decline, changing in brightness by $\Delta K > 2.0$ mag and $\Delta J > 3.5 $ mag over the next 800 days. Epchtein et al. (1990) reported $JHKLM$ photometry from January 1986, i.e. almost 10 years before our first observations, at the same bright quiescent level as our early measurements with $K=2.14$. Because of its unusual IRAS colours (e.g. it lies above the dashed line which separates most O- and C-rich stars in Fig. \[fig\_k1225\]) 09176–5147 has been identified by various authors as a potential C star with silicate dust shell (e.g. Chen et al. 1993) although no evidence was found for anything other than a normal C-rich shell. The colour changes during the fading event suggest an increase in dust absorption. This particular object differs from most others showing dust obscuration events in that it does not show evidence for pulsation or other types of large amplitude variability. Groenewegen et al. (2002) did not detect CO emission. If 09164–5349 is indeed exhibiting the same type of obscuration event as the other stars discussed in this section it is particularly important because its existence proves that the phenomenon is not necessarily associated with large amplitude pulsation (10136–5743 and 16406–1406 may not be pulsating, but that is not proved beyond any doubt). [**10136–5743**]{} (M: 13) has a large amplitude, $\Delta K > 1$ mag, but is not obviously periodic (Fig. \[fig\_long\]), although a period of the order of 1000 days is possible if the light curve is erratic. There has been very little published on this object beyond confirmation that it is a carbon star. It may be similar to 16406–1406. ![09176–5147, 10136–5743 and 16406–1406 at $K$; the \# in the bottom plot is an observation from 2MASS.[]{data-label="fig_long"}](fig_long.eps){width="8.4cm"} [**16406–1406**]{} (M: 28) is one of the most peculiar stars in the survey. It is also one of the few objects for which we have no spectroscopic evidence for its C-type classification, and this must therefore be regarded as uncertain. There has been very little published about it. Kwok et al. (1997) describe the IRAS spectrum as type-F, i.e. showing a featureless continuum. It is very red $3.3 <K-L< 4.0$, and has large amplitude variations, $\Delta K > 1.5$ mag, with no evidence for periodicity unless it is with a period of about 1800 days and very erratic. Its colours, e.g. $K-[12]=8.62$ and $[12-25]=0.89$, are certainly typical of a C star with a moderately thick shell. It is in the Galactic Centre quadrant, but well out of the Galactic plane ($\ell=4.1$, $b=20.2$). 16406–1406 has similarities to 10136–5743. It is also possible that it is like R For and that the periodicity has been totally disrupted by an obscuration event. In Table \[jhkl\] we tentatively classified it as a Mira because of its large amplitude variability, but the light curve of Fig. \[fig\_long\] does not suggest Mira-like periodicity. In summary, these obscuration events occur in very roughly one third of C-rich Miras and in an unknown fraction of other C-rich variable stars. It is possible that they are related to the RCB phenomenon as discussed above and it would certainly be worth making a more detailed study of the abundances and other properties of these stars. It is also possible that these stars are in binary systems with low level interactions. It may even be that the RCB-like mass loss is triggered by binary-related effects. Although obscuration events are not seen among solitary O-rich Miras they are very common among symbiotic Miras (Whitelock 1987), where they are thought to be a consequence of binary star interaction. It is also worth noting that the well studied C-rich binary SR variable V Hya shows colour changes (e.g. Olivier et al. 2001) which are modulated at its orbital period but which otherwise look very similar to the obscuration phenomenon under discussion. At the same time we do have enough data to be certain that the obscuration events in R For are not periodic (Whitelock et al. 1997). Finally we note that Woitke & Niccolini’s (2005) results offer at least a partial explanation of the obscuration events. In their model for dust driven winds in AGB stars, instabilities (hydrodynamical, radiative or thermal) allow the occasional formation of dust clouds close to the star in temporarily shielded areas; these clouds are then accelerated outward by radiation pressure. At the same time, but elsewhere, thinner dust-free matter falls back towards the star. In this way a turbulent and dynamical environment is created close to the star, which can be expected to produce the strongly inhomogeneous dust distribution which we observe in the C stars discussed here. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We thank the following people for their contribution to the SAAO observations reported here: Brian Carter, Robin Catchpole, Ian Glass, Dave Laney, Lerothodi Leeuw, Karen Pollard, Greg Roberts, Jonathan Spencer-Jones, Garry Van Vuren, Hartmut Winkler and Albert Zijlstra. We are grateful to Tom Lloyd Evans, Steven Bagnulo and Ian Short for allowing us to use their data in advance of publication. We also thank Luis Balona for the use of his STAR Fourier analysis package and John Menzies for a critical reading of the manuscript. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. We acknowledge with thanks the variable star observations from the AAVSO International Database contributed by observers worldwide and used in this research. We are grateful to the referee, Jacco van Loon for some helpful suggestions. Aaronson M., Blanco V. M., Cook K. H., Schechter P. L., 1989, ApJS, 70, 637 Alksnis A., 2003, Baltic Astron., 12, 595 Alksnis A., Balklavs A., Dzervitis U., Eglitis I., Paupers O., Pundure I., 2001, Balt. A., 10, 1 Bujarrabal V., Cernicharo J., 1994, A&A, 288, 551 Bateson F., McIntosh R., Venimore C. W., 1988, RASNZ Publ. Var. Star Sec., 15, 70 Bergeat J., Knapik A., Rutily B., 1998, A&A, 332, L53 Bergeat J., Knapik A., Rutily B., 2002, A&A, 390, 967 Bergeat J., Chevallier L., 2005, A&A, 429, 235 Carter B. S., 1990, MNRAS, 242, 1 Catchpole R. M., Feast M. W., 1976, MNRAS, 175, 501 Catchpole R. M., Robertson B. S. C., Lloyd Evans T. H. H., Feast M. W., Glass I. S., Carter B. S., 1979, SAAO Circ., 1, 61 Chen P.-S., Lou E.-R., Li J.-Q., 1993, Acta Astron. Sinica, 34, 92 Chen P. S., Zhang P., Fu H. W., 2003, New Astron., 8, 719 Cutri R. M., 2003, “The 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources", IPAC/CIT (2MASS) Cohen J. G., Frogel J. A., Persson S. E., Elias J. H., 1981, ApJ, 249, 481 Drimmel R., Cabrera-Levers A., López-Corredoira M., 2003, A& A, 409, 205 Egan M. P., Price S. D., Kraemer K. E., Mizuno D. R., Carey S. J., Wright C. O., Engelke C. W., Cohen M., Gugliotti G. M., 2003, Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report AFRL-VS-TR-2003-1589 Epchtein N., Le Bertre T., Lépine J. R. D., 1990, A&A, 82, 104 ESA 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200 Feast M. W., 1954, Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Liège, 14, 413 Feast M. W., 1996, in: S. Jeffrey, U. Heber (eds.), Hydrogen Defficient Stars and Related Objects, ASP Conf. Ser. 96, p. 3 Feast M. W., 1997, MNRAS, 285, 339 Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., 2000, in: F. Matteucci, F. Giovannelli (eds.) The Evolution of the Milky Way: stars versus clusters, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, ISBN 0-7923-6679-4, p. 229 Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., Catchpole R. M., Roberts G., Carter B. S., 1985, MNRAS, 215, 63P Feast M. W., Glass I. S., Whitelock P. A., Catchpole R. M., 1989, MNRAS, 241, 375 Feast M. W., Carter M. S., Roberts G., Marang F., Catchpole R. M., 1997, MNRAS, 285, 317 Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., Marang F. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 878 Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., Menzies J. W., 2006, MNRAS, submitted (Paper III) Fouqué P., Le Bertre T., Epchtein N., Guglielmo F., Kerschbaum F., 1992, A&AS, 93, 151 Gaylard M. J., Whitelock P. A., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 123 Gaylard M. J., West M. E., Whitelock P. A., Cohen R. J., 1989, MNRAS, 236, 247 Gezari D. Y., Pitts P. S., Schmitz M., 1997, Catalog of Infrared Observations, Edition 4, unpublished 1997 Gigoyan K. S., Hambaryan V. V., Azzopardi M., 1998, Astrophys., 41, 356 Glass I. S., 1999, Handbook of Infrared Photometry, CUP Glass I. S., Lloyd Evans T., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 67 Groenewegen M. A. T., 1994, A&A, 290, 207 Groenewegen M. A. T., Whitelock P. A., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1347 Groenewegen M. A. T., de Jong T., Baas F., 1993, A&AS, 101, 513 Groenewegen M. A. T., Whitelock P. A., Smith C. H., Kerschbaum F., 1998, MNRAS, 293, 18 Groenewegen M. A. T., Sevenster M., Spoon H. W. W., PÃérez I., 2002, A&A, 390, 511 Guandalini R., Busso M., Ciprini S., Silvestro G., Persi P., 2005, Astro-ph/0509739 Guglielmo F., Epchtein N., Le Bertre T., Fouqué P., Hron J., Kerschbaum F., Lépine J. R. D., 1993, A&AS, 99, 31 Iben I., Jr, 1981, ApJ, 246, 278 IRAS Science Team, 1988, Explanatory Supplement to the IRAS Point Source Catalogue Jones T. J., Bryja C. O., Gehrz R. D., Harrison T. E., Johnson J. J., Klebe D. I., Lawrence G. F., 1990, ApJS, 74, 785 Jura M., 1987, ApJ, 313, 743 Keenan P. C., Boeshaar P. C., 1980, ApJS, 43, 379 Knapik A., Bergeat J., Rutily B., 1998, A&A, 334, 545 Kwok S., Volk K., Bidelman W. P., 1997, ApJS, 112, 557 Le Bertre T., 1992, A&AS, 94, 377 Le Bertre T., Matsuura M., Winters J. M., Murakami, H., Yamamura I., Freund M., Tanaka M., 2001, A&A, 376, 997 Lloyd Evans T., 1991, MNRAS, 249, 409 Lloyd Evans T., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 839 Lloyd Evans T., Catchpole R. M., 1989, MNRAS, 237, 219 Luyten W. J., 1927, HB No.842, 9 Maffei P., 1966, Mem. Soc. Ast. It., 37, 475 Matsuura M., Zijlstra A. A., van Loon J. Th., Yamamura I., Markwick A. J., Whitelock P. A., Woods P. M., Marshall J. R., Feast M. W., Waters L. B. F. M., 2005, A&A, 436, 691 Menzies J., Feast M., Tanabé T., Whitelock P., Nakada Y., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 923 Menzies J. W., Feast M. W, Whitelock P. A., 2006, MNRAS, submitted (Paper II) Moshir M. et al. 1989, IRAS Faint Source Catalog, Version 2, Infrared Processing and Analysis Centre Noguchi K., Kawara K., Kobayashi Y., Okuda H., Sato S., Oishi M., 1981, PASJ, 33, 373 Olivier E. A., Whitelock P. A., Marang F., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 490 Ortiz R., Lorenz-Martins S., Maciel W. J., Rangel E. M., 2005, A&A, 431, 565 Pojmański G., 2002, Acta. Astron., 52, 397 (www.astrouw.edu.pl/$\sim$gp/asas/asas.html) Richichi A., Stecklum B., Herbst T. M., Lagage P.-O., Thamm E., 1998, A&A,334, 585 Samus N.N., Durlevich O.V., et al., 2004, “Combined General Catalog of Variable Stars" (GCVS4.2, 2004 Ed.) Moscow, Institute of Astronomy of Russian Academy of Sciences (GCVS) Skinner C. J., Griffin I., Whitmore B., 1990, MNRAS, 243, 78 Stancliffe R. J., Izzard, R. G., Tout C. A., 2005, MNRAS, 356, L1 Tuthill P. G., Monnier J. D., Danchi W. C., Lopez B., 2000, ApJ, 243, 284 van Leeuwen F., Fantino E., 2005, A&A, 439, 791 van Leeuwen F., 2005, A&A, 439, 805 van Loon J. Th., 2006, in: (eds.) Lamers, Langer, Nugis & Annuk, Stellar Evolution at Low Metallicity: Mass Loss, Explosions, Cosmology, ASP, in press astro-ph/0512326) van Loon J. Th., Groenewegen M. A. T., de Koter A., Trams N. R., Waters L. B. F. M., Zijlstra A. A., Whitelock P. A., Loup C., 1999, A&A, 351, 559 Walker W. S. G., Ives F. V., Williams H. O., 1995, Southern Stars, 36, 123 Whitelock P. A., 1987, PASP, 99, 573 Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 759 Whitelock P. A., Pottasch, S. R., Feast, M. W., 1987, in: (eds.) S. Kwok & S. R. Pottasch, Late Stages of Stellar Evolution, Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 269 Whitelock P. A., Menzies J.W., Feast M.W., Marang F., Carter B., Roberts G., Catchpole R. M., Chapman J., 1994, MNRAS, 267, 711 Whitelock P. A., Menzies J.W., Feast M.W., Catchpole R.M., Marang F., Carter B., 1995, MNRAS, 276, 219 Whitelock P. A., Feast M.W., Marang F., Overbeek M.D. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 512 Whitelock P. A., Marang F., Feast M. W. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 728 Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., van Loon, J. Th., Zijlstra, A. A., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 86 Woitke P., Niccolini G., 2005, A&A, 433, 1101 Young K., Phillips T. G., Knapp G. R., 1993, ApJS, 86, 517 Zijlstra A. A., Bedding T. R., Markwick A. J., Loidl-Gautschy R., Tabur, V., Alexander K. D., Jacob, A. P., Kiss L. L., Price A., Matsuura M., Mattei J. A., 2004, MNRAS, 352, 325 ![\[fig\_lcmira\] $K$ light curves for the Mira variables; each point is plotted twice to emphasize the periodicity. ](fig_lc1.ps){width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.1cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} ![\[fig\_lcsr\]$K$ light curves for semi-regular variables on the same scale as the Miras.](fig_sr1.ps){width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"} {width="3.6cm"} [^1]: e-mail: paw@saao.ac.za [^2]: This paper is based on observations made at the South African Astronomical Observatory. [^3]: Transformation from the 1.9-m natural system to the SAAO system defined by Carter (1990) assumes $K_{1.9}=K$ and $(J-H)_{1.9}=0.95(J-H)$ or $(J-K)_{1.9}=0.955(J-K)$.

--- abstract: 'This paper gives the exact solution in terms of the Karhunen-Loève expansion to a fractional stochastic partial differential equation on the unit sphere $\sph{2}\subset \Rd[3]$ with fractional Brownian motion as driving noise and with random initial condition given by a fractional stochastic Cauchy problem. A numerical approximation to the solution is given by truncating the Karhunen-Loève expansion. We show the convergence rates of the truncation errors in degree and the mean square approximation errors in time. Numerical examples using an isotropic Gaussian random field as initial condition and simulations of evolution of cosmic microwave background (CMB) are given to illustrate the theoretical results.' address: - 'School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia' - 'School of Mathematics and Computational Science, Xiangtan University, Hunan, 411105, China' - 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia' - 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia' author: - 'Vo V. Anh' - Philip Broadbridge - Andriy Olenko - Yu Guang Wang title: On Approximation for Fractional Stochastic Partial Differential Equations on the Sphere --- stochastic partial differential equations,fractional Brownian motions,spherical harmonics,random fields,spheres,fractional calculus,Wiener noises,Cauchy problem,cosmic microwave background,FFT 35R11,35R01,35R60,60G22,33C55,35P10,60G60,41A25,60G15,35Q85,65T50 Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Fractional stochastic partial differential equations (fractional SPDEs) on the unit sphere $\sph{2}$ in $\Rd[3]$ have numerous applications in environmental modelling and astrophysics, see [@AnKeLeRu2008; @Brillinger1997; @CaSt2013; @Dodelson2003; @Durrer2008; @Hristopulos2003; @LaGu1999; @PiScWh2000; @Planck2016I; @RuReMe2013; @Stein2007; @StChAn2013]. One of the merits of fractional SPDEs is that they can be used to maintain long range dependence in evolutions of complex systems [@AnLeRu2016; @BeDuKa2015; @HuLiNu2016; @Inahama2013; @Lyons1998], such as climate change models and the density fluctuations in the primordial universe as inferred from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In this paper, we give the exact and approximate solutions of the fractional SPDE on $\sph{2}$ $$\label{eq:fSPDE} \IntD{\sol(t,\PT{x})} + \psi(-\LBo) \sol(t,\PT{x}) = \IntD{\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})},\quad t\ge0,\;\PT{x}\in\sph{2}.$$ Here, for $\alpha\ge0$, $\gamma>0$, the *fractional diffusion operator* $$\label{eq:fLBo} \psi(-\LBo):=\frLBo$$ is given in terms of Laplace-Beltrami operator $\LBo$ on $\sph{2}$ with $$\label{eq:psi} \psi(t):=t^{\alpha/2}(1+t)^{\gamma/2},\quad t\in\Rplus.$$ The noise in is modelled by a *fractional Brownian motion* (fBm) $\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})$ on $\sph{2}$ with Hurst index $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$ and variances $\vfBm$ at $t=1$. When $H=1/2$, $\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})$ reduces to the Brownian motion on $\sph{2}$. The equation is solved under the initial condition $\sol(0,\PT{x})=\solC(t_{0},\PT{x})$, where $\solC(t_{0},\PT{x})$, $t_{0}\ge0$, is a *random field* on the sphere $\sph{2}$, which is the solution of the fractional stochastic Cauchy problem at time $t_{0}$: $$\label{eq:fSCauchy} \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle\pdiff{\solC(t,\PT{x})}{t} + \psi(-\LBo) \solC(t,\PT{x}) =0\\[3mm] \solC(0,\PT{x}) = \RF_{0}(\PT{x}), \end{array}$$ where $\RF_{0}$ is a (strongly) *isotropic Gaussian random field* on $\sph{2}$, see Section \[sec:fSCauchy\]. For simplicity, we will skip the variable $\PT{x}$ if there is no confusion. The fractional diffusion operator $\psi(-\LBo)$ on $\sph{2}$ in and is the counterpart to that in $\Rd[3]$. We recall that the operator $\mathcal{A}:=-\left(-\Delta\right)^{\alpha/2}\left( I-\Delta \right)^{\gamma/2}$, which is the inverse of the composition of the Riesz potential $\left(-\Delta\right)^{-\alpha/2}$, $\alpha \in (0,2]$, defined by the kernel $$J_{\alpha }\left( x\right) =\frac{\Gamma \left(3/2-\alpha \right) }{\pi^{3/2}4^{\alpha }\Gamma \left( \alpha \right) }\left\vert x\right\vert^{2\alpha -3},\quad x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$$and the Bessel potential $\left( I-\Delta \right)^{-\gamma/2}$, $\gamma\geq0$, defined by the kernel $$I_{\gamma }\left(x\right) =\left[ \left(4\pi \right)^{\gamma}\Gamma\left(\gamma\right)\right]^{-1}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\pi \left\vert x\right\vert ^{2}/s}e^{-s/4\pi}s^{\left(-3/2+\gamma \right)}\frac{\IntD{s}}{s}, \quad x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$$(see [@Stein1970]), is the infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous bounded holomorphic semigroup of angle $\pi /2$ on $L_{p}\left(\mathbb{R}^{3}\right)$ for $\alpha>0$, $\alpha +\gamma \geq 0$ and any $p\geq 1$, as shown in [@AnMc2004]. This semigroup defines the Riesz-Bessel distribution (and the resulting Riesz-Bessel motion) if and only if $\alpha \in (0,2]$, $\alpha +\gamma \in [0,2]$. When $\gamma =0$, the fractional Laplacian $-\left( -\Delta \right)^{\alpha /2}$, $\alpha \in (0,2]$, generates the Lévy $\alpha$-stable distribution. While the exponent of the inverse of the Riesz potential indicates how often large jumps occur, it is the combined effect of the inverses of the Riesz and Bessel potentials that describes the non-Gaussian behaviour of the process. More precisely, depending on the sum $\alpha +\gamma $ of the exponents of the inverses of the Riesz and Bessel potentials, the Riesz-Bessel motion will be either a compound Poisson process, a pure jump process with jumping times dense in $[0,\infty )$ or the sum of a compound Poisson process and an independent Brownian motion. Thus the operator $\mathcal{A}$ is able to generate a range of behaviours of random processes [@AnMc2004]. The equations and can be used to describe evolutions of two-stage stochastic systems. The equation determines evolutions on the time interval $[0,t_{0}]$ while gives a solution for a system perturbed by fBm on the interval $[t_{0},t_{0}+t]$. CMB is an example of such systems, as it passed through different formation epochs, inflation, recombinatinon etc, see e.g. [@Dodelson2003]. The exact solution of is given in the following expansion in terms of spherical harmonics $\shY$, or the *Karhunen-Loève expansion*: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:intro.sol.fSPDE} \sol(t) &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\biggl(\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-\freigv (t+t_{0})}\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\shY \notag\\ &\hspace{1.5cm}+ \sqrt{\vfBm}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa[{\ell 0}](u)\:\shY[\ell,0]\notag\\ &\hspace{3cm} +\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa(u) \:\CRe \shY \notag\\ &\hspace{4.6cm}+ \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBb(u) \:\CIm \shY\bigr)\Bigr)\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ Here, each fractional stochastic integral $\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-s)}\IntB(s)$ is an fBm with mean zero and variance explicitly given, see Section \[sec:sol.fSPDE\], where $(\BMa(u),\BMb(u))$, $m=0,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in\Nz$, is a sequence of real-valued independent fBms with Hurst index $H$ and variance $1$ (at $t=1$), and $\freigv$ are the eigenvalues of $\psi(-\LBo)$, see Section \[sec:fun.sph2\]. By truncating the expansion at degree $\ell=\trdeg$, $\trdeg\ge1$, we obtain an approximation $\trsol(t)$ of the solution $\sol(t)$ of . Since the coefficients in the expansion can be fast simulated, see e.g. [@KrBo2015 Section 12.4.2], the approximation $\trsol(t)$ is fully computable and the computation is efficient using the FFT for spherical harmonics $\shY$, see Section \[sec:numer\]. We prove that the approximation $\trsol(t)$ of $\sol(t)$, $t>0$ (in $L_{2}$ norm on the product space of the probability space $\probSp$ and the sphere $\sph{2}$) has the convergence rate $\trdeg^{-\smind}$, $\smind>1$, if the variances $\vfBm$ of the fBm $\fBmsph$ satisfy the smoothness condition $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \vfBm(1+\ell)^{2\smind+1} <\infty$. This shows that the numerical approximation by truncating the expansion is effective and stable. We also prove that $\sol(t+h)$ has the mean square approximation errors (or the mean quadratic variations) with order $h^{\hurst}$ from $\sol(t)$, as $h\to0+$, for $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$ and $t\ge0$. When $\hurst=1/2$, the Brownian motion case, the convergence rate can be as high as $h$ for $t>0$ (up to a constant). This means that the solution of the fractional SPDE evolves continuously with time and the fractional (Hurst) index $\hurst$ affects the smoothness of this evolution. All above results are verified by numerical examples using an isotropic Gaussian random field as the initial random field. CMB is electromagnetic radiation propagating freely through the universe since recombination of ionised atoms and electrons around $370,000$ years after the big bang. As the map of CMB temperature can be modelled as a random field on $\sph{2}$, we apply the truncated solution of the fractional SPDE to explore evolutions of the CMB map, using the angular power spectrum of CMB at recombination which was obtained by Planck 2015 results [@Planck2016IX] as the initial condition of the Cauchy problem . This gives some indication that the fractional SPDE is flexible enough as a phenomenological model to capture some of the statistical and spectral properties of the CMB that is in equilibrium with an expanding plasma through an extended radiation-dominated epoch. The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:pre\] makes necessary preparations. Some results about fractional Brownian motions are derived in Section \[sec:fBm\]. Section \[sec:fSPDE\] gives the exact solution of the fractional SPDE with fractional Brownian motions and random initial condition from the fractional stochastic Cauchy problem . In Section \[sec:approx.sol\], we give the convergence rate of the approximation errors of truncated solutions in degree and the mean square approximation errors of the exact solution in time. Section \[sec:numer\] gives numerical examples. Preliminaries {#sec:pre} ============= Let $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ be the real $3$-dimensional Euclidean space with the inner product $\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y}$ for $\PT{x},\PT{y}\in \REuc[3]$ and the Euclidean norm $|\PT{x}|:=\sqrt{\PT{x}\cdot\PT{x}}$. Let $\sph{2}:=\{\PT{x}\in\REuc[3]: |\PT{x}|=1\}$ denote the unit sphere in $\REuc[3]$. The sphere $\sph{2}$ forms a compact metric space, with the geodesic distance $\dist{\PT{x},\PT{y}}:=\arccos(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y})$ for $\PT{x},\PT{y}\in \sph{2}$ as the metric. Let $(\probSp,\mathcal{F},\probm)$ be a probability space. Let $\Lpprob[{,\probm}]{2}$ be the $L_{2}$-space on $\probSp$ with respect to the probability measure $\probm$, endowed with the norm $\norm{\cdot}{\Lpprob{2}}$. Let $\rv,\rvb$ be two random variables on $(\probSp,\mathcal{F},\probm)$. Let $\expect{\rv}$ be the expected value of $\rv$, $\cov{\rv,\rvb}:=\expect{(\rv-\expect{\rv})(\rvb-\expect{\rvb})}$ be the covariance between $\rv$ and $\rvb$ and $\var{X}:=\cov{\rv,\rv}$ be the variance of $\rv$. Let $\Lppsph{2}{2}:=\Lppsph[,\prodpsphm]{2}{2}$ be the real-valued $L_{2}$-space on the product space of $\probSp$ and $\sph{2}$, where $\prodpsphm$ is the corresponding product measure. Functions on $\sph{2}$ {#sec:fun.sph2} ---------------------- Let $\Lp{2}{2}=\Lp[,\sphm]{2}{2}$ be a space of all real-valued functions that are square-integrable with respect to the normalized Riemann surface measure $\sphm$ on $\sph{2}$ (that is, $\sphm(\sph{2})=1$), endowed with the $L_{2}$-norm $$\norm{f}{\Lp{2}{2}}:=\left\{\int_{\sph{2}}|f(\PT{x})|^{2}\IntDiff[]{x}\right\}^{1/2}.$$ The space $\Lp{2}{2}$ is a Hilbert space with the inner product $$\InnerL{f,g}:=\InnerL[\Lp{2}{2}]{f,g}:=\int_{\sph{2}}f(\PT{x})g(\PT{x})\IntDiff[]{x},\quad f,g\in\Lp{2}{2}.$$ A *spherical harmonic* of degree $\ell$, $\ell\in \Nz:=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$, on $\sph{2}$ is the restriction to $\sph{2}$ of a homogeneous and harmonic polynomial of total degree $\ell$ defined on $\REuc[3]$. Let $\shSp[2]{\ell}$ denote the set of all spherical harmonics of exact degree $\ell$ on $\sph{2}$. The dimension of the linear space $\shSp[2]{\ell}$ is $2\ell+1$. The linear span of $\shSp[2]{\ell}$, $\ell=0,1,\dots,L$, forms the space $\sphpo[2]{L}$ of spherical polynomials of degree at most $L$. Since each pair $\shSp[2]{\ell}$, $\shSp[2]{\ell'}$ for $\ell\neq \ell'\in\Nz$ is $L_{2}$-orthogonal, $\sphpo[2]{L}$ is the direct sum of $\shSp[2]{\ell}$, i.e. $\sphpo[2]{L}=\bigoplus_{\ell=0}^{L} \shSp[2]{\ell}$. The infinite direct sum $\bigoplus_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \shSp[2]{\ell}$ is dense in $\Lp{2}{2}$, see e.g. [@WaLi2006 Ch.1]. For $\PT{x}\in\sph{2}$, using spherical coordinates $\PT{x}:=(\sin\theta \sin\varphi, \sin\theta\cos\varphi,\cos\theta)$, $\theta\in[0,\pi]$, $\varphi\in[0,2\pi)$, the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $\sph{2}$ at $\PT{x}$ is $$\LBo:= \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left(\sin\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right) + \frac{1}{\sin^{2}\theta}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial \varphi^{2}},$$ see [@DaXu2013 Eq. 1.6.8] and also [@Muller1966 p. 38]. Each member of $\shSp[2]{\ell}$ is an eigenfunction of the negative Laplace-Beltrami operator $-\LBo$ on the sphere $\sph{2}$ with the eigenvalue $$\label{eq:eigenvalue} \eigvm:=\ell(\ell+1).$$ For $\alpha\ge0$ and $\gamma>0$, using , the fractional diffusion operator $\psi(-\LBo)$ in has the eigenvalues $$\label{eq:fr.eigvm} \freigv =\eigvm^{\alpha/2}(1+\eigvm)^{\gamma/2},\quad \ell\in\Nz,$$ see [@DaLi1990 p. 119–120]. By and , $$\label{eq:feigv.est} \freigv \asymp (1+\ell)^{\alpha+\gamma},\quad \ell\in\Nz,$$ where $a_{\ell}\asymp b_{\ell}$ means $c\:b_{\ell}\le a_{\ell}\le c' \:b_{\ell}$ for some positive constants $c$ and $c'$. A *zonal function* is a function $K:\sph{2}\times\sph{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that depends only on the inner product of the arguments, i.e. $K(\PT{x},\PT{y})= \mathfrak{K}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y})$, $\PT{x},\PT{y}\in \sph{2}$, for some function $\mathfrak{K}:[-1,1]\to \mathbb{R}$. Let $\Legen{\ell}(t)$, $-1\le t\le1$, $\ell\in\Nz$, be the Legendre polynomial of degree $\ell$. From [@Szego1975 Theorem 7.32.1], the zonal function $\Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y})$ is a spherical polynomial of degree $\ell$ of $\PT{x}$ (and also of $\PT{y}$). Let $\{\shY: \ell\in\Nz,\; m=-\ell,\dots,\ell\}$ be an *orthonormal basis* for the space $\Lp{2}{2}$. The basis $\shY$ and the Legendre polynomial $\Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y})$ satisfy the *addition theorem* $$\label{eq:addition.theorem} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}Y_{\ell,m}(\PT{x})Y_{\ell,m}(\PT{y})=(2\ell+1)\Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot \PT{y}).$$ In this paper, we focus on the following (complex-valued) orthonormal basis, which are used in physics. Using the spherical coordinates $(\theta,\phi)$ for $\PT{x}$, $$\label{eq:shY.C} \shY(\PT{x}) := \sqrt{\frac{(2\ell+1)(\ell-m)!}{(\ell+m)!}}\aLegen{m}(\cos\theta)e^{\imu m\varphi},\quad \ell\in \Nz,\; -\ell\le m\le \ell,$$ where $\aLegen{m}(t)$, $t\in[-1,1]$ is the associated Legendre polynomial of degree $\ell$ and order $m$. The *Fourier coefficients* for $f$ in $\Lp{2}{2}$ are $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Fo coeff} \widehat{f}_{\ell m}:=\int_{\sph{2}}f(\PT{x})\shY(\PT{x}) \IntDiff[]{x}, \;\; \ell\in\Nz,\: m=-\ell,\dots,\ell.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\shY=(-1)^{m}\conj{\shY[\ell,-m]}$ and $\widehat{f}_{\ell m}=(-1)^{m}\conj{\widehat{f}_{\ell, -m}}$, for $f\in\Lp{2}{2}$, in $\Lp{2}{2}$ sense, $$\label{eq:f.shY.real.expan} f = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\left(\widehat{f}_{\ell 0}\shY[\ell,0]+2\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\left(\CRe{\widehat{f}_{\ell m}}\:\CRe{\shY}-\CIm{\widehat{f}_{\ell m}}\:\CIm{\shY}\right)\right).$$ Note that the results of this paper can be generalized to any other orthonormal basis. For $\smind\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$, the *generalized Sobolev space* $\sob{2}{\smind}{2}$ is defined as the set of all functions $f\in \Lp{2}{2}$ satisfying $\sLB{\smind/2} f \in \Lp{2}{2}$. The Sobolev space $\sob{2}{\smind}{2}$ forms a Hilbert space with norm $\norm{f}{\sob{2}{\smind}{2}}:=\normb{\sLB{\smind/2} f}{\Lp{2}{2}}$. We let $\sob{2}{0}{2}:=\Lp{2}{2}$. Isotropic random fields on $\sph{2}$ ------------------------------------ Let $\mathscr{B}(\sph{2})$ denote the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\sph{2}$ and let $\RotGr[3]$ be the rotation group on $\REuc[3]$. An $\mathcal{F}\otimes\mathscr{B}(\sph{2})$-measurable function $T:\probSp\times\sph{2}\to\mathbb{R}$ is said to be a real-valued random field on the sphere $\sph{2}$. We will use $\RF(\PT{x})$ or $\RF(\omega)$ as $\RF(\omega,\PT{x})$ for brevity if no confusion arises. We say $\RF$ is *strongly isotropic* if for any $k\in\N$ and for all sets of $k$ points $\PT{x}_{1},\cdots,\PT{x}_{k}\in\sph{2}$ and for any rotation $\rho\in \RotGr[3]$, joint distributions of $\RF(\PT{x}_{1}), \dots,\RF(\PT{x}_{k})$ and $\RF(\rho\PT{x}_{1}),\dots,$ $\RF(\rho\PT{x}_{k})$ coinside. We say $\RF$ is $2$-*weakly isotropic* if for all $\PT{x}\in \sph{2}$ the second moment of $\RF(\PT{x})$ is finite, i.e. $\expect{|\RF(\PT{x})|^{2}}<\infty$ and if for all $\PT{x}\in\sph{2}$ and for all pairs of points $\PT{x}_{1},\PT{x}_{2}$ $\in \sph{2}$ and for any rotation $\rho\in\RotGr[3]$ it holds $$\expect{\RF(\PT{x})}=\expect{\RF(\rho\PT{x})},\quad \expect{\RF(\PT{x}_{1})\RF(\PT{x}_{2})}=\expect{\RF(\rho\PT{x}_{1})\RF(\rho\PT{x}_{2})},$$ see e.g. [@Adler2009; @LaSc2015; @MaPe2011]. In this paper, we assume that a random field $\RF$ on $\sph{2}$ is *centered*, that is, $\expect{\RF(\PT{x})}=0$ for $\PT{x}\in\sph{2}$. Now, let $\RF$ be $2$-weakly isotropic. The covariance $\expect{\RF(\PT{x})\RF(\PT{y})}$, because it is rotationally invariant, is a zonal kernel on $\sph{2}$ $$ \covarRF(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y}):=\expect{\RF(\PT{x})\RF(\PT{y})}.$$ This zonal function $\covarRF(\cdot)$ is said to be the *covariance function* for $\RF$. The covariance function $\covarRF(\cdot)$ is in $\Lpw[{[-1,1]}]{2}$ and has a convergent Fourier expansion $\covarRF = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\APS (2\ell+1) \Legen{\ell}$ in $\Lpw[{[-1,1]}]{2}$. The set of Fourier coefficients $$ \APS := \int_{\sph{2}}\covarRF(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y}) \Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y}) \IntDiff[]{x} =\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-1}^{1} \covarRF(t)\Legen{\ell}(t) \IntD{t}$$ is said to be the *angular power spectrum* for the random field $\RF$, where the second equality follows by the properties of zonal functions. By the addition theorem in we can write $$\label{eq:covariance.G.expan} \expect{\RF(\PT{x})\RF(\PT{y})}=\covarRF(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y})= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \APS (2\ell+1) \Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y})=\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \APS \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \shY(\PT{x})\shY(\PT{y}).$$ We define *Fourier coefficients* for a random field $\RF$ by, cf. , $$\label{eq:Fcoe.RF} \widehat{\RF}_{\ell m} := \InnerL{\RF, \shY},\quad \ell\in\Nz,\; m=-\ell,\dots, \ell.$$ The following lemma, from [@MaPe2011 p. 125] and [@LeSlWaWo2017 Lemma 4.1], shows the orthogonality of the Fourier coefficients $\Fcoe{\RF}$ of $\RF$. \[lem:orth.Fcoe.RF\] Let $\RF$ be a $2$-weakly isotropic random field on $\sph{2}$ with angular power spectrum $\APS$. Then for $\ell,\ell'\ge0$, $m=-\ell,\dots,\ell$ and $m'=-\ell',\dots,\ell'$, $$\label{eq:orth.Fcoe.RF} \expect{\Fcoe{\RF}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{\RF}}=\APS \Kron \Kron[m m'],$$ where $\Kron$ is the Kronecker delta. We say $\RF$ a *Gaussian random field* on $\sph{2}$ if for each $k\in\N$ and $\PT{x}_{1}, \dots,\PT{x}_{k}\in \sph{2}$, the vector $(\RF(\PT{x}_1),\dots,\RF(\PT{x}_{k}))$ has a multivariate Gaussian distribution. We note that a Gaussian random field is strongly isotropic if and only if it is $2$-weakly isotropic, see e.g. [@MaPe2011 Proposition 5.10(3)]. Fractional Brownian motion {#sec:fBm} ========================== Let $\hurst\in(1/2,1)$ and $\sigma>0$. A *fractional Brownian motion* (fBm) $\fBm(t), t\ge0$, with index $\hurst$ and variance $\sigma^{2}$ at $t=1$ is a centered Gaussian process on $\Rplus$ satisfying $$\fBm(0)=0,\quad \expect{\bigl|\fBm(t)-\fBm(s)\bigr|^{2}} = |t-s|^{2\hurst}\sigma^{2}.$$ The constant $\hurst$ is called the *Hurst index*. See e.g. [@BiHuOkZh2008]. By the above definition, the variance of $\fBm(t)$ is $\expect{|\fBm(t)|^{2}}=t^{2\hurst}\sigma^{2}$. For convenience, we use $\fBm[1/2](t)$ (with $\sigma=1$) to denote the Brownian motion (or the Wiener process) on $\Rplus$. \[defn:complex.fBm\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$. Let $\beta^{1}(t)$ and $\beta^{2}(t)$ be independent real-valued fBms with the Hurst index $\hurst$ and variance $1$ (at $t=1$). A complex-valued fractional Brownian motion $\fBm(t)$, $t\ge0$, with Hurst index $\hurst$ and variance $\sigma^{2}$ can be defined as $$\fBm(t) = \bigl(\beta^{1}(t) + \imu \beta^{2}(t)\bigr)\sigma.$$ We define the *$\Lp{2}{2}$-valued fractional Brownian motion* $\fBmsph(t)$ as follows, see Grecksch and Anh [@GrAn1999 Definition 2.1]. \[defn:fBmsph\]Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$. Let $\vfBm>0$, $\ell\in\Nz$ satisfying $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm<\infty$. Let $\fBm_{\ell m}(t)$, $t\ge0$, $\ell\in\Nz, m=-\ell,\dots,\ell$ be a sequence of independent complex-valued fractional Brownian motions on $\Rplus$ with Hurst index $\hurst$, and variance $\vfBm$ at $t=1$ and $\CIm{\fBm_{\ell 0}(t)}=0$ for $\ell\in\Nz$, $t\ge0$. For $t\ge0$, the $\Lp{2}{2}$-valued fractional Brownian motion is defined by the following expansion (in $\Lppsph{2}{2}$ sense) in spherical harmonics with fBms $\fBm_{\ell m}(t)$ as coefficients: $$\label{eq:fBmsph} \fBmsph(t,\PT{x}):=\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\fBm_{\ell m}(t) \shY(\PT{x}),\quad \PT{x}\in\sph{2}.$$ We also call $\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})$ in Definition \[defn:fBmsph\] a fractional Brownian motion on $\sph{2}$. The fBm $\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})$ in is well-defined since for $t\ge0$, by Parseval’s identity, $$\expect{\norm{\fBmsph(t,\cdot)}{\Lp{2}{2}}^{2}}\le \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\expect{\left|\fBm_{\ell m}(t) \right|^{2}}=t^{2\hurst}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm<\infty.$$ We let in this paper $\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})$ be real-valued. For $\ell\in\Nz$, let $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{\vfBm}\:\BMa[\ell0](t)&:=\fBm_{\ell 0}(t), \;\; \BMb[\ell0](t):=\BMa[\ell0](t),\\ \sqrt{\frac{\vfBm}{2}}\BMa(t)&:=\CRe{\fBm_{\ell m}(t)},\;\; \sqrt{\frac{\vfBm}{2}}\BMb(t):=-\CIm{\fBm_{\ell m}(t)}=\CIm{\fBm_{\ell m}(t)},\quad m=1,\dots,\ell,\end{aligned}$$ in law. Then, $(\BMa,\BMb)$, $m=0,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in\Nz$, is a sequence of independent fBms with Hurst index $H$ and variance $1$ (at $t=1$). By , we can write as, for $t\ge0$, in $\Lppsph{2}{2}$ sense, $$\label{eq:fBmsph.real.expan} \fBmsph(t) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sqrt{\vfBm}\left(\BMa[\ell 0](t)\shY[\ell,0]+\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\left(\BMa(t)\:\CRe{\shY} +\BMb(t)\:\CIm{\shY}\right)\right).$$ For a Hilbert space $H$, Duncan et al. [@DuJaPa2006; @DuPaMa2002] introduced an $H$-valued cylindrical fractional Brownian motion, whereas our approach yields $Q$-fractional Brownian motions for a kernel operator $Q$. But Duncan et al.’s results can be modified for $Q$-fractional Brownian motions. We give the covariance of $\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})$, as follows. As in Definition \[defn:fBmsph\], $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$, $\vfBm>0$, $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm <\infty$, $\{\fBm_{\ell m}(t)| \ell\in\Nz, m=-\ell,\dots,\ell\}$ is a sequence of centered independent fBms with Hurst index $\hurst$. Note that $$\begin{aligned} &\expect{|\fBm_{\ell m}(1)|^{2}} = \vfBm, \quad \expect{\fBm_{\ell m}(t)} = 0,\quad \mbox{for~} t\ge0 \mbox{~and all~} \ell\in\Nz, m=-\ell,\dots,\ell,\\ &\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\expect{|\fBm_{\ell m}(t)|^{2}} = t^{2\hurst}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm.\end{aligned}$$ Then, for $t\ge0$, $\PT{x},\PT{y}\in\sph{2}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:cov.fBm} \expect{\fBmsph(t,\PT{x})\fBmsph(t,\PT{y})} &= \expect{\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\fBm_{\ell m}(t)\shY(\PT{x})\sum_{\ell'=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m'=-\ell'}^{\ell'}\fBm_{\ell' m'}(t)\shY[\ell',m'](\PT{y})}\notag\\ &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell'=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\sum_{m'=-\ell'}^{\ell'}\expect{\fBm_{\ell m}(t)\fBm_{\ell' m'}(t)}\shY(\PT{x})\shY[\ell',m'](\PT{y})\notag\\ &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \expect{|\fBm_{\ell m}(t)|^{2}}\shY(\PT{x})\shY(\PT{y})\notag\\ &= t^{2\hurst}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm \Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y}),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality uses . For a bounded measurable function $g$ on $\Rplus$ (which is deterministic), the stochastic integral $\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBm_{\ell m}(u)}$ can be defined as a Riemann-Stieltjes integral, see [@Lin1995]. The *$\Lp{2}{2}$-valued stochastic integral* $\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)}$ can then be defined as an expansion in spherical harmonics with coefficients $\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBm_{\ell m}(u)}$, as follows. \[defn:IntD.fBmsph\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$ and let $\fBmsph(t)$ be an $\Lp{2}{2}$-valued fBm with the Hurst index $\hurst$. For $t>s\ge0$, the fractional stochastic integral $\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)}$ for a bounded measurable function $g$ on $\Rplus$ is defined by, in $\Lppsph{2}{2}$ sense, $$\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)} := \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\left(\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBm_{\ell m}(u)}\right) \shY.$$ The following theorem [@GrAn1999 Lemma 2.3] provides an upper bound for $\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)}$. \[thm:BD.Int.fBmsph\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$. Let $g$ be a bounded measurable function on $\Rplus$, and if $\hurst>1/2$, $\int_{s}^{t}\int_{s}^{t}g(u)g(v)|u-v|^{2\hurst-2}\IntD{u}\IntD{v}<\infty$. For $t>s\ge0$, the fractional stochastic integral $\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)}$ given by Definition \[defn:IntD.fBmsph\] satisfies $$\expect{\norm{\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)}}{\Lp{2}{2}}^{2}} \le C\: \left(\int_{s}^{t}|g(u)|^{\frac{1}{\hurst}}\IntD{u}\right)^{2\hurst} \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm,$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\hurst$. Fractional SPDE {#sec:fSPDE} =============== This section studies the Karhunen-Loève expansion of the solution to the fractional SPDE with the fractional diffusion (Laplace-Beltrami) operator $\psi(-\LBo)$ in and the $\Lp{2}{2}$-valued fractional Brownian motion $\fBmsph(t)$ given in Definition \[defn:fBmsph\]. The random initial condition is a solution of the fractional stochastic Cauchy problem . We will give the convergence rates for the approximation errors of the truncated Karhunen-Loève expansion in degree and the mean square approximation errors in time of the solution of . Random initial condition as a solution of fractional stochastic Cauchy problem {#sec:fSCauchy} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let $$\label{eq:ran.cond} \RF_{0}(\PT{x}) := \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})} \shY(\PT{x}),\quad \PT{x}\in\sph{2}$$ be a centered, $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field on $\sph{2}$. Let the sequence $\{\vT\}_{\ell\in\Nz}$ be the angular power spectrum of $\RF_{0}$. Let $$\label{eq:vTc} \vTc := \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \vT[0], & \ell=0,\\ \vT/2, & \ell\ge1. \end{array} \right.$$ Then, $\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}$ follows the normal distribution $\nrml(0,\vTc)$. Let $\alpha\ge0,\gamma>0$. By [@DOvidio2014 Theorem 3], the solution to the fractional stochastic Cauchy problem is $$\label{eq:sol.fr.stoch.Cauchy} \solC(t,\PT{x})= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} e^{-\freigv t}\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\shY(\PT{x}).$$ A time-fractional extension of Cauchy problem and its solution was studied by D’Ovidio, Leonenko and Orsingher [@DOLeOr2016]. In this paper, we do not consider the initial condition from a time-fractional Cauchy problem. For $t\ge0$, $\solC(t,\PT{x})$ is a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field, as shown by the following theorem. \[prop:isotr.sol.Cauchy\] Let $\solC(t,\PT{x})$ be the solution in of the fractional stochastic Cauchy problem . Then, for any $t\ge 0$, $\solC(t,\PT{x})$ is a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field on $\sph{2}$, and its Fourier coefficients satisfy for $\ell,\ell'\in \Nz, m=-\ell,\dots,\ell$ and $m'=-\ell',\dots,\ell'$, $$\label{eq:Fcoe.sol.Cauchy.cov} \expect{\Fcoe{\solC(t)}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{\solC(t)}} = e^{-2\freigv t} \vTc\: \Kron\Kron[m m'],$$ where we let $\Fcoe{\solC(t)}:=\Fcoe{(\solC(t))}$ for simplicity and $\vTc$ is given by . Solution of fractional SPDE {#sec:sol.fSPDE} --------------------------- The following theorem gives the exact solution of the fractional SPDE in under the random initial condition $\sol(0)=\solC(t_{0})$ for $t_{0}\ge0$. \[thm:sol.fr.SPDE.scalar\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$, $\alpha\ge0$, $\gamma>0$. Let $\fBmsph(t)$ be a fractional Brownian motion on the sphere $\sph{2}$ with Hurst index $\hurst$ and variances $\vfBm$. Let $\solC(t,\PT{x})$ be the solution in of the fractional stochastic Cauchy problem . Then, for $t_{0}\ge0$, the solution to the equation under the random initial condition $\sol(0) = \solC(t_{0})$ is for $t\ge0$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sol.fr.scalar.SPDE} \sol(t) &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\biggl(\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-\freigv (t+t_{0})}\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\shY \notag\\ &\hspace{1.5cm}+ \sqrt{\vfBm}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa[{\ell 0}](u)\:\shY[\ell,0]\notag\\ &\hspace{3cm} +\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa(u) \:\CRe \shY \notag\\ &\hspace{4.6cm}+ \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBb(u) \:\CIm \shY\bigr)\Bigr)\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\igamma{a,z}:=\frac{1}{\Gamma(a)}\int_{0}^{1}t^{a-1}e^{-zt}\IntD{t}, \quad \CRe{a}>0,\; z\in\mathbb{C}$$ be the incomplete gamma function, see e.g. [@NIST:DLMF Eq. 8.2.7]. For $\ell\in\Nz$, $t\ge0$ and $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$, let $$\label{eq:var.int.fBm} \bigl(\GSD^{\hurst}\bigr)^{2} := \hurst \Gamma(2\hurst) t^{2\hurst} \left(e^{-2\freigv t}\:\igamma{2\hurst,-\freigv t} + \igamma{2\hurst,\freigv t}\right).$$ We write $\GSD:=\GSD^{\hurst}$ and $\Gvar:=\bigl(\GSD^{\hurst}\bigr)^{2}$ if no confusion arises. For $\hurst=1/2$, the formula reduces to $$\label{eq:var.int.BM} \bigl(\GSD^{1/2}\bigr)^{2}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} t, & \ell=0,\\[1mm] \displaystyle\frac{1-e^{-2\freigv t}}{2\freigv}, &\ell\ge1. \end{array}\right.$$ For $t\ge0$, the fractional stochastic integrals $$\label{eq:fSI.0t} \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u),\quad i=1,2,$$ in the expansion in Theorem \[thm:sol.fr.SPDE.scalar\] are normally distributed with means zero and variances $\Gvar$, as a consequence of the following proposition. \[prop:Xt.coeff.fSI\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$, $\alpha\ge0,\gamma>0$, and $\freigv$ be given by . Let $t>s\ge0$. For $m=0,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in\Nz$ and $i=1,2$, each fractional stochastic integral $$\label{eq:fBm.int} \int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u)$$ is normally distributed with mean zero and variance $\Gvar[\ell,t-s]$ as given by . Moreover, for $1/2<\hurst<1$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Gvar.UB} \Gvar[\ell,t-s] &=\expect{\left|\int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u)\right|^{2}}\notag\\ &=\norm{\int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}}^{2}\notag\\ &\le C (t-s)^{2\hurst}, \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\hurst$. By the expansion of solution $\sol(t,\PT{x})$ in of under the initial condition $\sol(0,\PT{x})=\RF_{0}(\PT{x})$ and the distribution coefficients of the expansion given by Proposition \[prop:Xt.coeff.fSI\], the covariance of $\sol(t,\PT{x})$ can be obtained using the techniques of Proposition \[prop:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\] and . The solution of a Cauchy problem defined by the Riesz-Bessel operator yields an $\alpha$-stable type solution, which is non-Gaussian. But, when we bring the fBm noise into the model, Theorem \[thm:trsol.err\] shows that convergence is dominated by fBm, and under the condition of this theorem, the fBm driving the equation has a continuous version, hence the solution $\sol(t)$ swings, but would not jump. It is not safe to assume that the solution is non-Gaussian (jumpy). The following proposition shows the change rate of the variance of fractional stochastic integral with respect to time. \[prop:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$, $\alpha\ge0,\gamma>0$, and $\freigv$ be given by . For $t\ge0$, $m=0,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in\Nz$ and $i=1,2$, the variance $\Gvar[\ell,t]$ of the fractional stochastic integral satisfies as $h\to0+$:\ (i) for $\hurst=1/2$, when $t=0$, $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right|\le h^{1/2},$$ when $t>0$, $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right|\le C_{1} h,$$ where the constant $$C_{1}:=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle\frac{1}{2\sqrt{t}}, & \ell=0,\\[5mm] \displaystyle\sqrt{\frac{\freigv}{2(1-e^{-2\freigv t})}}\:e^{-2\freigv t}, & \ell\ge1; \end{array} \right.$$ (ii) for $\hurst\in (1/2,1)$, $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right|\le C_{2} \left(1+ \freigv t^{\hurst} h^{1-\hurst}\right)h^{\hurst},$$ where the constant $C_{2}$ depends only on $\hurst$. Proposition \[prop:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\] implies the following common upper bound for all $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$. \[corol:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$, $\alpha\ge0,\gamma>0$, and $\freigv$ be given by . For $t\ge0$, $m=0,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in\Nz$ and $i=1,2$, the variance $\Gvar[\ell,t]$ of the fractional stochastic integral satisfies as $h\to0+$, $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right|\le C (1+\freigv) h^{\hurst},$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\hurst$, $\alpha$, $\gamma$ and $t$. Approximation to the solution {#sec:approx.sol} ----------------------------- In this section, we truncate the Karhunen-Loève expansion of the solution $\sol(t)$ in of the fractional SPDE for computational implementation. We give an estimate for the approximation error of the truncated expansion. We also derive an upper bound for the mean square approximation errors in time for the solution $\sol(t)$. ### Truncation approximation to Karhunen-Loève expansion \[defn:KL.approx\]For $t\ge0$ and $\trdeg\in\Nz$, the Karhunen-Loève approximation $\trsol(t)$ of (truncation) degree $\trdeg$ to the solution $\sol(t)$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:trsol.fr.scalar.SPDE} \trsol(t) &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\trdeg}\biggl(\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-\freigv t}\InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY}\shY\notag\\ &\hspace{1.5cm} + \sqrt{\vfBm}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa[{\ell 0}](u)\:\shY[\ell,0]\notag\\ &\hspace{3cm} +\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa(u) \:\CRe \shY\notag\\ &\hspace{4.6cm} + \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBb(u) \:\CIm \shY\bigr)\Bigr)\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ For $\ell\in\Nz$, let \[eq:trsol\] $$\begin{aligned} \trsola(t) &:=\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-\freigv t}\InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY}\shY,\label{eq:trsol.a}\\ \trsolb(t) &:=\sqrt{\vfBm}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa[{\ell 0}](u)\:\shY[\ell,0]\notag\\ &\hspace{1.7cm} +\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa(u) \:\CRe \shY \notag\\ &\hspace{3.6cm}+ \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBb(u) \:\CIm \shY\bigr)\Bigr)\label{eq:trsol.b}. \end{aligned}$$ By [@MaPe2011 Remark 6.13], $\trsola(t)$ and $\trsolb(t)$, $t\ge0$, $\ell\in\Nz$, are centered Gaussian random fields. The following theorem shows that the convergence rate of the Karhunen-Loève approximation in of the exact solution in is determined by the convergence rate of variances $\vfBm$ of the fBm $\fBmsph(t)$ (with respect to $\ell$). \[thm:trsol.err\] Let $\sol(t)$ be the solution to the fractional SPDE in with $\sol(0)=\solC(t_{0})$, $t_{0}\ge0$, and the fBm $\fBmsph(t)$ whose variances $\vfBm$ satisfy $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \vfBm(1+\ell)^{2\smind+1} <\infty$ for $r>1$. Let $L\ge1$ and let $\trsol(t)$ be the Karhunen-Loève approximation of $\sol(t)$ given in . For $t>0$, the truncation error $$\label{eq:sol.tr.err} \norm{\sol(t)-\trsol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C \trdeg^{-\smind},$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t_{0}$, $t$ and $\smind$. Given $t_{1}>0$, the truncation error in is uniformly bounded on $[t_{1},+\infty)$: $$\sup_{t\ge t_{1}}\norm{\sol(t)-\trsol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C \trdeg^{-\smind},$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t_{0}$, $t_{1}$ and $\smind$. The condition $r>1$ comes from the Sobolev embedding theorem (into the space of continuous functions) on $\sph{2}$, see [@Kamzolov1982]. This implies that the random field $\fBmsph(t,\cdot)$, $t\ge0$, has a representation by a continuous function on $\sph{2}$ almost surely, which allows numerical computations to proceed, see [@AnLa2014; @LaSc2015]. ### Mean square approximation errors in time For $t\ge0$, let $\{(\incsol[\ell m]^{1}(t),\incsol[\ell m]^{2}(t))| m=0,\dots,\ell, \ell\in\Nz\}$ be a sequence of independent and standard normally distributed random variables. Let $$\label{eq:U.l} \incsol(t):= \incsola[\ell 0](t) \:\shY[\ell 0] + \sqrt{2} \sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\incsola(t)\:\CRe\shY + \incsolb(t)\:\CIm\shY\bigr).$$ This is a Gaussian random field and the series $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\incsol(t)$ converges to a Gaussian random field on $\sph{2}$ (in $\Lppsph{2}{2}$ sense), see [@MaPe2011 Remark 6.13 and Theorem 5.13]. Let $\incsol[](t):=\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\incsol(t)$. By Lemma \[lem:orth.Fcoe.RF\], $$\label{eq:Fcoe.incsol.cov} \expect{\Fcoe{\incsol[](t)}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{\incsol[](t)}} = \Kron\Kron[m m'],$$ where we let $\Fcoe{\incsol[](t)}:=\Fcoe{(\incsol[](t))}$ for brevity. Let $\trsola(t)$ and $\trsolb(t)$ be given in and respectively. We let $$\label{eq:trsol.ell} \trsol[\ell](t):=\trsola(t)+\trsolb(t).$$ For $t\ge0$ and $h>0$, the following theorem shows that $\trsol[\ell](t+h)$ can be represented by $\trsol[\ell](t)$ and $\incsol(t)$. \[lem:sol.represent\] Let $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$ and $\ell\in\Nz$. Let $\trsol[\ell](t)$ be given by . Then, for $t\ge0$ and $h>0$, $$\trsol[\ell](t+h) = e^{-\freigv h} \trsol[\ell](t) + \sqrt{\vfBm}\:\GSD[\ell,h] \incsol(t),\label{eq:variat.sol.time}$$ where $\GSD[\ell,h]:=\GSD[\ell,h]^{\hurst}$ is given by and $\incsol(t)$ is given by . In particular, the equation implies for $\ell\in\Nz$ and $t>0$, $$\label{eq:variat.sol.0} \trsol[\ell](t) = e^{-\freigv t} \trsol[\ell](0) + \sqrt{\vfBm}\:\GSD \incsol(0).$$ The following theorem gives an estimate for the mean square approximation errors for $\sol(t)$ in time, which depends on the Hurst index $\hurst$ of the fBm $\fBmsph(t)$. \[thm:UB.fBm.L2err.sol\] Let $\sol(t)$ be the solution in to the equation , where the angular power spectrum $\vT$ for the initial random field $\RF_{0}$ and the variances $\vfBm$ for the fBm $\fBmsph(t)$ satisfy $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)(\vT+(1+\freigv)^{2} \vfBm)<\infty$. Then, for $t\ge0$, as $h\to0+$, $$\norm{\sol(t+h) - \sol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C h^{\hurst},\label{eq:UB.fBm.L2err.sol}$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t$, $\vT$ and $\vfBm$. Given $t_1>0$, as $h\to0+$, the truncation error in is uniformly bounded on $[t_1,+\infty)$: $$\sup_{t\ge t_{1}}\norm{\sol(t+h) - \sol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C h^{\hurst},$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t_{1}$, $\vT$ and $\vfBm$. The mean square approximation errors of the truncated solutions $\trsol(t)$ have the same convergence rate $h^{\hurst}$ as $\sol(t)$, as we state below. The proof is similar to that of Theorem \[thm:UB.fBm.L2err.sol\]. Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:UB.fBm.L2err.sol\], for $t_{1}>0$, as $h\to0+$: $$\sup_{t\ge t_{1}, \trdeg\in\Nz}\norm{\trsol(t+h) - \trsol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C h^{\hurst},$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t_{1}$, $\vT$ and $\vfBm$. For $\hurst=1/2$ and $t>0$, the convergence order of the upper bound in can be improved to $h$, as we state in the following corollary. The proof is similar to that of Theorem \[thm:UB.fBm.L2err.sol\] but needs to use Proposition \[prop:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\] (i). \[cor:MQV.Bm\] Let $\sol(t)$ be the solution in to the equation with $\hurst=1/2$, where $\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)(\vT+(\ell+1)^{\alpha+\gamma} \vfBm)<\infty$. Let $t>0$ and $h>0$. Then, $$\norm{\sol(t+h) - \sol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C h,\label{eq:UB.Bm.L2err.sol}$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t$, $\vT$ and $\vfBm$. Numerical examples {#sec:numer} ================== In this section, we show some numerical examples for the solution $\sol(t)$ of the fractional SPDE . Using a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field as the initial condition, we illustrate the convergence rates of the truncation errors and the mean square approximation errors of the Karhunen-Loève approximations $\trsol(t)$ of the solution $\sol(t)$. We show the evolutions of the solution of the equation with CMB (cosmic microwave background) map as the initial random field. Gaussian random field as initial condition {#sec:numer.Gauss} ------------------------------------------ Let $\RF_{0}$ be the $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field whose Fourier coefficient $\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}$ follows the normal distribution $\nrml(0,\APS')$ for each pair of $(\ell,m)$, where the variances $$\label{eq:APS.numer} \APS' := \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \APS[0], & \ell=0,\\ \APS/2, & \ell\ge1, \end{array} \right.$$ with $$\APS:=1/(1+\ell)^{2\smind+2}, \quad \smind>1,$$ see and . The initial condition of the equation is $\solC(t_{0},\PT{x})$ given by . The fBm is given by with variances $$\label{eq:vfBm.numer} \vfBm:=1/(1+\ell)^{2\smind+2}, \quad \smind>1.$$ By [@LaSc2015 Section 4], the random fields $\RF_{0}$ with angular power spectrum $\APS$ in and $\fBmsph(t)$ with variances $\vfBm$ in at $t\ge0$ are in Sobolev space $\sob{2}{r}{2}$ $\Pas$, and thus can be represented by a continuous function on $\sph{2}$ almost surely. This enables numerical implementation. To obtain numerical results, we use $\trsol[L_{0}](t)$ with $L_{0}=1000$ as a substitution of the solution $\sol(t)$ in Theorem \[thm:sol.fr.SPDE.scalar\] to the equation . The truncated expansion $\trsol(t)$ given in Definition \[defn:KL.approx\] is computed using the fast spherical Fourier transform [@KeKuPo2007; @RoTy2006], evaluated at $\Neval=12,582,912$ HEALPix (Hierarchical Equal Area isoLatitude Pixezation) points[^1] on $\sph{2}$, the partition by which is equal-area, see [@Gorski_etal2005]. Then the (squared) mean $L_{2}$-errors are evaluated by $$\begin{aligned} \norm{\trsol(t)-\sol(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}}^{2} &=\expect{\normb{\trsol(t)-\sol(t)}{\Lp{2}{2}}^{2}}\\ &= \expect{\int_{\sph{2}} \bigl|\trsol(t,\PT{x}) - \sol(t,\PT{x})\bigr|^{2} \IntDiff[]{x}}\notag\\ &\approx \expect{\frac{1}{\Neval}\sum_{i=1}^{\Neval} \bigl(\trsol(t,\peval{i}) - \sol(t,\peval{i})\bigr)^{2}}\notag\\ &\approx \frac{1}{\sampnum\Neval}\sum_{n=1}^{\sampnum}\sum_{i=1}^{\Neval} \bigl(\trsol(t,\sampdis_{n},\peval{i}) - \sol(t,\sampdis_{n},\peval{i})\bigr)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the third line discretizes the integral on $\sph{2}$ by the HEALPix points $\peval{i}$ with equal weights $1/\Neval$, and the last line approximates the expectation by the mean of $\sampnum$ realizations. In a similar way, we can estimate the mean square approximation error between $\trsol(t+h)$ and $\trsol(t)$ for $t\ge0$ and $h>0$. For each realization and given time $t$, the fractional stochastic integrals in in the expansion of $\trsol(t)$ in are simulated as independent, normally distributed random variables with means zero and variances $\vfBm$ in . Using the fast spherical Fourier transform, the computational steps for $\sampnum$ realizations of $\trsol(t)$ evaluated at $\Neval$ points are $\bigo{}{\sampnum\Neval\sqrt{\log\Neval}}$. The simulations were carried out on a desktop computer with Intel Core i7-6700 CPU @ 3.47GHz with 32GB RAM under the Matlab R2016b environment. Figure \[fig:L2err\_H05\_a08\_g08\] shows the mean $L_{2}$-errors of $\sampnum=100$ realizations of the truncated Karhunen-Loève solution $\trsol(t)$ with degree $L$ up to $800$ from the approximated solution $\trsol[L_{0}](t)$, of the fractional SPDE with the Brownian motion $\fBmsph[1/2](t)$, for $\smind=1.5$ and $2.5$ and $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.8,0.8)$ at $t=t_{0}=10^{-5}$. Figure \[fig:L2err\_H08\_a05\_g05\] shows the mean $L_{2}$-errors of $\sampnum=100$ realizations of the truncated Karhunen-Loève expansion $\trsol(t)$ with degree $L$ up to $800$ from the approximated solution $\trsol[L_{0}](t)$, of the fractional SPDE with the fractional Brownian motion $\fBmsph(t)$ with Hurst index $\hurst=0.8$, for $\smind=1.5$ and $2.5$ and $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.5,0.5)$ at $t=t_{0}=10^{-5}$. The green and yellow points in each picture in Figure \[fig:L2err\] show the $L_{2}$-errors of $\sampnum=100$ realizations of $\sol_{L}(t)$. For each $L=1,\dots,1000$, the sample means of the $L_{2}$-errors for $r=1.5$ and $2.5$ are shown by the red triangle and the brown hexagon respectively. In the log-log plot, the blue and cyan straight lines which show the least squares fitting of the mean $L_{2}$-errors give the numerical estimates of convergence rates for the approximation of $\sol_{L}(t)$ to $\sol_{L_{0}}(t)$. The results show that the convergence rate of the mean $L_{2}$-error of $\sol_{L}(t)$ is close to the theoretical rate $L^{-\smind}$ ($\smind=1.5$ and $2.5$) for each triple of $(\hurst,\alpha,\gamma)=(0.5,0.8,0.8)$ and $(0.8,0.5,0.5)$. This indicates that the Hurst index $\hurst$ for the fBm $\fBmsph(t)$ and the index $\alpha,\gamma$ for the fractional diffusion operator $\psi(-\LBo)$ have no impact on the convergence rate of the $L_{2}$-error of the truncated solution. \ \[fig:L2err\_H05\_a08\_g08\] \ \[fig:L2err\_H08\_a05\_g05\] \ Figure \[fig:MQV\] shows the mean square approximation errors of $\sampnum=100$ realizations of the truncated Karhunen-Loève expansion $\trsol(t+h)$ from $\trsol(t)$ with degree $L=1000$ of the fractional SPDE with the fractional Brownian motion $\fBmsph(t)$ with Hurst index $\hurst=0.5$ and $\hurst=0.9$, for $\smind=1.5$ and $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.8,0.8)$ at $t=t_{0}=10^{-5}$ and time increment $h$ ranging from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-1}$. The green points in each picture in Figure \[fig:MQV\] show the (sample) mean square approximation errors of $\sampnum=100$ realizations of $\sol_{L}(t+h)$. The blue straight line which shows the least squares fitting of the mean square approximation errors gives the numerical estimate of the convergence rate for the approximation of $\trsol(t+h)$ to $\trsol(t)$ in time increment $h$. For $\hurst=0.9$, Figure \[fig:MQV\_H08\_a05\_g05\] shows that the convergence rate of the mean square approximation errors of $\trsol(t+h)$ is close to the theoretical rate $h^{\hurst}$. For $\hurst=0.5$, Figure \[fig:MQV\_H05\_a08\_g05\] shows that the convergence rate of the mean square approximation errors of $\trsol(t+h)$ is close to the rate $h$ as Corollary \[cor:MQV.Bm\] suggests. The variance of the mean square approximation errors for $\hurst=0.5$ is larger than for $\hurst=0.9$ for given $h$. This illustrates that the Hurst index $\hurst$ for the fBm affects the smoothness of the evolution of the solution of the fractional SPDE with respect to time $t$. Figures \[fig:Gauss.KL0\] and \[fig:Gauss.KL\] illustrate realizations of the truncated solutions $X_{L_0}(t)$ and $\sol_{L}(t)$ with $L_0=1000$ and $L=800$ at $t=t_{0}=10^{-5}$, evaluated at $\Neval=12,582,912$ HEALPix points. Figure \[fig:Gauss.KLerr\] shows the corresponding pointwise errors between $X_{L_0}(t)$ and $\sol_{L}(t)$. It shows that the truncated solution $\trsol(t)$ has good approximation to the solution $\sol(t)$ and the pointwise errors which are almost uniform on $\sph{2}$ are very small compared to the values of $\trsol(t)$. \ \[fig:MQV\_H05\_a08\_g05\] \ \[fig:MQV\_H08\_a05\_g05\] \ \ \[fig:Gauss.KL0\] \ \[fig:Gauss.KL\] \ \[fig:Gauss.KLerr\] To understand further the interaction between this effect from the Hurst index $\hurst$ of fBm and the parameters $(\alpha, \gamma)$ from the diffusion operator, we generate realizations of $\trsol[1000](t)$ at time $t=t_0=10^{-5}$ for the cases $(\hurst, \alpha, \gamma)=(0.9, 2, -2)$, $(0.9, 1.5, -0.5)$ and $(0.9, 1, -0.5)$. These paths are displayed in Figure \[fig:fBm\_Gauss\_H09\]. We observe that these random fields have fluctuations (about the sample mean) of increasing size as $\alpha$ increases from $0.5$ in Figure \[fig:X\_a08\_g05\_no1\] to $1$, $1.5$ then $2$ in Figure \[fig:fBm\_Gauss\_H09\]. In fact, the fluctuation is extreme when $\alpha +\gamma =0$. When $\alpha =2$, the density of the Riesz-Bessel distribution has sharper peaks and heavier tails as $\gamma \rightarrow -2$. As explained in [@AnMc2004], the Lévy motion in the case $\alpha +\gamma =0$ is a compound Poisson process. The particles move through jumps, but none of the jumps is very large due to the parameter $\alpha =2$. Hence the distribution has finite moments of all orders. \ \[fig:Gauss.H09\_a2\_g-2\] \ \[fig:Gauss.H09\_a15\_g-05\] \ \[fig:Gauss.H09\_a1\_g-05\] \ CMB random field as initial condition ------------------------------------- The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the radiation that was in equilibrium with the plasma of the early universe, decoupled at the time of recombination of atoms and free electrons. Since then, the electromagnetic wavelengths have been stretching with the expansion of the universe (for a description of the current standard cosmological model, see e.g. [@Dodelson2003]). The inferred black-body temperature shows direction-dependent variations of up to 0.1%. The CMB map that is the sky temperature intensity of CMB radiation can be modelled as a realization of a random field $\cmbRF$ on $\sph{2}$. Study of the evolution of CMB field is critical to unveil important properties of the present and primordial universe [@PiScWh2000; @Planck2016I]. From the factors that are exponential in $t$ in (4.5), it is apparent that within the normalized form of fractional SPDE that has been considered in , it is assumed that the variables $X$, $\PT{x}$ and $t$ have already been rescaled to make them dimensionless. Now we consider the case that the variable $X$ is replaced by temperature $\widetilde{\sol}$ for which the dimensions of measurement have traditionally been written as $\Theta$ (see e.g. Fulford and Broadbridge [@FuBr2002]). In its dimensional form, the fractional SPDE is $$\IntD{\widetilde{\sol}(t,\PT{x})}+\frac{1}{t_s}(-\ell_s^2\LBo)^{\alpha/2} (I-\ell_s^2\LBo)^{\gamma/2}\widetilde{\sol}(t,\PT{x})\IntD{t}=\sigma(\hspace{-0.5mm}\IntD{t})^{\hurst}\fBm(1,\PT{x})$$ where $\LBo$ has dimension $[L]^{-2}$, where $[L]$ stands for the unit of length, necessitating the appearance of a length scale $\ell_s$ and a time scale $t_s$, in order for each term on the left hand side to have dimensions of temperature. The right side also has dimension of temperature, since for this fractional Brownian motion of temperature, $\sigma= \Theta T^H$ and the random function $B^H(1,{\bf x}) $ has variance 1. In this work we are considering $\ell_s$ to be the radius of the sphere which is thereafter assumed $1$. Then one may choose dimensionless time $t^*=t/t_s$ and dimensionless temperature $\widetilde{\sol}^{*}(t)=\widetilde{\sol}(t)/\widetilde{\sol}_s$ with $\widetilde{\sol}_s=\sigma t_s^H$, so that the dimensionless variables satisfy the normalized equation with a normalized ($\sigma^*=1$) random forcing term. However, in physical descriptions it is sometimes convenient to choose other scales such as the mean CMB for temperature and the current age of the universe for time. In that case, the exponential factor $\exp(-\freigv t/t_s)$ for decay of amplitudes in (4.5) would involve a time scale that is no longer set to be unity. We adopt the *conformal time* $$\eta := \eta(t) := \int_{0}^{t}\frac{d{t'}}{a(t')},\quad t\ge0$$ to replace the cosmic time $t$ in the equations, where $a(t)$ is the [scale factor]{} of the universe at time $t$. By using $\eta$ rather than $t$ as the time coordinate of evolution in the fractional SPDE, the decrease of spectral amplitudes is in better agreement with current physical theory. We are concerned with the evolution of CMB before recombination that occurred at time $\eta=\eta_*$. If the present time is set to be $\eta_0=1$, then $\eta_{*}\approx 2.735\times 10^{-5}$. (We use $13.82$ billion years, estimated by Planck 2015 results [@Planck2015XIII], as the age of the universe.) In the epoch of the radiation-dominated plasma universe, $a(t)$ is proportional to $t^{1/2}$, and thus $\eta$ is proportional to $t^{1/2}$, therefore proportional to $a(t)$. Then, temperature varies in proportion to $1/t$ (e.g. refer to Weinberg [@Weinberg2008]). Since the temperature is relatively uniform, all the amplitudes will vary approximately as $1/t$, and the peaks in the power spectrum will vary as $1/t^2$ and thus in proportion to $1/\eta^{4}$ (this does not take into account the motion of remnant acoustic waves). A large fraction of the radiation-dominated epoch passes by as $\eta$ changes by $10^{-5}$. In the following experiment, we examine the evolution by the fractional stochastic PDE for times a little beyond $\eta_*$, as if the radiation energy remained dominant. The time scale $t_{s}$ can be estimated as follows. For $\eta\ge\eta_{*}$, let $\Delta\eta:=\eta-\eta_{*}$. Using the CMB map (in Figure \[fig:CMB.map\]) at recombination time $\eta_{*}$ as the initial condition, the scale $t_{s}$ between the increment of conformal time $\Delta \eta$ and the evolution time $t$ of the normalized equation can be determined by matching the ratio of magnitudes of angular power spectra of the evolutions $\widetilde{\sol}(\Delta\eta)=\sol(\Delta\eta/t_{s})$ at $\Delta \eta = \Delta\eta_{1}$ and $\Delta\eta_{2}$ and at degree $\ell$, that is, $$\label{eq:ratio.APS} \frac{\APS(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s})}{\APS(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s})} = \left(\frac{\eta_{1}}{\eta_{2}}\right)^{4}.$$ By and the observation that $\exp\bigl(-\freigv(t+t_0)\bigr)\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\shY$ is the dominating term in , can be approximated by $$\left(\frac{\eta_{1}}{\eta_{2}}\right)^{2} \approx \frac{a_{\ell m}(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s})}{a_{\ell m}(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s})} \approx \frac{\exp\bigl(-\freigv(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s}+t_{0})\bigr)}{\exp\bigl(-\freigv(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s}+t_{0})\bigr)} = e^{-\freigv (\eta_{2}-\eta_{1})/t_{s}},$$ where $a_{\ell m}(t)$ is the Fourier coefficient of $\sol(t)$ at degree $(\ell,m)$. This gives $$\label{eq:time.scale} t_{s} := t_{s}(\ell) \approx \frac{(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1})\freigv}{2\ln (\eta_{2}/\eta_{1})}.$$ In the experiment, we use CMB data from Planck 2015 results, see [@Planck2016I]. The CMB data are located on $\sph{2}$ at HEALPix points as we used in Section \[sec:numer.Gauss\]. Figure \[fig:CMB.map\] shows the CMB map at $N_{\rm side}=1024$ at $10$ arcmin resolution with $12\times 1024^2=12,582,912$ HEALPix points, see [@Planck2016IX]. It is computed by SMICA, a component separation method for CMB data processing, see [@CaLeDeBePa2008]. \ We use the angular power spectrum of CMB temperature intensities in Figure \[fig:CMB.map\], obtained by Planck 2015 results [@Planck2016XI], as the initial condition (the angular power spectrum of the initial Gaussian random field) of Cauchy problem . In the fractional SPDE , we take $(\alpha,\gamma, H)=(0.5,0.5,0.9)$ so that the fractional diffusion operator acts as the drifting term within an evolution equation that is wave-like. The long-tailed stochastic fluctuations take account of the turbulence within the hot plasma. For $\ell\ge0$, let $D_{\ell}:=\ell(\ell+1)\APS/(2\pi)$ be the scaled angular power spectrum. We take $\eta_{1}=1.001\eta_{*}\approx 2.743\times10^{-5}$ and $\eta_{2}=1.1\eta_{*}\approx 3.014\times10^{-5}$, and then the first (highest) humps (at $\ell=219$) of the scaled angular power spectra $D_{\ell}(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s})$ and $D_{\ell}(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s})$ are expected to be $99.6\%$ and $68.3\%$ of that at recombination time $\eta_{*}$ respectively. The time scale can be determined by taking $\ell=219$, then, $t_{s}=t_{s}(219)\approx0.0032$. The picture in Figure \[fig:H09\_t8.68e-06\] shows a realization of the solution $\sol_{1000}(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s})$ at an early conformal time $\eta_{1}=1.001 \eta_{*}$ which is similar to the original CMB map in Figure \[fig:CMB.map\]. The picture of Figure \[fig:H09\_t0.000868\] shows a realization of the solution $\sol_{1000}(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s})$ at $\eta_{2}=1.1\eta_{*}$. \ \[fig:H09\_t8.68e-06\] \ \[fig:H09\_t0.000868\] \ By Lemma \[lem:orth.Fcoe.RF\], we estimate the angular power spectrum of solution $\sol(t)$ by taking the mean of the squares of the Fourier coefficients $a_{\ell m}(t)$ over integer orbital index $m\in\{-\ell,-\ell+1,\cdots,\ell\}$ and over $N$ realizations: $$\APS(t) = \frac{1}{2\ell+1}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\expect{|a_{\ell m}(t)|^{2}} \approx \frac{1}{N(2\ell+1)}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}a_{\ell m}(t,\sampdis_{n}).$$ The reddish brown curve in Figure \[fig:CMB.APS\] shows the scaled angular power spectrum $D_{\ell}$, $\ell\le1000$, of CMB map at recombination time $\eta_{*}$. The dots in orange around the reddish brown curve show the estimated the angular power spectrum $D_{\ell}(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s})$ of the solution $\sol_{1000}(\Delta\eta_{1}/t_{s})$ at evolution time $\Delta\eta_1 = 0.001\eta_*$ from the recombination time $\eta_{*}$, by taking the sample mean of $N=100$ realizations. It is observed that $D_{\ell}(0.001\eta_{*}/t_{s})$ changes little from those of CMB at $\eta_{*}$. The dots in blue show the estimated angular power spectrum $D_{\ell}(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s})$ of the solution $\sol_{1000}(\Delta\eta_{2}/t_{s})$ at $\Delta\eta_{2}=0.1\eta_{*}$ from $\eta_{*}$. The first hump of $D_{\ell}(0.1\eta_{*}/t_{s})$ (which appears at $\ell=210$) is about $69.8\%$ of that at the recombination time. This is consistent with the theoretical estimation $68.3\%$. Figure \[fig:CMB.APS\] also shows the estimated angular power spectrum for one realization of $\sol_{1000}(\Delta\eta/t_{s})$ at $\eta=\eta_{1}$ and $\eta_{2}$ in light blue and red points. They have large noises around the sample means of $D_{\ell}$ (in orange and blue) when degree $\ell\le 400$. \ Figures \[fig:CMB.APS\] and \[fig:CMB.evol\] illustrate that the solution of the fractional SPDE can be used to explore a possible forward evolution of CMB. Cosmological data typically have correlations over space-like separations, an imprint of quantum fluctuations and rapid inflation immediately after the big bang [@Guth1997], followed by acoustic waves through the primordial ball of plasma. Fields at two points with space-like separation cannot be simultaneously modified by evolution processes that obey the currently applicable laws of relativity. Therefore it is inappropriate to apply Brownian motion and standard diffusion models, with consequent unbounded propagation speeds, over cosmological distances. Although the phenomenological fractional SPDE models considered here are not relativistically invariant, they are a relatively simple device of maintaining long-range correlations. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s *Discovery Project* DP160101366 and was supported in part by the La Trobe University DRP Grant in Mathematical and Computing Sciences. We are grateful for the use of data from the Planck/ESA mission, downloaded from the Planck Legacy Archive. Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the HEALPix [@Gorski_etal2005]. This research includes extensive computations using the Linux computational cluster Raijin of the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government and La Trobe University. The authors would thank Zdravko Botev for his helpful discussion on simulations of fractional Brownian motions. The authors also thank Ming Li for helpful discussion. [99]{} R. J. Adler (1981). . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. R. Andreev and A. Lang (2014). Kolmogorov-[C]{}hentsov theorem and differentiability of random fields on manifolds. , 41(3), 761–769. J. M. Angulo, M. Y. Kelbert, N. N. Leonenko, and M. D. Ruiz-Medina (2008). Spatiotemporal random fields associated with stochastic fractional helmholtz and heat equations. , 22(1), 3–13. V. V. Anh, N. N. Leonenko, and M. D. Ruiz-Medina (2016). Fractional-in-time and multifractional-in-space stochastic partial differential equations. , 19(6), 1434–1459. V. V. Anh and R. McVinish (2004). The [R]{}iesz-[B]{}essel fractional diffusion equation. , 49(3), 241–264. A. Beskos, J. Dureau, and K. Kalogeropoulos (2015). Bayesian inference for partially observed stochastic differential equations driven by fractional [B]{}rownian motion. , 102(4), 809–827. F. Biagini, Y. Hu, B. [Ø]{}ksendal, and T. Zhang (2008). . Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London. D. R. Brillinger (1997). A particle migrating randomly on a sphere. , 10(2), 429–443. J.-F. Cardoso, M. Le Jeune, J. Delabrouille, M. Betoule, and G. Patanchon (2008). . , 2(5), 735–746. S. Castruccio and M. L. Stein (2013). Global space-time models for climate ensembles. , 7(3), 1593–1611. P. Cheridito, H. Kawaguchi, and M. Maejima (2003). Fractional [O]{}rnstein-[U]{}hlenbeck processes. , 8(3), 1–14. F. Dai and Y. Xu (2013). . Springer, New York. R. Dautray and J.-L. Lions (1990). . Springer-Verlag, Berlin. . http://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.0.9 of 2014-08-29. Online companion to [@Olver:2010:NHMF]. S. Dodelson (2003). . Academic press. M. D’Ovidio (2014). Coordinates changed random fields on the sphere. , 154(4), 1153–1176. M. D’Ovidio, N. Leonenko, and E. Orsingher (2016). Fractional spherical random fields. , 116, 146–156. T. E. Duncan, J. Jakubowski, and B. Pasik-Duncan (2006). Stochastic integration for fractional [B]{}rownian motion in a [H]{}ilbert space. , 6(1), 53–75. T. E. Duncan, B. Pasik-Duncan, and B. Maslowski (2002). Fractional [B]{}rownian motion and stochastic equations in [H]{}ilbert spaces. , 2(2), 225–250. R. Durrer (2008). . Cambridge University Press, New York. G. R. Fulford and P. Broadbridge (2002). . Cambridge University Press. Q. T. L. Gia, I. H. Sloan, Y. G. Wang, and R. S. Womersley (2017). Needlet approximation for isotropic random fields on the sphere. , 216, 86 – 116. K. M. Górski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann (2005). : A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere. , 622(2), 759. W. Grecksch and V. V. Anh (1999). A parabolic stochastic differential equation with fractional [B]{}rownian motion input. , 41(4), 337–346. A. H. Guth (1997). Basic Books. D. T. Hristopulos (2003). Permissibility of fractal exponents and models of band-limited two-point functions for [fGn]{} and [fBm]{} random fields. , 17(3), 191–216. Y. Hu, Y. Liu, and D. Nualart (2016). Rate of convergence and asymptotic error distribution of [E]{}uler approximation schemes for fractional diffusions. , 26(2), 1147–1207. Y. Inahama (2013). Laplace approximation for rough differential equation driven by fractional [B]{}rownian motion. , 41(1), 170–205. A. I. Kamzolov (1982). The best approximation of classes of functions [$\mathbb{W}^{\alpha }_{p}(\mathbb{S}^{n})$]{} by polynomials in spherical harmonics. , 32(3), 285–293, 425. J. Keiner, S. Kunis, and D. Potts (2007). Efficient reconstruction of functions on the sphere from scattered data. , 13(4), 435–458. D. P. Kroese and Z. I. Botev (2015). Spatial process simulation. In [*Stochastic geometry, spatial statistics and random fields*]{}, volume 2120 of [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{}, pages 369–404. Springer, Cham. M. Lachièze-Rey and E. Gunzig (1999). . Cambridge University Press, New York. A. Lang and C. Schwab (2015). Isotropic [G]{}aussian random fields on the sphere: [R]{}egularity, fast simulation and stochastic partial differential equations. , 25(6), 3047–3094. S. J. Lin (1995). Stochastic analysis of fractional [B]{}rownian motions. , 55(1-2), 121–140. T. J. Lyons (1998). Differential equations driven by rough signals. , 14(2), 215–310. D. Marinucci and G. Peccati (2011). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. J. Mémin, Y. Mishura, and E. Valkeila (2001). Inequalities for the moments of [W]{}iener integrals with respect to a fractional [B]{}rownian motion. , 51(2), 197–206. C. M[ü]{}ller (1966). . Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York. B. [Ø]{}ksendal (2003). . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, sixth edition. F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, editors (2010). . Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Print companion to [@NIST:DLMF]. E. Pierpaoli, D. Scott, and M. White (2000). How flat is the universe? , 287(5461), 2171–2172. V. Pipiras and M. S. Taqqu (2000). Integration questions related to fractional [B]{}rownian motion. , 118(2), 251–291. and [Adam, R. et al.]{} (2016). . , 594, A1. and [Adam, R. et al.]{} (2016). . , 594, A9. and [Aghanim, N. et al.]{} (2016). . , 594, A11. and [Ade, P. A. R. et al.]{} (2016). Planck 2015 results - xiii. cosmological parameters. , 594:A13. V. Rokhlin and M. Tygert (2006). Fast algorithms for spherical harmonic expansions. , 27(6), 1903–1928. J. A. Rubiño Martín, R. Rebolo, and E. Mediavilla (2013). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. W. Rudin (1950). Uniqueness theory for [L]{}aplace series. , 68, 287–303. E. M. Stein (1970). . Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.. M. L. Stein (2007). Spatial variation of total column ozone on a global scale. , 1(1), 191–210. M. L. Stein, J. Chen, and M. Anitescu (2013). Stochastic approximation of score functions for [G]{}aussian processes. , 7(2), 1162–1191. G. Szeg[ő]{} (1975). . American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.. K. Wang and L. Li (2006). . Science Press, Beijing. S. Weinberg (2008). . Oxford University Press. Proofs ====== Proof of Section \[sec:fBm\] {#proof-of-sectionsecfbm .unnumbered} ============================ By Definition \[defn:IntD.fBmsph\], Parseval’s identity for the orthonormal basis $\shY$ and [@MeMiVa2001 Theorem 1.1], $$\begin{aligned} \expect{\norm{\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBmsph(u)}}{\Lp{2}{2}}^{2}} &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\expect{\left|\int_{s}^{t}g(u)\IntD{\fBm_{\ell m}(u)}\right|^{2}}\\ &\le C_{\hurst}\: \left(\int_{s}^{t}|g(u)|^{\frac{1}{\hurst}}\IntD{u}\right)^{2\hurst} \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\vfBm, \end{aligned}$$ thus completing the proof. Proofs of Section \[sec:fSPDE\] {#proofs-of-sectionsecfspde .unnumbered} =============================== For $t\ge0$, $\PT{x},\PT{y}\in\sph{2}$, by , $$\begin{aligned} &\expect{\solC(t,\PT{x}) \solC(t,\PT{y})}\\ &\quad= \expect{\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} e^{-\freigv t}\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\shY(\PT{x}) \sum_{\ell'=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m'=-\ell'}^{\ell'} e^{-\freigv[{\eigvm[\ell']}] t}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{(\RF_{0})}\shY[\ell',m'](\PT{y})}\\ &\quad= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell'=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\sum_{m'=-\ell'}^{\ell'} e^{-\freigv t}e^{-\freigv[{\eigvm[\ell']}] t}\expect{\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{(\RF_{0})}}\shY(\PT{x}) \shY[\ell',m'](\PT{y}). \end{aligned}$$ Since $\RF_{0}$ is a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field, by Lemma \[lem:orth.Fcoe.RF\], $$\begin{aligned} \expect{\solC(t,\PT{x}) \solC(t,\PT{y})} &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-2\freigv t}\vTc\:\shY(\PT{x}) \shY(\PT{y})\\ &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}e^{-2\freigv t}\vTc(2\ell+1)\Legen{\ell}(\PT{x}\cdot\PT{y}), \end{aligned}$$ where the second equality uses the addition theorem in . This means that the covariance $\expect{\solC(t,\PT{x}) \solC(t,\PT{y})}$ is a zonal function and is thus rotationally invariant. Thus, $\solC(t,\cdot)$ is a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field on $\sph{2}$. On the other hand, for $\ell,\ell'\in \Nz$, $m,=-\ell,\dots,\ell$ and $m'=-\ell',\dots,\ell'$, by the $2$-weak isotropy of $\RF_{0}$, Lemma \[lem:orth.Fcoe.RF\] and , $$\begin{aligned} \expect{\Fcoe{\solC(t)}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{\solC(t)}} &= e^{-\freigv t}e^{-\freigv[{\eigvm[\ell']}] t}\:\expect{\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\Fcoe[\ell' m']{(\RF_{0})}}\\ &= e^{-2\freigv t} \vTc\: \Kron\Kron[m m'], \end{aligned}$$ thus proving . One can rewrite the equation as $$\sol(t) = \solC(t_{0}) - \int_{0}^{t}\psi(-\LBo) \sol(u) \IntD{u} + \fBmsph(t).$$ Then by Definition \[defn:fBmsph\], $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sol.shY} &\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\InnerL{\sol(t),\shY}\shY\notag\\ &\qquad = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \biggl( \InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY} - \int_{0}^{t}\InnerL{\sol(u),\shY}\psi(-\LBo)\IntD{u} + \KLcoe(t)\biggr)\shY\notag\\ &\qquad = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \biggl( \InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY} - \freigv\int_{0}^{t}\InnerL{\sol(u),\shY} \IntD{u} + \KLcoe(t)\biggr) \shY.\end{aligned}$$ By the uniqueness of the spherical harmonic representation, see e.g. [@Rudin1950], solving is equivalent to solving the equations $$\InnerL{\sol(t),\shY} = \InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY} - \freigv\int_{0}^{t}\InnerL{\sol(u),\shY} \IntD{u} + \KLcoe(t)$$ for $m=-\ell,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in \Nz$. Using the variation of parameters, we can solve this integral equation (of $t$) path-wise to obtain, for $m=-\ell,\dots,\ell$, $\ell\in \Nz$, $$\InnerL{\sol(t),\shY} = e^{-\freigv t}\InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY} + \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)}\IntD{\KLcoe(u)},$$ see e.g. [@ChKaMa2003; @LaSc2015]. Using , $$\begin{aligned} \sol(t) &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\Bigl(e^{-\freigv t} \InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY} + \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)}\IntD{\KLcoe(u)} \Bigr)\shY\\ &= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\biggl(\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-\freigv (t+t_{0})}\Fcoe{(\RF_{0})}\shY\\ &\hspace{1.5cm} + \sqrt{\vfBm}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa[{\ell 0}](u)\:\shY[\ell,0]\notag\\ &\hspace{3cm} +\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBa(u) \:\CRe \shY \\ &\hspace{4.6cm}+ \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntBb(u) \:\CIm \shY\bigr)\Bigr)\biggr),\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality uses , which completes the proof. For $\hurst=1/2$, Itô’s isometry, see e.g. [@Oksendal2003 Lemma 3.1.5] and [@LaSc2015], gives $$\begin{aligned} \expect{\left|\int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u)\right|^{2}} &= \expect{\int_{s}^{t}\left|e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\right|^{2}\IntD{u}}\notag\\\ &= \int_{s}^{t}e^{-2\freigv(t-u)}\IntD{u}\notag\\ &= \frac{1-e^{-2\freigv(t-s)}}{2\freigv}\notag\\[1mm] &= \bigl(\GSD[\ell,t-s]^{\hurst}\bigr)^{2}.\label{eq:BM.int.var1}\end{aligned}$$ For $1/2<\hurst<1$, by [@MeMiVa2001 Eq. 1.3], $$\begin{aligned} &\expect{\left|\int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u)\right|^{2}}\notag\\ &\quad= \hurst(2\hurst-1)\int_{s}^{t}\int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(2t-u-v)}|u-v|^{2\hurst-2}\IntD{u}\IntD{v}\notag\\ &\quad= \hurst(2\hurst-1)\left(\int_{2s}^{s+t} \int_{0}^{x-2s}e^{-\freigv(2t-x)}y^{2\hurst-2}\IntD{y}\IntD{x} + \int_{s+t}^{2t} \int_{0}^{2t-x}e^{-\freigv(2t-x)}y^{2\hurst-2}\IntD{y}\IntD{x}\right)\notag\\ &\quad= \hurst\left(\int_{2s}^{s+t} e^{-\freigv(2t-x)}(x-2s)^{2\hurst-1}\IntD{x} + \int_{s+t}^{2t} e^{-\freigv(2t-x)}(2t-x)^{2\hurst-1}\IntD{x}\right)\notag\\ &\quad= \hurst\left(\int_{0}^{t-s} e^{-\freigv(2t-2s-u)}u^{2\hurst-1}\IntD{u} + \int_{0}^{t-s} e^{-\freigv u}u^{2\hurst-1}\IntD{u}\right)\notag\\ &\quad= \hurst(t-s)^{2\hurst}\left(e^{-2\freigv(t-s)}\int_{0}^{1} e^{\freigv(t-s)u}u^{2\hurst-1}\IntD{u} + \int_{0}^{1} e^{-\freigv (t-s)u}u^{2\hurst-1}\IntD{u}\right)\notag\\ &\quad=\hurst \Gamma(2\hurst) (t-s)^{2\hurst} \left(e^{-2\freigv(t-s)}\igamma{2\hurst,-\freigv(t-s)} + \igamma{2\hurst,\freigv(t-s)}\right),\label{eq:fBm.int.var1}\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality uses integration by substitution $x=u+v$ and $y=u-v$. By e.g. [@PiTa2000 p. 253], and , the fractional stochastic integral in is a Gaussian random variable with mean zero and variance $\bigl(\GSD[\ell,t-s]^{\hurst}\bigr)^{2}$ given by (and ) for $\hurst\in[1/2,1)$. The upper bound in is by [@MeMiVa2001 Theorem 1.1]: $$\begin{aligned} \Gvar[\ell,t-s] &=\expect{\left|\int_{s}^{t}e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\IntB(u)\right|^{2}}\\ &\le C_{\hurst}\left(\int_{s}^{t}\left|e^{-\freigv(t-u)}\right|^{\frac{1}{\hurst}}\IntD{u}\right)^{2\hurst}\\ &\le C_{\hurst} (t-s)^{2\hurst},\end{aligned}$$ thus completing the proof. We first consider for $\hurst=1/2$. For $\ell=0$, the statement immediately follows from $\GSD[0,t]=\sqrt{t}$. For $\ell\ge1$, it follows from that $$\label{eq:Gvar.BM.increment} \left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right| =\Bigl(\sqrt{1-e^{-2\freigv (t+h)}} - \sqrt{1-e^{-2\freigv t}}\Bigr) \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\freigv}}.$$ When $t=0$, the formula with the mean-value theorem gives as $h\to0+$ that there exists $h_1\in (0,h)$ such that $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right| =\sqrt{1-e^{-2\freigv h}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\freigv}}\le e^{-\freigv h_{1}} h^{1/2}\le h^{1/2}.$$ In a similar way, when $t>0$ and $h\to0+$, there exists $t_1\in (t,t+h)$ such that $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right| = \sqrt{\frac{\freigv }{2(1-e^{-2\freigv t_{1}})}}\:e^{-2\freigv t_{1}} h \le \sqrt{\frac{\freigv }{2(1-e^{-2\freigv t})}}\:e^{-2\freigv t} h.$$ For $1/2<\hurst<1$, $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{0}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv (t+h-u)} \IntB(u)\\ &\quad= e^{-\freigv h}\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)} \IntB(u) + \int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv (t+h-u)} \IntB(u).\end{aligned}$$ This with the triangle inequality for $\Lpprob{2}$ gives $$\begin{aligned} &\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right|\\ &\quad= \left|\norm{\int_{0}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv (t+h-u)} \IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}} - \norm{\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)} \IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}}\right|\\ &\quad\le \norm{\int_{0}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv (t+h-u)} \IntB(u)-\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)} \IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}}\\ &\quad= \norm{\left(e^{-\freigv h}-1\right)\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)}\IntB(u) + \int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv (t+h-u)} \IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}}\\ &\quad\le \left|1-e^{-\freigv h}\right|\norm{\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\freigv (t-u)}\IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}} \\ &\qquad+ \norm{\int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv (t+h-u)} \IntB(u)}{\Lpprob{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ This with and the mean-value theorem gives that as $h\to0+$, there exists $h_{2}\in(0,h)$ such that $$\left|\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD[\ell,t]\right| \le C_{\hurst}\left(\freigv e^{-\freigv h_{2}} h\: t^{\hurst} + h^{\hurst}\right) \le C_{\hurst}\left(\freigv h^{1-\hurst} t^{\hurst} + 1\right)h^{\hurst},$$ thus completing the proof. The proof views the solution at given time $t$ as a random field on the sphere and uses an estimate of the convergence rate of the truncation errors of a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field on $\sph{2}$. Let $\sola(t):=\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\trsola(t)$ and $\solb(t):=\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\trsolb(t)$. Proposition \[prop:Xt.coeff.fSI\] with [@MaPe2011 Theorem 5.13] shows that for $t\ge0$, $\solb(t)$ is a $2$-weakly isotropic Gaussian random field with angular power spectrum $\{\vfBm \Gvar\}_{\ell\in\Nz}$. By and for $\hurst=1/2$ and by for $1/2<\hurst<1$, $$\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\vfBm \:\Gvar \ell^{2\smind+1} \le C_{\alpha,\gamma,t}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \vfBm (1+\ell)^{2\smind+1} <\infty.$$ This and [@LeSlWaWo2017 Corollary 4.4] imply $\solb(t)\in \sob{2}{\smind}{2}$ $\Pas$ Then, [@LaSc2015 Propositions 5.2] gives $$\label{eq:sol.b.err} \normB{\solb(t)-\sum_{\ell=0}^{\trdeg}\trsolb(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} \le C \trdeg^{-\smind} ,$$ where the constant $C=C_{\smind} \sqrt{\var{\normb{\solb(t)}{\sob{2}{\smind}{2}}}}$ depends on a constant $C_{\smind}$ and the standard deviation of the Sobolev norm of $\solb(t)$, where $C_{\smind}$ depends only on $\smind$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sola.L2err} \normB{\sola(t)- \sum_{\ell=0}^{\trdeg}\trsola(t)}{\Lppsph{2}{2}} & = \norm{\sum_{\ell=L+1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} e^{-\freigv t}\InnerL{\solC(t_{0}),\shY}\shY}{\Lppsph{2}{2}}\notag\\ &\le e^{-\freigv[{\eigvm[\trdeg]}] t} \norm{\solC(t_{0})}{\Lppsph{2}{2}}\notag\\ &\le C \trdeg^{-\smind} \norm{\solC(t_{0})}{\Lppsph{2}{2}}, \end{aligned}$$ where the second line uses that $\freigv$ is increasing with respect to $\ell$, see , and in the last inequality, the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha,\gamma$ and $t$, and we used . This with gives . In the proof of Theorem \[thm:trsol.err\], the $L_{2}$-error in for $\solb(t)$ which is driven by the fBm $\fBmsph(t)$ is the dominating error term. The constant $C$ in depends on the standard deviation of the Sobolev norm of $\solb(t)$. This implies that Theorem \[thm:trsol.err\] only needs the condition on the convergence rate of the variances $\vfBm$ of the fBm (but does not need the condition on the initial random field $\RF_{0}$). The constant $C$ in can be estimated by $$C\ge \max_{\trdeg\ge1}\frac{L^{\smind}}{e^{\freigv[{\eigvm[\trdeg]}]t}}.$$ This implies $$C\ge e^{-C'}(C'/t)^{C'},$$ where $C':=r/(\alpha+\gamma)$ and we used . This shows that when time $t\to0+$, the constant $C$ in is not negligible. For $t\ge0$, $h>0$, by , $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:trsol.inc} \trsol[\ell](t+h) &= e^{-\freigv h}\trsol[\ell](t) \notag\\ &\hspace{1.1cm}+ \sqrt{\vfBm}\Bigl(\int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv(t+h-u)}\IntBa[{\ell 0}](u)\:\shY[\ell,0]\notag\\ &\hspace{2.5cm} +\sqrt{2}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv(t+h-u)}\IntBa(u) \:\CRe \shY\notag\\ &\hspace{4.1cm}+ \int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv(t+h-u)}\IntBb(u) \:\CIm \shY\bigr)\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[prop:Xt.coeff.fSI\], for $m=-\ell,\dots,\ell$, $i=1,2$, $$\int_{t}^{t+h}e^{-\freigv(t+h-u)}\IntB(u) \sim \normal{0}{\Gvar[\ell,h]},$$ where $\Gvar[\ell,h]$ is given by . Then can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \trsol[\ell](t+h) &= e^{-\freigv h}\trsol[\ell](t) \\ &\hspace{1cm}+ \sqrt{\vfBm}\:\GSD[\ell,h]\Bigl(\incsola[\ell 0](t) \:\shY[\ell 0] \\ &\hspace{3.2cm}+ \sqrt{2} \sum_{m=1}^{\ell}\bigl(\incsola(t)\:\CRe\shY + \incsolb(t)\:\CIm\shY\bigr)\Bigr),\end{aligned}$$ where $\{(\incsol[\ell m]^{1}(t),\incsol[\ell m]^{2}(t))| m=-\ell,\dots,\ell, \ell\in\Nz\}$ is a sequence of independent and standard normally distributed random variables. This and give . By and , $$\trsol[\ell](t+h) - \trsol[\ell](t) = \bigl(e^{-\freigv (t+h)} - e^{-\freigv t}\bigr) \trsol[\ell](0) + \sqrt{\vfBm}(\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD) \incsol(0).$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned} &\sol(t+h)-\sol(t) \\ &\quad= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\bigl(\trsol[\ell](t+h) - \trsol[\ell](t)\bigr)\\ &\quad= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\bigl(e^{-\freigv (t+h)} - e^{-\freigv t}\bigr) \trsol[\ell](0) + \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD) \sqrt{\vfBm}\:\incsol(0). \end{aligned}$$ Taking the squared $\Lp{2}{2}$-norms of both sides of this equation with Parseval’s identity gives $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:variat.sol.L2} &\normb{\sol(t+h)-\sol(t)}{\Lp{2}{2}}^{2}\notag\\ &\quad= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\bigl(e^{-\freigv (t+h)} - e^{-\freigv t}\bigr)^{2}\bigl|\Fcoe{\solC(t_{0})}\bigr|^{2}\notag\\ &\qquad + \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}(\GSD[\ell,t+h]-\GSD)^{2}\vfBm \bigl|\Fcoe{\incsol(0)}\bigr|^{2}\notag\\ &\quad\le h^{2}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{-2\freigv t_2}\bigl|\Fcoe{\solC(t_{0})}\bigr|^{2} + C h^{2\hurst} \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}(1+\freigv)^{2}\vfBm \bigl|\Fcoe{\incsol(0)}\bigr|^{2}\notag\\ &\quad\le h^{2}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\bigl|\Fcoe{\solC(t_{0})}\bigr|^{2} + C h^{2\hurst} \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}(1+\freigv)^{2}\vfBm \bigl|\Fcoe{\incsol(0)}\bigr|^{2}, \end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality uses Corollary \[corol:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\] and the mean value theorem for the function $f(t):=e^{-\freigv t}$ and $t_{2}$ is a real number in $(t,t+h)$. By , , and Propositions \[prop:isotr.sol.Cauchy\] and \[prop:Gvar.diff.t.fBm\], the squared mean quadratic variation of $\sol(t+h)$ from $\sol(t)$ is, as $h\to0+$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:variat.sol.L2psph} &\expect{\normb{\sol(t+h)-\sol(t)}{\Lp{2}{2}}^{2}}\\ &\quad\le C h^{2\hurst} \biggl(\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\expect{\bigl|\Fcoe{\solC(t_{0})}\bigr|^{2}} + \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}(1+\freigv)^{2}\vfBm\expect{\bigl|\Fcoe{\incsol(0)}\bigr|^{2}}\biggr)\\ &\quad\le C h^{2\hurst} \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\left(\vT + (1+\freigv)^{2}\vfBm\right)\\ &\quad= C h^{2\hurst}, \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C$ in the last line depends only on $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $t$, $\vT$ and $\vfBm$. This completes the proof. [^1]: <http://healpix.sourceforge.net>

--- author: - 'N.-E. Nèmec, E. Iş[i]{}k, A. I. Shapiro, S. K. Solanki, N. A. Krivova and Y. Unruh' bibliography: - 'bib.bib' title: Connecting measurements of solar and stellar brightness variations --- [Comparing solar and stellar brightness variations is hampered by the difference in spectral passbands used in observations as well as by the possible difference in the inclination of their rotation axes from the line of sight.]{} [We calculate the rotational variability of the Sun as it would be measured in passbands used for stellar observations. In particular, we consider the filter systems used by the CoRoT, *Kepler*, TESS, and *Gaia* space missions. We also quantify the effect of the inclination of the rotation axis on the solar rotational variability.]{} [We employ the Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstructions (SATIRE) model to calculate solar brightness variations in different filter systems as observed from the ecliptic plane. We then combine the simulations of the surface distribution of the magnetic features at different inclinations using a surface flux transport model (SFTM) with the SATIRE calculations to compute the dependence of the variability on the inclination. ]{} [For an ecliptic-bound observer, the amplitude of the solar rotational variability, as observed in the total solar irradiance (TSI) is 0.68 mmag (averaged over solar cycles 21-24). We obtained corresponding amplitudes in the *Kepler* (0.74 mmag), CoRoT (0.73 mmag), TESS (0.62 mmag), *Gaia G* (0.74 mmag), *Gaia G$_{RP}$* (0.62 mmag), and *Gaia G$_{BP}$* (0.86 mmag) passbands. Decreasing the inclination of the rotation axis decreases the rotational variability. For a sample of randomly inclined stars, the variability is on average 15% lower in all filter systems considered in this work. This almost compensates for the difference in the amplitudes of the variability in TSI and *Kepler* passbands, making the amplitudes derived from the TSI records an ideal representation of the solar rotational variability for comparison to *Kepler* stars with unknown inclinations. ]{} [The TSI appears to be a relatively good measure of solar variability for comparing with stellar measurements in the CoRoT, *Kepler*, TESS *Gaia G*, and *Gaia G$_{RP}$* filters. Whereas the correction factors can be used to convert the amplitude of variability from solar measurements into the values expected for stellar missions, the inclination affects the shapes of the light curves so that a much more sophisticated correction than simple scaling is needed to obtain light curves out of ecliptic for the Sun.]{} Introduction ============ The dedicated planet-hunting photometric missions such as CoRoT [Convection, Rotation and planetary Transit, see @COROT; @COROT2], *Kepler* [@KEPLER], and TESS [Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, see @TESS], as well as the *Gaia* space observatory [@Gaia2016] have made it possible to measure stellar brightness variability with unprecedented precision. In particular, they allow studying stellar brightness variations caused by transits (as the star rotates) and the evolution of magnetic features, i.e. bright faculae and dark spots. Such variations are often referred to as rotational stellar variability. The plethora of stellar observational data rekindled an interest in the questions of how typical is our Sun as an active star and, more specifically, how does the solar rotational variability compare to that of solar-like stars? Furthermore, these data allow probing if the solar activity paradigm is valid for other stars as well. This requires comparing the stellar properties and behaviour with those of the Sun. While the solar variability has been measured for over four decades now by various dedicated space missions [see, e.g., @Froehlich2012; @Ermolli2013; @Solanki2013; @Greg2016 for reviews], a comparison between solar and stellar brightness measurements is far from straightforward [see, e.g., @Basri2010; @Timo2020; @Witzke2020]. Firstly, solar and stellar brightness variations have been measured in different spectral passbands. Since the amplitude of the solar rotational variability strongly depends on the wavelength [@Solanki2013; @Ermolli2013], the solar and stellar brightness records can be reliably compared only after conversion from one passband to another. Secondly, the solar brightness variations have (so far) only been measured from the ecliptic plane which is very close to the solar equatorial plane (the angle between the solar equator and ecliptic plane is about 7.25$^\circ$). The values of the angle between the line of sight of the observer and the rotation axes of the observed stars (hereinafter referred to as the inclination) are mostly unknown. Studies comparing solar and stellar rotational brightness variations have used different types of solar brightness measurements. [@Timo2020], for instance, used the total solar irradiance (TSI), i.e. the solar radiative flux at 1 AU integrated over all wavelengths. More commonly, however, the solar variability was characterised [see, e.g., @Basri2010; @Gilliland2011; @Harrison2012] using measurements by the Variability of solar IRradiance and Gravity Oscillations / Sun PhotoMeters (VIRGO/SPM) [@Froehlich1995; @Froehlich1997] instrument on-board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SoHO). VIRGO/SPM measures solar brightness in three filters with a bandwidth of 5 nm each. Neither VIRGO/SPM nor TSI measurements can be directly compared to records of stellar brightness variability, which typically cover wavelength ranges broader than the VIRGO/SPM filters, but much narrower than the TSI. Therefore accurate estimations of solar variability in passbands used for stellar measurements has so far been missing. Some effort has been already put in the modelling of the solar rotational variability as it would be observed out-of-ecliptic [e.g., @Vieira2012; @Shapiro2016; @Nina2020]. In particular, [@Shapiro2016] and [@Nina2020] (hereinafter N20) have shown that the amplitude of the solar brightness variations on the rotational timescale decreases with decreasing inclination. Consequently, due to its almost equator-on view, the Sun would appear on average more variable than stars with the same activity level but observed at random inclinations. At the same time, an easy to use receipt for correcting variability for the inclination effect has been missing until now and, consequently, inclination has not yet been quantitatively accounted for in solar-stellar comparison studies. In this paper we seek to overcome both hurdles and quantify solar variability in passbands used by different stellar space missions and at different inclinations. In Sect. \[Equator\] we employ the Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction [SATIRE; @Fligge2000; @Krivova2003] model of solar brightness variations to show how the actual solar brightness variations relate to solar brightness variations as they would be observed in spectral passbands used by stellar missions. We also establish the connection between the TSI and VIRGO/SPM measurements. In Sect. \[Inclination\] we follow the approach developed by N20 to quantify the effect of the inclination on the brightness variations. We discuss, how the Sun as observed by *Kepler* can be modelled using light curves obtained by VIRGO/SPM in Sect. \[Kepler-VIRGO\] before we summarise our results and draw conclusions in Sect. \[Conclusion\]. Conversion from solar to stellar passbands {#Equator} ========================================== SATIRE-S -------- The Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction [SATIRE, @Fligge2000; @Krivova2003] model attributes the brightness variations of the Sun on timescales longer than a day to the presence of magnetic features, such as bright faculae and dark spots, on its surface. The two main building blocks of SATIRE are the areas and the positions of the magnetic features on the solar disc as well as contrasts of these features relative to the quiet Sun (i.e. regions on the solar surface free from any apparent manifestations of magnetic activity). The contrasts of the magnetic features as a function of disc position and wavelength were computed by [@Unruh1999] with the spectral synthesis block of the ATLAS9 code [@Kurucz1992; @Castelli1994]. The 1D atmospheric structure of the two spot components (umbra and penumbra) and of the quiet Sun were calculated using radiative equilibrium models produced with the ATLAS9 code, while the facular model is a modified version of FAL-P by [@Fontenla1993]. Various versions of the SATIRE model exist. In this section we employ the most precise version, which is SATIRE-S, where the suffix “S” stands for the satellite era [@Ball2014; @Yeo2014]. SATIRE-S uses the distribution of magnetic features on the solar disc obtained from observed magnetograms and continuum disc images and spans from 1974 to today, covering four solar cycles. As especially the early ground-based observations contain gaps in the data we use the SATIRE-S model as presented by [@Yeo2014] (version 20190621), where the gaps in Spectral Solar Irradiance (SSI) and TSI have been filled using the information provided by solar activity indices. SATIRE-S was shown to reproduce the apparent variability of the Sun as observed, in both the SSI and in the TSI [see @Ball2012; @Ball2014; @Yeo2014; @Danilovic2016 and references therein]. The spectral resolution of the SATIRE output is 1 nm below 290 nm, 2 nm between 290 nm and 999 nm and 5 nm above 1000 nm. This is fully sufficient for the calculations presented in this study. Filter systems {#Filters} -------------- In this section we multiply the SATIRE-S SSI output with the response function of a given filter and integrate it over the entire filter passband to obtain the solar light curve in the corresponding filter. It is important to take the nature of the detectors used in different instruments into account [see e.g. @Maxted2018]. In particular, while solar instruments (e.g. VIRGO/SPM and all TSI instruments) measure the energy of the incoming radiation, charge-coupled devices (CCDs) utilised in *Kepler*, *Gaia*, and TESS count the number of photons and not their energy. In order to obtain the solar light curve, $LC$, as it would be measured by the instrument counting photons we therefore follow $$LC = \int\limits_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} R(\lambda) \cdot I(\lambda) \frac{\lambda}{h\cdot c} \, d\lambda, \label{eq:filter}$$ where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are the blue and red threshold wavelengths of the filter passband, $R(\lambda)$ is the response function of the filter and $I(\lambda)$ is the spectral irradiance at a given wavelength, $h$ is the Planck constant, and $c$ the speed of light. ![Response functions for the various filter systems used in this study. For comparison, the quiet-Sun spectrum used by SATIRE-S is plotted in grey in each panel. Top panel: *Kepler*, TESS and CoRoT; middle panel: the three Gaia passbands; bottom panel: the three VIRGO/SPM channels.[]{data-label="fig:filters"}](Plots/planet_filters.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Response functions for the various filter systems used in this study. For comparison, the quiet-Sun spectrum used by SATIRE-S is plotted in grey in each panel. Top panel: *Kepler*, TESS and CoRoT; middle panel: the three Gaia passbands; bottom panel: the three VIRGO/SPM channels.[]{data-label="fig:filters"}](Plots/Gaia_filters.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Response functions for the various filter systems used in this study. For comparison, the quiet-Sun spectrum used by SATIRE-S is plotted in grey in each panel. Top panel: *Kepler*, TESS and CoRoT; middle panel: the three Gaia passbands; bottom panel: the three VIRGO/SPM channels.[]{data-label="fig:filters"}](Plots/VIRGO_filters.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} First we consider several broad-band filters used by the planetary-hunting missions: CoRoT, *Kepler*, and TESS. The spectral passbands employed in these missions are shown in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:filters\], along with the quiet-Sun spectrum calculated by [@Unruh1999] and used in SATIRE-S. Clearly, the CoRoT and *Kepler* response functions are very similar to each other, as both missions focused on G-stars. TESS is designed to observe cooler stars compared to *Kepler*, hence the response function is shifted towards the red part of the spectrum. *Gaia* measures stellar brightness in three different channels [@Gaia2016]. *Gaia G* is sensitive to photons between 350 and 1000 nm. Additionally, two prisms disperse the incoming light between 330 and 680 nm for the ‘Blue Photometer’ (hereafter, referred to as *Gaia G$_{BP}$*) and between 640–1050 nm for the ‘Red Photometer’ (hereafter, referred to as *Gaia G$_{RP}$*). The response functions are shown in the middle panel in Fig. \[fig:filters\]. We employ the revised passbands used for the second data release of Gaia [Gaia DR2, @Evans2018] for the calculations. Solar-stellar comparison studies have often used the solar variability as it is measured by the VIRGO/SPM instrument. SPM comprises three photometers, with a bandwidth of 5 nm operating at 402 nm (blue), 500 nm (green), and 862 nm (red). The response functions are shown in Fig. \[fig:filters\] in the bottom panel. We refer to these filters from now on simply as VIRGO/blue/green/red. Results {#results_eq} ------- {width="\textwidth"} {width="\textwidth"} {width="\textwidth"} Figure \[fig:filters\_LC\] shows the solar light curve for the period of 2456700 – 2456850 JD (24 February 2014 – 11 July 2014), as it would be observed in different passbands. This corresponds to a 150 –day interval during the maximum of cycle 24. This interval was chosen arbitrarily to display the effect of the filter systems on the solar variability. For this, we first divided each light curve in 90–day segments. This time-span corresponds to *Kepler*-quarters. This is motivated by the way *Kepler* observations are gathered and reduced. We note, that the detrending by Kepler operational mode is applied here for purely illustrative purposes and it is not used for calculations presented below. Within each segment, we subtracted the mean value from the fluxes, before dividing the corresponding values by the mean flux in each segment. In all stellar broad-band filters, the light curve turns to be remarkably similar in shape to the TSI (solid black curve), although the amplitude can differ. As one can expect, the difference in the amplitude of the variability is somewhat more conspicuous in the blue filters. The $Gaia~G_{RP}$ light curve is basically identical to the TSI light curve, whereas the variability in $Gaia~G_{BP}$ and in the narrow VIRGO-blue filter show far stronger variability than the TSI. To quantify the rotational variability, we compute the $R_{30}$ values [see e.g. @Basri2013]. For this, the obtained light curves are split into 30-day segments and within each segment, we calculate the difference between the extrema, and divide this value by the mean flux in the segment to get the relative variability. For the SATIRE-S time series we directly consider the difference between the extrema instead of the differences between the 95th and 5th percentiles of sorted flux values, as is usually done in the literature with the more noisy *Kepler* measurements. We calculate $R_{30}$ values for the period 1974–2019 (i.e. cycles 22–24). This allows us to quantify the mean level of solar variability in $R_{30}$ that represents the full four decades of TSI measurements. slope ----------------- -------------------- *Kepler* 1.123 ($\pm$0.007) CoRoT 1.110 ($\pm$0.006) TESS 0.939 ($\pm$0.004) *Gaia G$_{BP}$* 1.304 ($\pm$0.005) *Gaia G* 1.131 ($\pm$0.005) *Gaia G$_{RP}$* 0.944 ($\pm$0.004) VIRGO/blue 1.689 ($\pm$0.003) VIRGO/green 1.370 ($\pm$0.007) VIRGO/red 0.912 ($\pm$0.003) : Slopes of the linear regressions in Fig. \[fig:R\_30\_regressions\].[]{data-label="tab:regressions"} 21 22 23 24 mean ----------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TSI 0.743 0.806 0.682 0.492 0.681 *Kepler* 0.808 0.872 0.731 0.530 0.735 CoRoT 0.801 0.866 0.726 0.526 0.730 TESS 0.680 0.739 0.615 0.445 0.620 *Gaia G$_{BP}$* 0.944 1.020 0.861 0.625 0.862 *Gaia G* 0.817 0.883 0.741 0.537 0.744 *Gaia G$_{RP}$* 0.684 0.742 0.617 0.447 0.623 VIRGO/blue 1.252 1.352 1.167 0.846 1.154 VIRGO/green 0.983 1.056 0.894 0.653 0.897 VIRGO/red 0.665 0.722 0.600 0.435 0.606 : Cycle-averaged $R_{30}$ in mmag.[]{data-label="tab:mean_R_30"} In Fig. \[fig:filters\_R\_30\] we show the $R_{30}$ values for all the filter systems introduced in Sect. \[Filters\] in comparison to $R_{30}$ of the TSI for a 1000-day interval starting July 26 2013. This interval therefore includes the maximum of solar 24 as well. To better quantify the dependence of $R_{30}$ on the passband, we show linear regressions between the variability $R_{30}$ in each filter system and the TSI in Fig. \[fig:R\_30\_regressions\]. The slope of the linear regressions are listed in Table \[tab:regressions\]. The Pearson-correlation coefficient is above 0.98 for all of the filter systems. Naturally, the slope of the linear regressions depends on the considered filter system. For example, TESS and *Gaia G* regressions have a slope close to 1, but $G_{BP}$ displays a slope &gt;1, whereas VIRGO-red exhibits a slope &lt;1. Unsurprisingly, the slope is highest for the blue VIRGO filter, where the amplitude of the variability is highest. We note that the good agreement of the TSI with the red filters is expected to be valid only for the rotational variability, which is dominated by spots. In contrast, the solar irradiance variability on the activity cycle timescale is given by the delicate balance between facular and spot components and, consequently, has a very sophisticated spectral profile [@Shapiro2016; @Witzke2018]. Thus, values of slopes from Table \[tab:regressions\] can not be extrapolated from the rotational to the activity cycle timescales [see @Shapiro2016 for the detailed discussion]. Table \[tab:mean\_R\_30\] lists the cycle-averaged values of $R_{30}$ for all passbands in mmag. All in all, Fig. \[fig:R\_30\_regressions\], and Tables \[tab:regressions\] and \[tab:mean\_R\_30\] show that the TSI is a passable representative for the variability on the solar rotation timescale as it would be observed in the TESS, *Kepler*, CoRoT, *Gaia G*, *Gaia G$_{RP}$* and VIRGO-red filters, but it noticeably underestimates the variability in $G_{BP}$, VIRGO-green VIRGO-blue. ![$R_{30}$ over cycle 22 for VIRGO/g+r and *Kepler*.[]{data-label="fig:K_V_LC"}](Plots/Kepler_Virgo_r_g_LC.eps){width="50.00000%"} ![Linear regression between the $R_{30}$ calculated for VIRGO/g+r and for *Kepler* light curves. The black solid line represents a linear regression with slope $=$ 1.[]{data-label="fig:K_V_regression"}](Plots/Kepler_Virgo_r_g_regression.eps){width="50.00000%"} Several studies [see e.g. @Basri2010; @Harrison2012] have assumed that the amplitude of the rotational solar variability as it would be measured by Kepler is very close to the amplitude calculated for the combined green and red VIRGO/SPM light curves (in the following VIRGO/g+r). Here we test this hypothesis. The variability $R_{30}$ for *Kepler* in comparison to VIRGO/g+r is shown in Fig. \[fig:K\_V\_LC\], which is limited to the same time interval as Fig. \[fig:filters\_R\_30\]. One can see that both curves are remarkably similar to one another. To test the similarity quantitatively, we show the linear regression of $R_{30}$ between [*Kepler*]{} and VIRGO/g+r for four solar cycles (21-24) in Fig. \[fig:K\_V\_regression\]. The Pearson correlation coefficient is very high (0.999) and the slope deviates by just +0.8% of unity averaged over four solar cycles. While these calculations relate to the amplitude of the rotational variability, $R_{30}$, we will additionally calculate regressions between [*Kepler*]{} and Virgo light curves in Sect. \[Kepler-VIRGO\]. We also directly connect the TSI and VIRGO/g+r rotational variability. The linear regression between $R_{30}$ in TSI and VIRGO/g+r results in a slope of 0.88 ($\pm$ 0.002) and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.995. Correction for the inclination {#Inclination} ============================== Approach -------- The results presented in Sect. \[results\_eq\] are for the Sun viewed from the ecliptic plane and apply to stars that are viewed approximately equator-on. However, this is not always the case and often the inclination of a star is unknown. Calculations of the solar variability as it would be measured by an out-of-ecliptic observer demand information about the distribution of magnetic features on the far-side (for the Earth bound observer) of the Sun. N20 have used a surface flux transport model (SFTM) to obtain the distribution of magnetic features of the solar surface, which was then fed into the SATIRE-model to calculate solar brightness variations as they would be seen at different inclinations. The SFTM is an advective-diffusive model for the passive transport of the radial magnetic field on the surface of a star, under the effects of large-scale surface flows. In this model, magnetic flux emerges on the stellar surface in the form of bipolar magnetic regions (BMRs). We employ the SFTM in the form given by [@Cameron2010] and follow the approach of N20 to simulate light curves of the Sun at different inclinations and with various filter systems. The emergence times, positions and sizes of active regions in our calculations are determined using the semi-empirical sunspot-group record produced by [@Jiang2011_1]. This synthetic record was constructed to represent statistical properties of the Royal Greenwich Observatory sunspot record. We additionally randomised the longitudes of the active-region emergences in the [@Jiang2011_1] records. Such a randomisation is needed to ensure that the near- and far-side of the Sun have on average equal activity, which is a necessary condition for reliable calculations of the inclination effect. As a result, our calculations reproduce the statistical properties of a given solar cycle but they do not represent the actual observed BMR emergences for that specific cycle. We stress that in N20 we developed the model outlined above to study the effect of the inclination on the power spectra of solar brightness variations. Here we use this model to study explicitly how the amplitude of the variability on the rotational timescale depends on the inclination in different filters. Results {#results} ------- In the following, we displace the observer out of the solar equator towards the solar north pole. This corresponds to inclinations below 90$^{\circ}$ . We quantify the rotational variability using the $R_{30}$ metric introduced in the previous section. To represent an average level of solar activity, we limit the analysis to cycle 23, which was a cycle of moderate strength. {width="\textwidth"} {width="\textwidth"} We show the calculated solar light curve as it would be observed by *Kepler* at various inclinations in Fig. \[fig:incl\_LC\]. For this, we divided the time-series for cycle 23 in 90-day segments, which correspond to *Kepler* quarters. Within each quarter, we de-trended the light curves. 90$^{\circ}$ corresponds to an ecliptic-bound observer, 57$^{\circ}$ represents a weighted mean value of the inclination with weights equal to the probability of observing a given inclination ($sin(\mathrm{i})$) for the inclination i), and 0$^{\circ}$ corresponds to an observer facing the north pole. We additionally show 30$^{\circ}$ as an intermediate point between 57$^{\circ}$ and 0$^{\circ}$. For the inclination values of 30$^{\circ}$, 57$^{\circ}$, and 90$^{\circ}$ the variability is brought about by the solar rotation, as well as the emergence and evolution of magnetic features. A polar-bound observer does not observe the rotational modulation, as there is no transit of magnetic features and the variability is merely generated by their emergence and evolution [see @Nina2020 for further details]. We emphasise just the reduction in the amplitude of the variability with decreasing inclination, but also the change in the shape of the light curve. This is particularly visible in a comparison of the top and the bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:incl\_LC\]. In Fig. \[fig:ratios\_inclination\], we show how $R_{30}$ averaged over cycle 23 would change as we displace the observer out of the ecliptic plane. To ease the comparison, we normalised each value of the cycle-averaged variability, $\langle R_{30}\rangle_{\rm i}$, to the corresponding value for the ecliptic view, $\langle R_{30}\rangle_{\rm 90}$. Figure \[fig:ratios\_inclination\] shows that the rotational variability decreases monotonically with decreasing inclination. This trend is seen across all considered filter systems. The differences in the inclination effect among the filter systems are due to the different dependencies of the facular and spot contrasts (as well as their centre-to-limb variations) on the wavelengths. To evaluate the averaged effect of the inclination, we introduce a new measure that we call $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ and define as $$\langle R_{30}\rangle =\frac{\sum_{i}\langle R_{30}\rangle_{i}\cdot \mathrm{sin}(i)}{\sum_{i}\mathrm{sin}(i)},$$ where $i$ is the inclination. The factor $\mathrm{sin}(i)$ ensures that the corresponding values of $\langle R_{30}\rangle_{i}$ are weighted according to the probability that a star is observed at inclination $i$. The $\langle R_{30} \rangle$ value represents the variability of the Sun averaged over all possible inclinations. In other words, if we observed many stars analogous to the Sun with random orientations of the rotation axes, their mean variability would be given by the $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ value. Therefore $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ should be used for the solar-stellar comparison rather than the $\langle R_{30}\rangle_{90}$ value. We present $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ normalised to $\langle R_{30}\rangle_{90}$ for all considered filter systems as well as the $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ values themselves in Table \[tab:inclination\]. In the second column of Table \[tab:inclination\] we give the inclination-corrected value of the mean rotational variability from Table \[tab:mean\_R\_30\] for easier application of our results. On average, all filter systems show 15% less variability compared to the equatorial case. This implies that the slopes of the linear regressions between the $R_{30}$ values in different passbands and the TSI have to be corrected for the inclination. When comparing stellar measurements in the *Kepler* passband with the TSI records this means the following: if stars are observed from their equatorial planes, the variability in *Kepler* is about 12% higher than in the TSI (see the slope given in Table \[tab:regressions\]). However, when comparing the Sun to a group of stars with random orientations of rotation axes the inclination effect must be taken into account as well. It will reduce stellar variability observed in *Kepler* passband by approximately 15%. Coincidentally, both effects almost exactly cancel each other and the observed TSI variability appears to be a very good metric for the solar-stellar comparison of *Kepler* stars in a statistical sense. $\langle R_{30}\rangle$/$\langle R_{30}\rangle_{90}$ \[%\] $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ \[mmag\] ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- TSI 85.1 0.58 *Kepler* 84.8 0.62 CoRoT 83.8 0.61 TESS 84.0 0.56 *Gaia G$_{BP}$* 83.7 0.72 *Gaia G* 84.1 0.62 *Gaia G$_{RP}$* 84.9 0.52 VIRGO/blue 83.9 0.98 VIRGO/green 85.3 0.76 VIRGO/red 83.4 0.50 : $\langle R_{30}\rangle$/$\langle R_{30}\rangle_{90}$ and $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ values for different filter systems. For $\langle R_{30}\rangle$ we multiplied $\langle R_{30}\rangle$/$\langle R_{30}\rangle_{90}$ by the corresponding value for $\langle R_{30}\rangle_{90}$ from Table \[tab:mean\_R\_30\]. Time averaging is performed over the solar cycle 23.[]{data-label="tab:inclination"} We have shown in Sect. \[Equator\] that the amplitude of solar rotational variability as it would be measured by *Kepler* can be very accurately approximated by calculating the amplitude of the VIRGO/g+r light curve. However, when comparing brightness variations of the Sun to those of a large group of stars with unknown inclinations, one should use solar variability averaged over all possible inclinations rather than solar variability observed from the ecliptic plane. We have established that the effect of a random inclination decreases the variability in the *Kepler* passband by 15%. Taking this into account, the relative difference between the variability in VIRGO/g+r and the solar variability in *Kepler* averaged over inclinations is $-14$%. Unlike for the TSI, corrections for the passband and the inclination only partly compensate each other. We therefore suggest that the TSI is a better representative of the Sun as it would be observed by *Kepler* than VIRGO/g+r, if the inclination of a star is unknown. Modelling *Kepler* light curves using VIRGO/SPM {#Kepler-VIRGO} =============================================== The the previous sections, we have quantitatively validated the argument of [@Basri2010] that the VIRGO/g+r light curve correspond to the same variability as the *Kepler* light curve if both light curves are recorded from the solar equatorial plane. In this section we perform complementary calculations. Namely, we test if the *Kepler* light curve can be modelled as a linear combination of solar light curves in the different VIRGO/SPM channels. We restrict our calculations to solar cycle 23. All light curves are computed with the N20 model. We divide all light curves into 90-day segments and calculate the relative flux within these segments (i.e. we consider the same normalisation of light curves as shown in Figs. \[fig:filters\_LC\] and \[fig:incl\_LC\]). Next, we apply multiple linear regression to fit the *Kepler* light curve with the VIRGO/SPM/green+red light curves, to find the best set of coefficients for the linear fit. {width="\textwidth"} For an ecliptic-bound observer we write the multiple linear regression in the form $$K_{i,\,SPM} = a\cdot V_g+ b\cdot V_r , \label{eq:fit_2_90}$$ where $i$ is the inclination, $V_g$ and $V_r$ are solar light curves in VIRGO/SPM blue green and red filters (corresponding to the equatorial plane). The best fit for $i=90^{\circ}$ yields a$=$0.275 ($\pm$ 0.001) and b$=$0.619 ($\pm$ 0.002). The $r^2$-value is 0.999. Such a high correlation is not surprising giving the similarity between the VIRGO/SPM and *Kepler* rotational variability discussed in Sect. \[Equator\]. Next, we apply the multiple-regression model to simulate the out-of-ecliptic *Kepler*-like light curve using the light curves in the SPM channels as the input. Given that an inclination of 57$^{\circ}$ is often used to represent a statistical mean of all possible inclination values, we fit the *Kepler* light curve observed at $i=57^{\circ}$ with a linear combination of VIRGO light curves (observed at $i=90^{\circ}$). The best fit results in the following coefficients: a$=-$0.421 ($\pm$ 0.018) and b$=$1.418 ($\pm$ 0.027), with $r^2 = 0.83$. Figure \[fig:fit\] compares the Kepler-like light curve with the regression model using light curves in all three VIRGO filters for $i=90^{\circ}$ and $i=57^{\circ}$. For the 90$^{\circ}$ inclination case (left panel in Fig. \[fig:fit\]), the differences between the two light curves are basically invisible, but for the 57$^{\circ}$ case, the differences are quite pronounced. These differences have various origins. In particular, the transits of magnetic features would take different times for the ecliptic and out-of-ecliptic observer. Furthermore, with decreasing inclination, the facular contribution becomes stronger, while the spot contribution weakens [see e.g., @Shapiro2016], changing the shape of the light curve. It is therefore necessary to take the actual distribution of magnetic features into account when modelling light curves observed at different inclination angles. Conclusions {#Conclusion} =========== In this study we give recipes how to treat two problems hindering the comparison between solar and stellar rotational brightness variations: the difference between the spectral passbands utilised for solar and stellar observations as well as the effect of inclination. To quantify the effect of different spectral passbands on the rotational variability represented through the $R_{30}$ metric, we employed the SATIRE-S model. We found that the rotational variability observed through the filter systems used by the *Kepler* and CoRoT missions is around 12% higher than the TSI, whereas the variability in the TESS passband is about 7% lower. For *Gaia G* we find +15% and for *Gaia G$_{BP}$* +30% difference in the amplitude of the rotational variability compared to the TSI, whereas *Gaia G$_{RP}$* shows a difference of -7%. These numbers are valid for equator-on observations on rotational timescales. Previous studies have used combinations of the green and VIRGO red light curves for solar-stellar comparisons [see e.g. @Basri2010; @Gilliland2011; @Harrison2012]. We used linear regressions of the rotational variability between the two combined VIRGO/SPM passbands and the solar variability as *Kepler* would observe it, to test the goodness of that comparison. We find that the variability in *Kepler* is 7% higher compared to that of VIRGO/green+red. Moreover, we found that the sum of the VIRGO green and red light curves very accurately represents the solar light curve in the *Kepler* passband. This is valid, however, only valid for the Sun observed from the ecliptic. We show that a linear combination of VIRGO/SPM passbands cannot accurately reproduce the solar *Kepler* light curve observed out-of-ecliptic. We have calculated the dependence of the rotational variability on inclination by following the approach in [@Nina2020]. In this approach, an SFTM is used to simulate the distribution of magnetic features on the surface of the Sun, which is then used to compute the brightness variations with SATIRE. We find that across all filter systems discussed in this study the rotational variability drops by about 15% when it is averaged over all possible directions of the rotation axis. Given that the *Kepler* rotational variability as observed from the ecliptic plane is 12% higher than the TSI rotational variability, we conclude, that the TSI is the best proxy for the solar rotational brightness variations if they would be observed by *Kepler* when the inclination effect is considered. We thank Chi-Ju Wu, whose master thesis has sparked the idea for the manuscript. The research leading to this paper has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 715947). SKS acknowledges financial support from the BK21 plus program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education of Korea.

--- abstract: 'The Heisenberg chain with a weak link is studied, as a simple example of a quantum ring with a constriction or defect. The Heisenberg chain is equivalent to a spinless electron gas under a Jordan-Wigner transformation. Using density matrix renormalization group and quantum Monte Carlo methods we calculate the spin/charge stiffness of the model, which determines the strength of the ‘persistent currents’. The stiffness is found to scale to zero in the weak link case, in agreement with renormalization group arguments of Eggert and Affleck, and Kane and Fisher.' address: - | School of Physics,\ The University of New South Wales,\ Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. - | Department of Physics,\ [Å]{}bo Akademi University,\ Porthansgatan 3, FIN-20500 Turku,\ Finland author: - 'T.M.R. Byrnes, R.J. Bursill, H.-P. Eckle, C.J. Hamer' - 'A. W. Sandvik' title: Persistent Currents in the Heisenberg chain with a weak link --- INTRODUCTION ============ Technological advances in recent years have allowed the fabrication of electrical and even mechanical devices on the nanometer scale, where individual atoms or electrons can be manipulated. The physics of these devices poses a plethora of fundamental questions through a rich variety of novel quantum effects[@moriond]. This has led to an upsurge of theoretical interest in the physics of ‘quantum wires’, ‘quantum dots’ and more general physics at the mesoscopic or nanometer scale[@simons]. The effects of electron-electron interactions are typically enhanced in systems of reduced dimensionality, leading to nonperturbative effects, such as the breakdown of Fermi liquid behavior in one-dimensional metals, and single-electron charging effects in quasi-zero-dimensional systems (quantum dots). An important milestone in the nascent field of nanomechanics was the experimental discovery that not only the electrical but also the [*mechanical*]{} properties of metallic structures on the nanometer scale exhibit apparently universal nonmonotonic quantum corrections [@exp1; @exp2], which could be explained theoretically within the framework of a Jellium model [@stafford]. In the electrical domain, paradigm systems to investigate mesoscopic behavior have long been small ring-shaped or multiply connected devices, where the application of a magnetic flux piercing the device leads to persistent currents. However, the theoretical prediction of these persistent currents, first in superconducting and then in normal conducting materials, has always predated experimental investigation, which has only become feasible in the last decade [@efetov]. Very recently, with the discovery of a tunable Kondo effect in quantum dots, the persistent currents of multiply connected systems with magnetic quantum dots - Kondo rings for short - have aroused considerable interest[@EJS; @kang; @SA]. In this paper we explore a very simple system, which may serve to model a metallic quantum wire ring with a weak junction, or [*constriction*]{}. It consists of the standard spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnetic spin chain, which by a Jordan-Wigner transformation is equivalent to a spinless electron gas in one dimension, where the exchange coupling is weakened at a single link. We use Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) [@white92; @gehring97] and Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods[@sandvik1] to obtain numerical results on chains of up to 256 sites, and perform finite-size scaling extrapolations to the bulk limit. We study the spin stiffness, which under the Jordan-Wigner transformation is equivalent to the charge stiffness of the electron gas and is related to the persistent current, as a function of the weak link coupling. We also study the spin correlations across the weak link. Eggert and Affleck[@eggert] have previously studied the Heisenberg chain with an isolated impurity using exact diagonalization and conformal field theory techniques. They find that in renormalization group language a single weak link across the ends of an open chain corresponds to an irrelevant operator, and therefore the open chain is a stable fixed point under such a perturbation. Thus they predict that in the bulk limit a chain with a weak link will behave like an open chain. These findings for a concrete model system are in agreement with the general predictions of Kane and Fisher[@kane] for the general one–dimensional interacting electron gas, i.e. the Luttinger liquid. An integrable version of the Heisenberg spin chain with defects has also been studied[@schmitteckert; @EPR; @sydney]. The case of a single defect corresponds to a weak link. However, as opposed to the case discussed here where only one bond is modified, integrability requires a modification of two adjacent bonds and an additional three–spin coupling. Although the defect of this integrable chain is completely transparent to particle scattering, the persistent current is renormalized by the defect strength. Let us briefly review[@byers] how the persistent current arises, for the simple case of free electrons. Start from the real-space continuum Hamiltonian $$H = -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m_{e}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{0}^{L}dx \psi^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x) \partial_{x}^{2}\psi_{\alpha}(x)$$ where $\psi_{\alpha}(x)$ is an electron field with spin index $\alpha = \pm 1$, and $L$ is the circumference of the ring. Now thread the ring with a magnetic flux $\Phi$, producing an Aharonov-Bohm effect[@aharonov]. The quantum phase $$\frac{e}{\hbar c}\int_{0}^{L}A_{\mu}d_{\mu}x = \frac{e}{\hbar c}\Phi$$ can be encoded via a gauge transformation in the twisted boundary conditions $$\psi_{\alpha}(L) = e^{i\phi}\psi_{\alpha}(0),$$ where $$\phi = 2\pi \frac{\Phi}{\Phi_{0}}$$ and $\Phi_{0} = hc/e$ is the elementary flux quantum. When an Aharonov-Bohm field is applied, the Hamiltonian acquires the usual interaction term (we set $\hbar = c = 1$ henceforth) $$H_{int} = - \int dx A_{\mu}J^{\mu}(x).$$ Thus for a constant field $A_{1} = \Phi/L$ the corresponding “persistent current" is given by the Feynman-Hellman theorem: $$J^{1} \equiv I(\Phi) = -\frac{\partial E_{0}}{\partial\Phi}$$ which can be expanded $$I(\Phi) = -D_{c}\frac{\Phi}{L} + O\big((\frac{\Phi}{L})^{2}\big)$$ where $D_{c}$ is the “charge stiffness". If we [*assume*]{} that $I(\Phi)$ is purely linear in $\Phi$ (as can be proved for the pure Heisenberg chain[@hamer]), then the charge stiffness and hence the persistent current can be estimated from the difference in energy between the system with anti-periodic boundary conditions ( $E_{0}^{-} = E_{0}(\Phi = \Phi_{0}/2)$) and periodic boundary conditions ($(E_{0}^{+} = E_{0}(\Phi = 0)$) $$\label{chargestiffness} D_{c} = \frac{8L}{\Phi_{0}^{2}}[E_{0}^{-} - E_{0}^{+}]$$ The corresponding quantity in the Heisenberg chain is the spin stiffness. In section II of the paper we briefly summarize the DMRG and QMC methods used to calculate this quantity. In section III we present our results, and in section IV our conclusions are summarized. Method ====== We study the spin-1/2 Heisenberg quantum spin chain with a single weak coupling $ J' < J $ between two adjacent spins located between sites $ i = N $ and $ i = 1 $. The Hamiltonian is $$H = J \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_{i+1} + J' {\bf S}_N \cdot {\bf S}_1.$$ There are a total of $ N $ sites in the ring. We study $ J'/J $ in the range $ [0,1] $, hence we have either open or periodic boundary conditions (OBC or PBC) at the extremities of this range. We also consider anti-periodic boundary conditions in the same range of $ J'/J $, to obtain the charge stiffness $ D_c $ according to (\[chargestiffness\]). The model in these limits is exactly solvable by Bethe ansatz [@bethe], and hence is often used as a testing ground for various DMRG methods [@white92; @bursill99]. The quantities that have been calculated using DMRG include the ground state energy, the singlet and triplet gaps, and correlation functions. The “infinite-lattice” DMRG method [@white92] is used here, applied with periodic boundary conditions. The lattice is split into two blocks and two sites as shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. The weak link is placed between block 1 and site 2. At any time the superblock consists of a system block and an environment block, plus two extra sites. The presence of the weak link destroys the translational invariance normally exploited in usual DMRG schemes, hence we cannot simply make a copy of the density matrix in one block and transfer it to the other block. Therefore in a single DMRG iteration, two density matrices are constructed (one for each block), and the basis set for each block originates from its corresponding density matrix. Each block increases in size by a single site in a single DMRG iteration. We calculate results for lattice sizes $ N = 4 $ to 64, in steps of two. The quantities calculated here are the ground state energies, and the correlation of the spins across the weak link. The total number of density matrix eigenstates retained in a block was $ m = 350 $ in the basis truncation procedure. We also carried out quantum Monte Carlo simulations using the stochastic series expansion (SSE) method[@sandvik1]. In this case, the spin stiffness can be directly calculated as the second derivative of the energy with respect to the phase, which is given in terms of the fluctuation of the winding number in the simulations [@sandvik2]. Results ======= To estimate the accuracy of the DMRG, we perform convergence tests with $m$, the number of basis states retained in a block. Table \[table1\] shows sample results for $ J'/J = 0.5 $ and $ N = 64 $ with both periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions. We see good convergence with the number of basis states retained: in particular, for the ground state energy we have convergence to 1 part in $ 10^6 $. We obtained independent estimates using SSE techniques for the periodic case, which yields $ E_0/J = -28.2178(3)$, agreeing perfectly with the DMRG results. The correlations between the spins across the links have a marginally lower accuracy because of round-off error, but even here we have an error in the region of 1 part in $ 10^4 $. Since the SSE method is a finite-temperature quantum Monte Carlo method we have to run the simulations at sufficiently low temperature to converge the quantities of interest to their ground state values. In Table \[table2\] we show the convergence of the energy and the charge stiffness for a 256-site chain. All SSE results discussed below were obtained at inverse temperatures $\beta$ where the results do not differ, within statistical errors, from results at $\beta/2$. Ground state energies were calculated for the periodic and anti-periodic rings, as a function of the weak link coupling $ J'/J $. Figs. \[fig5\] and \[fig6\] shows DMRG estimates for the quantity $\Delta E_N= (E_0(N;J') - E_0(N;J'=J))/J $ as a function of $J'/J$, for several different lattice sizes up to $N = 64$. An extrapolation in $ 1/N $ can be performed to extract the bulk limit for each value of $ J' $ by a simple polynomial fit to the data, giving us the extrapolated curve for the periodic and anti-periodic cases. It can be seen that for the periodic case the bulk values are approached from above, while for the anti-periodic case the limit is approached from below. Putting together both the periodic and anti-periodic results for the energy, we can calculate the spin stiffness factor, given by $$\rho_{s} = \frac{2N}{\pi^{2}J}(E_0(N;\mbox{anti-periodic}) - E_0(N;\mbox{periodic}))$$ The results are shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. At couplings other than $J'/J = 1$ the values trend steadily down towards zero as the lattice size $ N $ increases. There is a marked difference in behavior for the isotropic case $J'/J = 1$, as the strong curvature towards zero is not apparent. One would naively expect to obtain a bulk limit by a simple linear extrapolation procedure, but in fact the work of Woynarovich and Eckle [@woynarovich] has shown that there are logarithmic corrections to the ground state energy, and hence the stiffness. We can see the effects of these corrections for the $ J'/J = 1$ case, as there exists an exact result obtained by Hamer, Quispel and Batchelor [@hamer] (equation (3.37) of ref. [@hamer] with $\gamma =0$) $$\rho_{s} = \frac{1}{4} . \label{eq3.2}$$ This does not seem in accord with the data in Fig \[fig7\], which appear to be approaching $0.27$. A late, logarithmic downturn must therefore occur at very large lattice sizes. Using field theoretical methods, Eggert and Affleck [@eggert] have predicted that a chain with $J' < J$ should be similar to an open chain (i.e., $J'/J = 0$). This implies that the spin \[charge\] stiffness should vanish as the system size $N \to \infty$. Fig. \[fig8\] shows SSE results[@footnote] for the stiffness versus the system size ($N=16,32,64,128$ and $256$) for several values of $J' \le J$. The results are in accordance with a scaling behavior $$\rho_{N}(x) \sim a(x)N^{-\sigma}$$ where $x = J'/J$, and the index $\sigma \simeq 2/3$. Fig. \[fig8a\] demonstrates that the data for large $ N $ can be well described, in fact, by a simple scaling form $$\label{scaling} \rho_{N}(x) \sim \frac{2.6x}{(1-x)}N^{-2/3}, \hspace{5mm} N \rightarrow \infty.$$ It is likely, however, that the true asymptotic correction-to-scaling behavior is again being disguised by logarithmic corrections. We have also calculated the value of the spin correlation function across the weak link, i.e. $ \langle S^z_N S^z_1 \rangle $. Fig. \[fig9\] shows the behavior versus $1/N^2 $ for various values of $J'/J$. It can be seen that the finite-lattice values generally approach a finite value in the bulk limit, as one would expect, except for the special case $J'/J = 0 $ where the link is open. Theoretical expectations [@affleck] are that the correlation function should approach its bulk limit like $1/N^{2}$, up to logarithmic corrections. The presence of a finite correlation across the weak link is just what one would naively expect when the weak-link coupling $J'$ is non-zero. On the other hand, it might appear to contradict the previous statement that a chain with a weak link should renormalize to the open chain. The point here is that the weak-link correlation is a [*local*]{} quantity, not a bulk property. It is only bulk properties such as the spin-stiffness which scale to the value of the open chain. CONCLUSIONS =========== In summary, we have performed a finite-lattice study of the Heisenberg ring with a weak link, using both DMRG and QMC calculations on rings of up to 256 sites. The spin or ‘charge’ stiffness has been calculated either directly (QMC), or from the energy difference between the system with anti-periodic boundary conditions and that with periodic boundaries, assuming a quadratic dependence of the energy on the twist parameter $\phi$ (DMRG). The stiffness, and hence the persistent current, is found to scale to zero in the bulk limit $N \rightarrow \infty$, for any $J' < J$. This agrees with the renormalization group prediction of Eggert and Affleck[@eggert], that the stable fixed point for this system corresponds to an open chain, so that the chain with a weak link will behave like an open chain, as regards its bulk properties. We have also measured the spin-spin correlation across the weak link. A finite antiferromagnetic correlation remains in the bulk limit, depending on the coupling $J'$ as one would expect. The renormalization group argument does not apply to a ‘local’ quantity such as this. The asymptotic scaling behavior of these quantities has been disguised to some extent by logarithmic finite-size scaling corrections. Eggert and Affleck[@eggert] have circumvented this problem by studying a modified model with an extra marginal operator; but we have not found this necessary for our present purposes. For the future, it would be of interest to see how the results generalize to more complicated and interesting cases, such as higher spin chains, or real electronic models, such as the Hubbard model or its variant, the so–called $t-J$ model. Another interesting extension of the present study would be to interpret the weak link and hence the modified bond in our model as caused by a mechanical force on a quantum wire. It would be interesting to see what conclusions could be drawn from our simple one-dimensional model for such a scenario. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ================ We would like to thank Prof. I. Affleck for very useful correspondence. This work was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council, and H.-P.E. was supported by an ARC-IREX Exchange Fellowship. A.W.S. was supported by the Academy of Finland (project 26175), and would also like to thank the School of Physics at UNSW for financial support through a Gordon Godfrey visitor fellowship. We are grateful for the computing resources provided by the Australian Centre for Advanced Computing and Communications (ac3) and the Australian Partnership for Advanced Computing (APAC) National Facility. e-mail address: C.Hamer@unsw.edu.au C. Glattli et al. (Editors), [*Quantum Physics at Mesoscopic Scale*]{}, Proceedings of the XXXIVth Rencontres de Moriond, EDP Sciences, 2000. See for instance  B. D. Simons and A. Altland, [*Theories of Mesoscopic Physics*]{}, in: CRM Summer School [*Theoretical Physics at the End of the 20th Century*]{}, CRM Series in Mathematical Physics, Springer, 2000. G. Rubio, N. Agraït, and S. Vieira, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2302 (1996). A. Stalder and U. Dürig, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**68**]{}, 637 (1996). C. A. Stafford, D. Baeriswyl, and J. Bürki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2863 (1997). See chapter 8 of K. Efetov, [*Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1997. H.-P. Eckle, H. Johannesson and C. A. Stafford, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 016602 (2001). K. Kang and S.-C. Shin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5619 (2000). I. Affleck and P. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2854 (2001). S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} 2863 (1992); Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 10345 (1993). G. A. Gehring, R. J. Bursill, and T. Xiang, Acta Phys. Pol. [bf 91]{}, 105 (1997) A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, R14157 (1999). S. Eggert and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. [**B46**]{}, 10866 (1992); S. Eggert and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 934 (1995). C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{} 1220 (1992); Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{} 15233 (1992). P. Schmitteckert, P. Schwab and U. Eckern, Europhys. Lett. [**30**]{}, 9 (1995). H.–P. Eckle, A. Punnoose and R. A. Römer, Europhys. Lett. [**39**]{} 293 (1997). H.–P. Eckle, “Integrable quantum impurity models”, in: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Recent Progress in Many-Body Theories, Sydney, Australia, July 1997, D. Neilson and R. F. Bishop (eds.), World Scientific, 1998. N. Byers and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**7**]{}, 46 (1961). Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. [**115**]{}, 485 (1959). C.J. Hamer, G.R.W. Quispel and M.T. Batchelor, J. Phys. [**A20**]{}, 5677 (1987). H. Bethe, Z. Phys. [**71**]{}, 205 (1931); J. des Cloizeaux and M. Gaudin, J. Math. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1384 (1966). R.J. Bursill, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 1643 (1999). A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 11678 (1997). F. Woynarovich and H-P. Eckle, J Phys [**A20**]{}, L97 (1987) Note: the values obtained for the spin-stiffness by the DMRG and QMC methods do not exactly agree, because the assumption of quadratic behavior of the ground-state energy with $\Phi$ does not hold exactly for a finite system. It does hold in the bulk limit, however, and the results of the two methods converge in that limit. I.Affleck, private communication. ------- ------------ --------------------------------- ------------ --------------------------------- $ m $ $ E_0/J $ $ \langle S^z_N S^z_1 \rangle $ $ E_0/J $ $ \langle S^z_N S^z_1 \rangle $ 96 -28.217652 -0.060888 -28.212779 -0.0560186 164 -28.217938 -0.061194 -28.213082 -0.0562742 234 -28.217964 -0.061219 -28.213123 -0.0563028 342 -28.217970 -0.061222 -28.213132 -0.0563091 ------- ------------ --------------------------------- ------------ --------------------------------- : DMRG estimates of the ground state energy $E_0/J$ and correlation $ \langle S^z_N S^z_1 \rangle $ for $ N = 64 $ sites at $ J'/J = 0.5 $ as a function of $m$, the number of states retained per block. A SSE estimate of $ E_0/J = -28.2178(3)$ for PBC agrees very well with the DMRG data: here our final DMRG estimate is -28.21797(1). The correlation between spins across the weak link also converges to better than 1 part in $10^4$. The anti-periodic boundary conditions yield similar levels of accuracy. []{data-label="table1"} $\beta$ $E_0/NJ$ $\rho_s$ --------- -------------- ----------- 32 -0.44211(2) 0.0000(0) 64 -0.44237(1) 0.0008(1) 128 -0.442429(9) 0.0088(3) 256 -0.442443(5) 0.0202(5) 512 -0.442443(4) 0.0212(4) 1024 -0.442453(3) 0.0215(2) 2048 -0.442448(3) 0.0218(2) : The internal energy and the spin stiffness calculated in SSE simulations for a 256-site chain with $J'/J=1/4$ at different inverse temperatures $\beta=J/T$. []{data-label="table2"} epsf

--- abstract: 'We introduce a new method to calculate local normal zeta functions of finitely generated, torsion-free nilpotent groups, -groups in short. It is based on an enumeration of vertices in the Bruhat-Tits building for . It enables us to give explicit computations for -groups of class $2$ with small centres and to derive local functional equations. Examples include formulae for non-uniform normal zeta functions.' author: - 'Christopher Voll[^1] [^2]' bibliography: - 'thebibliography.bib' date: 30 September 2002 title: 'Zeta functions of groups and enumeration in Bruhat-Tits buildings' --- Introduction and results {#section1} ======================== A finitely generated group has only a finite number of subgroups of each finite index. With this simple observation Grunewald, Segal and Smith opened their seminal paper [@GSS/88] by which they initiated the study of zeta functions of torsion-free finitely generated nilpotent groups, -groups in short. To a -group $G$ they associate a Dirichlet series $$\z_{G}(s):=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n n^{-s},$$ where $$a_n:=|\{H\triangleleft G|\;|G:H|=n\}|$$ and $s$ is a complex variable. This series is called the [*normal zeta function*]{} of $G$. It decomposes as an Euler-product $$\z_{G}(s)=\prod_{\text{$p$ prime}} \z_{G,p}(s),$$ of [*local*]{} normal zeta functions $$\z_{G,p}(s):=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_{p^n} p^{-ns}.$$ One of the main results of [@GSS/88] is the [*rationality*]{} of the local factors. However, the local zeta function’s dependence on the prime $p$ remained mysterious and stayed in the focus of research in the subject. The question was recently linked to the classical problem of counting points on varieties mod $p$ by du Sautoy and Grunewald ([@duSG/00]). In the present paper we introduce a new method to compute local normal zeta functions of nilpotent groups which exploits the combinatorial geometry of the Bruhat-Tits building for $\SlnQp$. It allows us to prove \[main theorem\] Let $G$ be a -group of nilpotency class $2$ with derived group $G'$. Assume that the associated Lie ring $\LieL(G):=G/G'\oplus G'$ has a presentation as follows: $$\LieL(G)=\langle x_1,\dots,x_{2r},y_1,y_2,y_3|\;(x_i,x_j)=M({\bf y})_{ij}\rangle,$$ where $M({\bf y})=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 &R({\bf y})\\ -R({\bf y})^t&0 \end{array}\right)$ is a matrix of $\Z$-linear forms in ${\bf y}=(y_1,y_2,y_3)$, $r\geq2$, and all other Lie-brackets are understood to be trivial. Assume that the curve $$C=\{{\bf y}\in \mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{Q})|\;\det(R({\bf y}))=0\}$$ is smooth. Set $$|C(\Fp)|:=|\{{\bf y}\in \mathbb{P}^2(\Fp)|\;\det(R({\bf y}))=0\}|.$$ Then for almost all primes $p$ $$\z_{G,p}(s)=W_1(p,p^{-s})+|C(\Fp)|W_2(p,p^{-s})$$ for explicitly determined rational functions $W_i(X,Y)\in\Q(X,Y)$, $i=1,2$. By a result of Beauville ([@Beauville/00], Proposition 3.1) every smooth plane curve over $\Q$ can be defined by a linear determinant. Recall that the [*Hirsch length*]{} of a $\T$-group $G$ is the number of infinite cyclic factors in a decomposition series for $G$. We deduce Given a smooth plane curve $C$ over $\Q$ of degree $r\geq2$, there is a -group $G=G_C$ of Hirsch length $2r+3$ and rational functions $W_i(X,Y)\in\Q(X,Y)$, $i=1,2$ such that for almost all primes $p$ $$\z_{G_C,p}(s)=W_1(p,p^{-s})+|C(\Fp)|W_2(p,p^{-s}).$$ The explicit expressions for the $W_i(X,Y)$ produced in the proof of Theorem \[main theorem\] allow us to read off a functional equation of the type $$W_i(X^{-1},Y^{-1})=(-1)^{n_i}X^{a_i}Y^{b_i}W_i(X,Y),\;n_i,a_i,b_i\in\Z. \label{combinatorial functional equation}$$ The [*rationality*]{} of the Weil zeta function for an irreducible variety $V$ over a finite field $\Fp$ implies that the function $$\begin{aligned} \N_{\geq0}&\rightarrow&\N \\ e&\mapsto&|V(\mathbb{F}_{p^e})|:=|\{\mathbb{F}_{p^e}-\mbox{rational points of }V\}|\end{aligned}$$ has a unique extension to $\Z$. In particular, the symbol $|V(\mathbb{F}_{p^{-1}})|$ is well-defined. The [*functional equation*]{} satisfied by the Weil zeta function for a non-singular, absolutely irreducible projective variety $V$ over $\Fp$ implies the relation $$|V(\mathbb{F}_{p^{-e}})|=p^{-en}|V(\mathbb{F}_{p^{e}})|.\label{weil functional equation}$$ Combining the functional equations (\[combinatorial functional equation\]) and (\[weil functional equation\]) will allow us to deduce \[corollary to main theorem: fun. eq.\] Assume further that the curve $C$ in Theorem \[main theorem\] is absolutely irreducible over $\Q$. Then for almost all primes $p$ $$\z_{G_C,p}(s)|_{p\rightarrow p^{-1}}=-p^{\binom{2r+3}{2}-(4r+3)s}\z_{G_C,p}(s). \label{fun. eq. main theorem}$$ Theorem \[main theorem\] produces a wealth of concrete examples of normal zeta functions which are not finitely uniform. We call $\z_{G}(s)$ [*finitely uniform*]{} if the primes fall into finitely many classes on which the local factors are given by one rational function, i.e. if there are rational functions $W_1(X,Y),\dots,W_n(X,Y)$ such that for all primes $p$ there is an $r=r(p)\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ such that $\z_{G,p}(s)=W_r(p,p^{-s})$. We say that $\z_{G}(s)$ is [*uniform*]{} if $n=1$. Du Sautoy was the first to construct examples of zeta functions which are not finitely uniform ([@duS-ecI/01],[@duS-ecII/01]). He constructed Lie rings presented by matrices $M({\bf y})$ as in Theorem \[main theorem\] above whose determinants define certain elliptic curves over $\Q$. His analysis established the [*existence*]{} of the rational functions $W_i(X,Y)$ and did not reveal the functional equation (\[fun. eq. main theorem\]). His Theorem 1.1 and the assertion of Conjecture 5.6 in [@duS-ecII/01] follow from our Theorem \[main theorem\] above. Our second theorem confirms that these examples were indeed in some sense minimal. Our method allows us to describe explicitly the local normal zeta functions of class-$2$-nilpotent -groups with derived groups of Hirsch length $2$. \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] Let $G$ be a -group of class $2$ with derived group $G'$ of Hirsch length $2$. Then there are irreducible polynomials $f_1(t),\dots,f_m(t)\in \Q[t]$ and rational functions $W_I(X,Y)$, $I\subseteq \{1,\dots,m\}$ such that for almost all primes $p$ $$\z_{G,p}(s)=\sum_{I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}}c_{p,I}W_{I}(p,p^{-s}),$$ where $$c_{p,I}=|\{x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)| \,f_i(x)\equiv0\mbox{ mod } p\mbox{ if and only if } i\in I\}|.\label{definition cpI}$$ In particular, $\z_{G}(s)$ is finitely uniform. For almost all primes $\z_{G,p}(s)$ satisfies the functional equation $$\z_{G,p}(s)|_{p\rightarrow p^{-1}}=(-1)^{d+2}p^{\binom{d+2}{2}-(2d+2)s}\z_{G,p}(s).$$ The polynomials $f_i$ in Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] are those occurring in the classification of torsion-free [*radicable*]{} nilpotent groups of class $2$ and of finite Hirsch length with centres of Hirsch length $2$ due to Grunewald and Segal ([@GSegal/84]) on which the proof of Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] relies. We will recall this classification in Section \[section3\] to make this paper self-contained. The proof of Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] will also produce an algorithm for the computation of the $W_I(X,Y)$. In Section \[section2\] we will explain the relationship between the combinatorics of buildings and local zeta functions. We shall prove Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] in Section \[section3\]. Its proof uses the classification of torsion-free [*radicable*]{} nilpotent groups of class $2$ and of finite Hirsch length with centres of Hirsch length $2$ by Grunewald and Segal ([@GSegal/84]). In Section \[section4\] we will give the proof of Theorem \[main theorem\] and its corollaries as well as the explicit formulae for du Sautoy’s example. We feel that the functional equations for non-uniform zeta functions may well be the most important result in the present paper. “To find an explanation of the phenomenon in general \[$\dots$\] is one of the most intriguing open problems in this area”, say du Sautoy and Segal in [@duSSegal/00]. This article comprises parts of the author’s Cambridge PhD thesis [@Voll/02] which was supported by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes and the Cambridge European Trust. The author should like to thank Marcus du Sautoy for his continuous support and encouragement as supervisor and Fritz Grunewald for numerous invaluable conversations in Dsseldorf. Thanks are also due to Burt Totaro who directed us to [@Beauville/00]. Zeta functions of groups and the Bruhat-Tits building $\D_n$ for {#section2} ================================================================= In this section we will explain how counting ideals in -groups may be interpreted as enumerating certain vertices in the Bruhat-Tits building $\D_n$ for . In nilpotency class $2$, we describe how this approach may be used to facilitate effective computations, at least if the derived group is small. Let $G$ be a -group. Let $\LieL=\LieL(G)$ be the $\Q$-Lie algebra associated to $G$ under the Malcev correspondence. We can define the local ideal zeta functions associated to $\LieL$ similarly to the local normal zeta functions associated to $G$. For a prime $p$ we set $$\z_{\LieL,p}(s):=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_{p^n}p^{-ns},$$ where $$b_{p^n}:=|\{\Lambda \triangleleft \LieL|\;|\LieL:\Lambda|=p^n\}|.$$ Theorem 4.1 in [@GSS/88] confirms the following: For almost all primes $p$, $$\z_{G,p}(s)=\z_{\LieL(G),p}(s).\label{normal sbgps vs. ideals}$$ If $G$ is a -group of nilpotency class $2$, we may indeed work with the graded Lie ring $\LieL(G)=G/G'\oplus G'$ and equation (\[normal sbgps vs. ideals\]) holds for [*all*]{} primes $p$ (this is essentially the Remark in [@GSS/88], p. 206). Ideals of $p$-power index in $\LieL$ correspond to ideals of finite index in $\LieL_p:=\LieL\otimes_{\Z}\Zp$. Note that if $G$ has Hirsch length $n$ then $\LieL_p\cong \Zp^n$ as $\Zp$-modules for almost all primes $p$. That the Bruhat-Tits building $\D_n$ for $\SlnQp$ is a natural place to represent ideals in $\LieL_p$ follows from the following trivial \[observation on ideals\] A lattice $\Lambda \leq \LieL$ is an ideal if and only if $p^n \Lambda$ is an ideal for all $n\in\Z$. The Bruhat-Tits building $\D_n$ for $\SlnQp$ -------------------------------------------- We will recall some features of $\D_n$ which we will need for our analysis. We refer the reader to [@Serre/80], [@Garrett/97], [@Brown/89] for more background on buildings. The building $\D_n$ may be viewed as a simplicial complex whose vertices are [*homothety classes*]{} of lattices in $\Qp^n$. Recall that lattices $\L$ and $\L'$ are called homothetic if there is an element $x\in\Qp$ such that $\L=x\L'$. We will use square brackets to denote a lattice’s (homothety) class. One defines an [*incidence relation*]{} on vertices as follows: Classes $X_1$ and $X_2$ are called incident if there are lattices $\L_1$ and $\L_2$ with $X_i=[\L_i], i=1,2$, such that $$p\L_1<\L_2<\L_1.$$ The building $\D_n$ is just the [*flag complex*]{} for this incidence geometry: its simplices consist of sets of pairwise incident vertices. For our purposes we are only interested in lattices in $\Qp^n$ which are contained in the [*standard lattice*]{} $\Zp^n$. From now on, [*lattice*]{} will mean [*lattice contained in $\Zp^n$*]{} and [*class*]{} will mean [*homothety class of lattices contained in $\Zp^n$*]{}. It is then clear that every class contains a unique ($\leq$-) maximal lattice. We call $[\Zp^n]$ the [*special vertex*]{} or [*root vertex*]{}. Observation \[observation on ideals\] amounts to saying that ideals define a simplicial subcomplex of $\D_n$. Before we show how this subcomplex may be described effectively for a class-$2$-nilpotent -group, we have to set up some notation. Every building is glued together from apartments. The apartments of $\D_n$ are simplicial subcomplexes, isomorphic to Euclidean $(n-1)$-space tessellated by $(n-1)$-dimensional simplices. There is a $1-1$-correspondence between apartments and decompositions of $\Qp^n$ into a direct sum of lines. Any choice of generators of these lines gives a basis for $\Qp^n$, and vertices contained in a fixed apartment correspond to lattices with $p$-power multiples of this basis’ elements as elementary divisor basis. \[figure-sectorbundle\] Apartments containing the special vertex will be called [*special*]{}. There is a $1-1$-correspondence between special apartments and decompositions of $\Zp^n$ into a direct sum of $\Zp$-modules of rank $1$. Each special apartment falls naturally into $|S_n|=n!$ [*sectors*]{} with the root as vertex: given an [*ordered*]{} $\Zp$-basis $(e_1,\dots,e_n)$ for $\Zp^n$ and a permutation $\sigma\in S_n$, the sector corresponding to $\sigma$ is defined to be the simplicial subcomplex generated by classes of lattices $$\langle p^{r_{1}}e_{\sigma(1)},\dots, p^{r_{n}}e_{\sigma(n)} \rangle,\;r_{1}\geq r_{2} \geq \dots \geq r_{n}\in\N.$$ Note that this decomposition of special apartments into sectors is not disjoint. Every $1$-codimensional simplex is contained in $p+1$ maximal simplices and any vertices’ [*link*]{}[^3] is isomorphic to the [*flag complex*]{} $\mathcal{F}(\Fp^n)=\mathcal{F}(p,n)$, say, whose vertices are the proper subspaces of $\Fp^n$ together with the obvious incidence relation. We say that sectors are [*equivalent mod $p$*]{} if they have the first maximal simplex (i.e. the one containing the root) in common. We will call the equivalence classes [*sector-families*]{}. They are indexed by complete flags $F$ in $\Fp^d$. A sector’s [*boundary*]{} is defined to be the simplicial subcomplex generated by the subset of its vertices which are contained in at least two sectors[^4] inequivalent mod $p$. A sector-family’s [*boundary*]{} is defined to be the union of the boundaries of its sectors. We will use the notation $\mathcal{S}_F$, $\partial\mathcal{S}_F$, $\mathcal{S}^{\circ}_F$ to denote the sector-family indexed by the flag $F$, its boundary and interior, respectively. Notice that sector-families overlap at their boundaries. Sector-families have a natural interpretation as fibres of maximal simplices under the “reduction mod $p$”-map $\pi:X^{\infty}\D_n\rightarrow X^0\D_n$ from the (spherical) Tits building at infinity to the (spherical) Tits building “around the special vertex”. These are just the usual buildings for $Gl_n(\Qp)$ and $Gl_n(\Fp)$, respectively. We should like to thank Linus Kramer for pointing this out to us. $\D_n$ and -groups of class $2$ ------------------------------- From now on, let $\LieL$ be a Lie ring corresponding to a class $2$ nilpotent -group, with derived ring $\LieL'$, finitely presented by $$\LieL=\langle x_1,\dots,x_d,y_1,\dots,y_{d'}|\;(x_i,x_j)=M({\bf y})_{ij}\rangle,\label{Lie ring presentation}$$ where $M({\bf y})$ is a matrix of $\Z$-linear forms in $y_1,\dots,y_{d'}$. Following [@Segal/83], Chapter 11, Section C, we define a full alternating bilinear map $$\begin{aligned} \phi_{\LieL}:(\LieL/\LieL')\times (\LieL/\LieL')&\rightarrow& \LieL'\label{bilinear map} \\ (a\LieL',b\LieL')&\mapsto&(a,b). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We say that the matrix $M$ represents the map $\phi_{\LieL}$ and refer to the square root of the determinant $M$ as the Pfaffian associated to $\phi_{\LieL}$ or even to $\LieL$. Let $p$ be a prime number such that $\LieL_p/{\LieL_p'}$ is torsion-free. In this chapter we show how the local normal zeta function $\z_{\LieL,p}(s)$ depends on the bilinear map (\[bilinear map\]) and how it can be computed effectively in terms of an integer-valued weight function on the vertices of the Bruhat-Tits building $\D_{d'}$. A lattice $\L$ in $\LieL_p$ gives rise to a pair $(\Lab,\Lcen)$ of a lattice $$\Lcen:=\L\cap \LieL_p'\leq\LieL_p'$$ in the derived ring and a lattice $$\Lab:=(\L+\LieL_p')/\LieL_p'\leq\LieL_p/\LieL_p'$$ in the abelian quotient. It is easy to see that this map is surjective and $|\LieL_p':\Lcen|^d$ to $1$. The lattice $\L$ defines an ideal if and only if its associated pair $(\Lab,\Lcen)$ is [*admissible*]{} in the following sense. \[admissible pairs\]A pair $(\Lab,\Lcen)$, $\Lab\subseteq\LieL_p/\LieL_p',\,\Lcen\subseteq\LieL_p'$ is [admissible]{} if $$\forall j \in \{1,\dots,d\}:\;\phi_j\Lambda_{ab} \subseteq \Lcen \label{latticecondition}$$ where $\phi_j$ denotes the linear map $v \mapsto (v,x_j)$ and $x_j,\,j=1,\dots,d$ are the Lie generators of $\LieL$. A lattice $\Lab$ is called [admissible for $\Lcen$]{} if (,) form an admissible pair. Keeping track of the index of the largest lattice $\Lab$ admissible for a given $\Lcen$ is sufficient to compute the normal zeta function. More precisely, we put $$X(\Lcen)/\Lcen:=Z(\LieL_p/\Lcen)$$ and have $$\z_{\LieL_p}(s)=\z_{\Zp^d}(s)\sum_{\Lcen\subseteq\LieL_p'}|\LieL_p':\Lcen|^{d-s}|\LieL_p:X(\Lcen)|^{-s}. \label{GSS-Lemma6.1}$$ This is essentially Lemma 6.1. in [@GSS/88]. Our aim is to understand the function $\Lcen\mapsto|\LieL_p:X(\Lcen)|$. Let us assume first that $\Lcen$ is maximal in its class and of elementary divisor type $$\nu=(p^{r_1},p^{r_2},\dots,p^{r_{d'-1}},1),\;r_1\geq r_2\geq\dots\geq r_{d'-1}\in\N.$$ If $\Mcen$ is a matrix whose rows contain the coordinates of generators for $\Lcen$ over $\Zp$, written with respect to the chosen $\Zp$-basis for $\LieL_p$, we will write $\Lcen=\Zp^{d'}\cdot \Mcen$, which is standard notation. As $Sl_{d'}(\Zp)$ acts transitively on lattices with a fixed elementary divisor type there exists $\alpha \in Sl_{d'}(\Zp)$ such that $$\Zp^{d'}\cdot\Mcen\alpha=\Zp^{d'}\cdot\mbox{diag}(p^{r_1},p^{r_2},\dots,p^{r_{d'-1}},1),$$ Note that $\alpha$ is unique only up to multiplication from the right by an element of $G_{\nu}$, the stabilizer in $Sl_{d'}(\Zp)$ of the lattice spanned by the diagonal matrix. We write $\alpha^i$ for the $i$-th column of the matrix $\alpha$ and $\alpha_i^j$ for its $ij$-th entry. Let $C_j$ be the matrices of the linear maps $\phi_j$ (“Lie-bracketing with the $j$-th Lie-generator”) for $j=1,\dots,d$. The condition (\[latticecondition\]) for a lattice $\Lab=\Zp^d\cdot\Mab$ to be admissible for the lattice $\Lcen=\Zp^{d'}\cdot\Mcen$ may be rephrased as $$\begin{aligned} \forall j \in \{1,\dots, d\}:\;\Zp^{d'}\cdot\Mab C_j & \subseteq & \Zp^{d'}\cdot\Mcen\Leftrightarrow \nonumber\\ \forall j:\;\Zp^{d'}\cdot\Mab C_j \alpha & \subseteq & \Zp^{d'}\cdot\mbox{diag}(p^{r_1},p^{r_2},\dots,p^{r_{d'-1}},1)\Leftrightarrow \nonumber\\ \forall j,\;\forall i \in \{1,\dots,d'-1\}:\; \Mab C_j\alpha^i &\equiv& 0 \mbox{ mod } p^{r_i} \Leftrightarrow \nonumber \\ \forall i: \; \Mab M(\alpha^i) &\equiv& 0 \mbox{ mod } p^{r_i}. \label{newlatticecondition}\end{aligned}$$ To be admissible for $\Lcen$, the lattice $\Lab$ has to be contained in the solution space of a system of linear equations in $\mathbb{Z}/(p^{r_1})$. Here we interpret congruences mod $p^{r_i}$ as congruences mod $p^{r_1}$ in the obvious way: $x\equiv0\mod p^{r_i}\Leftrightarrow p^{r_1-r_i}x\equiv0\mod p^{r_1}$. Let $\{e_j\}_{1\leq j\leq d}$ denote the elementary divisors of this system of linear equations. Then - with respect to suitable coordinates for the abelianisation $\LieL_p/{\LieL_p'}$ - condition (\[newlatticecondition\]) reads as $$\Mab\,\mbox{diag}(p^{e_1},\dots,p^{e_d})\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod }p^{r_1}.$$ As $\phi_{\LieL}$ is full, $e_i\leq r_1$ for all $i$ and thus $$|\LieL_p:X(\Lcen)|=p^{\sum_{i=1}^{d}(r_1-e_i)}. \label{formula-for-index-of-X(Lcen)}$$ If, in general, $\Lcen=p^r\Lcen^{max}$, where $\Lcen^{max}$ is the maximal element in the homothety class, the same analysis applies if we replace $r_i$ by $r_i+r$ in (\[newlatticecondition\]). It is thus easy to see that $$|\LieL_p:X(\Lcen)|=p^{rd}|\LieL_p:X(\Lcen^{max})|.\label{formula:hom. class}$$ \[definition:new-weight-function\] Let $[\Lcen]$ be a vertex in $\D_{d'}$. Set $$\begin{aligned} w([\Lcen])&:=&log_p(|\LieL_p':\Lcen^{max}|),\label{weight_function}\\ w'([\Lcen])&:=& w([\Lcen])+\mbox{log}_p(|\LieL_p:X(\Lcen^{max})|).\label{new_weight_function}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lcen^{max}$ denotes the $\leq$-maximal element in $[\Lcen]$. We can now express $\z_{\LieL,p}(s)$ via a generating function associated to a weight function on the vertices of the building $\Delta_{d'}$. \[lemma 1\] Let $$A(p,T):=\sum_{[\Lcen]}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot d}T^{w'([\Lcen])} \label{new_generating_function}$$ where $\Lcen$ ranges over the full lattices within the derived ring $\LieL'$. Then $$\boxed{\zeta_{\LieL_p}^\triangleleft(s)=\zeta_{\Zp^d}(s)\zeta_p((d+d')s-dd')A(p,p^{-s}).\label{reduction to weight function}}$$ Combine (\[GSS-Lemma6.1\]), (\[formula:hom. class\]) and Definition \[definition:new-weight-function\]. We are thus left with the study of the generating function $A(p,T)$. For future reference we note the following \[observation:fu.eq.\] $$\begin{aligned} \z_{\LieL,p}(s)|_{p\rightarrow p^{-1}}&=&(-1)^{d+d'}p^{\binom{d+d'}{2}-(2d+d')s}\cdot\z_{\LieL,p}(s) \Leftrightarrow \label{fun.eq.}\\ A(p,T)|_{\substack{p \rightarrow p^{-1} \\T \rightarrow T^{-1}}}&=&(-1)^{d'-1}p^{\binom{d'}{2}}\cdot A(p,T). \label{fun.eq.buildings}\end{aligned}$$ -groups of class $2$ with centres of rank $2$ {#section3} ============================================= In this section we will prove Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\]. To that purpose we will recall in \[classification\] the classification of class $2$ -groups with centres of Hirsch length $2$ up to commensurability given by Grunewald and Segal. In \[building blocks\] we compute the normal zeta functions of the “building blocks” in this classification. This will leave us well prepared to prove Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] in \[proof of theorem 2\]. Classification up to commensurability {#classification} ------------------------------------- In [@GSegal/84] Grunewald and Segal give a classification of [*radicable*]{} -groups of class $2$ and of finite Hirsch length with centres of Hirsch length $2$, called $\mathcal{D}^*$-groups. As this classification is just up to commensurability we may assume that $Z(G)/G'$ is [*free*]{} abelian of rank $\leq 1$, where $Z(G)$ is the centre of the group. As the well known classification of alternating bilinear forms yields the classification of -groups with $G'$ cyclic (cf. [@GScharlau/79]) one may assume that this quotient is indeed trivial. In other words we may assume that the alternating bilinear map $$\begin{aligned} \phi_{G}:G/Z(G)\times G/Z(G)&\rightarrow&Z(G) \label{bilinear map - groups} \\ (aZ(G),bZ(G))&\mapsto&[a,b] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is full. To make this paper self-contained we recall a Definition and Theorems $6.2$ and $6.3$ of Grunewald and Segal ([@GSegal/84]) with slightly adjusted notation. Let $G$ be a -group. A central decomposition of $G$ is a family $\{H_1,\dots,H_m\}$ of subgroups of $G$ such that 1. $Z(H_i)=Z(G)$ for each i; 2.  $G/Z(G)$ is the direct product of the subgroups $H_i/Z(G)$; and 3. $[H_i,H_j]=1$ whenever $i\not=j$. The group $G$ is (centrally) indecomposable if the only such decomposition is $\{G\}$. \[GS-theorem 1\] Every -group $G$ has a central decomposition into decomposable constituents, and the decomposition is unique up to an automorphism of $G$. In particular, the constituents are unique up to isomorphism. \[GS-theorem 2\] (i) Let $G$ be an indecomposable -group of Hirsch length $n+2$. Then, with respect to a suitable basis of $G/Z(G)$ and a suitable basis $(y_1,y_2)$ of $Z(G)$, the map $\phi_G$ is represented by a matrix $M({\bf y})$ as follows: - $n=2r+1.$ $$M({\bf y})=M^{r}_0({\bf y})=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0&{\bf B} \\ -{\bf B}^t&0 \end{array} \right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned} {\bf B}={\bf B}({\bf y})&=&\left( \begin{array}{ccccc} y_2 & 0 & 0&\ldots & 0 \\ y_1 & y_2 & 0&\ldots & 0 \\ 0 & y_1 & y_2&\ldots & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & y_1&\ldots & 0 \\ 0 & & & \vdots & \\ 0 & 0 & 0&\ldots & y_2 \\ 0 & 0 & 0&\ldots & y_1 \end{array} \right)_{(r+1)\times r}\label{indecomposable-odd-presentation}\end{aligned}$$ - $n=2r.$ $$M({\bf y})=M_{(f,e)}({\bf y})=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0&{\bf B} \\ -{\bf B}^t&0 \end{array} \right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned} {\bf B}={\bf B}({\bf y})&=&\left( \begin{array}{cccccc} y_1+a_1y_2 & y_2 & 0 & 0&\ldots & 0 \\ -a_2y_2 & y_1 & y_2 & 0&\ldots & 0 \\ a_3y_2 & 0 & y_1 & y_2&\ldots & 0 \\ -a_4y_2 & 0 & 0 & y_1&\ldots & 0 \\ \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\ (-1)^ra_{r-1}y_2 & 0 & 0 & 0&\ldots & y_2 \\ (-1)^{r+1}a_{r}y_2 & 0 & 0 & 0&\ldots & y_1 \end{array} \right)_{r\times r}\label{indecomposable-even-presentation}\end{aligned}$$ and $det({\bf B}({\bf y}))=g(y_1,y_2)=y_1^r+a_1y_1^{r-1}y_2+\dots+a_ry_2^r\in\mathbb{Q}[y_1,y_2]$ \[polynomial\_equation\] is such that $g(y_1,1)$ is primary, say $g=f^e$ for $f$ irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, $e\in \mathbb{N}$. \(ii) If $G$ is any -group, then with respect to a suitable basis as above, $\phi_G$ is represented by the diagonal sum of matrices like $M({\bf y})$ above. Zeta functions of indecomposable -groups {#building blocks} ---------------------------------------- We will now compute the local normal zeta functions of indecomposable -groups of odd and even Hirsch length in Propositions \[indecomposable\_odd\] and \[indecomposable\_even\], respectively. \[indecomposable\_odd\] Assume $G$ is an indecomposable -group of Hirsch length $2r+1+2$ as in the statement of Theorem \[GS-theorem 2\] above with $r\geq 1$. Then for all primes $p$ $$A(p,T)=\frac{1+p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}}{1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1}}. \label {formula indecomposable odd}$$ Recall from Lemma \[lemma 1\] that $$A(p,T)=\sum_{[\Lcen]}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot(2r+1)}T^{w'([\Lcen])}$$ for weight functions $w,w'$ defined in Definition \[definition:new-weight-function\] on vertices $[\Lcen]$ of the Bruhat-Tits tree. The integer $w([\Lcen])$ is just the vertices’ distance from the root vertex, i.e. the length of the shortest path from $[\Zp^2]$ to $[\Lcen]$. For a given maximal lattice $\Lcen$ of elementary divisor type $(p^{s},1)$, $s \geq 0$, there is an element $\alpha =(\alpha_i^j)\in Sl_2(\Zp)$ such that the admissibility condition (\[newlatticecondition\]) becomes $$\Lab M_0^r(\alpha^1 )\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod } p^s$$ Notice that the $(2r+1)\times(2r+1)$-matrix $M_0^r(\alpha^1 )$ has always determinant zero and a $2r$-minor which is a $p$-adic unit which follows from inspection of the matrix in (\[indecomposable-odd-presentation\]). Recall that by Definition \[definition:new-weight-function\] the integer $w'([\Lcen])$ measures the index of $\Lcen$ in $\LieL_p'$ and the largest lattice in the abelian quotient admissible for $\Lcen$. In the present case it is easy to verify that $$\boxed{w'([\Lcen])=s+2rs.}$$ The $p+1$ sector-families in the Bruhat-Tits tree are just the sub-trees generated by the root vertex together with one of its neighbours and all of its descendants. They overlap in their boundary, the root vertex. The generating function restricted to the [*interior*]{} of any of the $p+1$ sector-families will therefore equal $$\frac{p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}}{1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1}}.$$ Summing over all $p+1$ sector-families gives $$A(p,T)=1+(p+1)\frac{p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}}{1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1}}=\frac{1+p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}}{1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1}}$$ as claimed. We apply Observation \[observation:fu.eq.\] to equation (\[formula indecomposable odd\]) to deduce \[fun.eq. for indecomposable\_odd\] For all primes $p$ $$\z_{G,p}(s)|_{p\rightarrow p^{-1}}=-p^{\binom{2r+3}{2}-(4r+4)s}\cdot\z_{G,p}(s)$$ $\Box$ Indecomposable -groups of even Hirsch length are more interesting: \[indecomposable\_even\]Assume $G$ is an indecomposable -group of Hirsch length $2r+2$ as in Theorem \[GS-theorem 2\] above with $g=f^e$, $f$ irreducible over $\Q$, $e\in \mathbb{N}$, and let $p$ be a prime unramified in $\Q[t]/f(t)$. Let $\fFp$ be the number of distinct [*linear*]{} factors in $\overline{f(t)}$, the reduction of $f(t)$ mod $p$. Then $$A(p,T)=\frac{P_1(p,T)+\fFp P_2(p,T)}{(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1})(1-p^{(2r+1)e-1}T^{(2r-1)e})},\label{formula:indecomposable_even}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} P_1(p,T)&=&(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})(1+p^{2r}T^{2r+1})(1-p^{(2r+1)e-1}T^{(2r-1)e}), \nonumber \\ P_2(p,T)&=&p^{2r}T^{2r-1}(1-T^2)(1-p^{(2r+1)e}T^{(2r-1)e})\label{formula: W_i indecomposable even}.\end{aligned}$$ It is well-known that, for almost all primes $p$, the reduction mod $p$ of the minimal polynomial of a primitive element of a finite extension $K/\mathbb{Q}$ determines the decomposition behaviour of the prime $p$ in the ring of integers $\oK$ (cf [@Neukirch/92], Satz (8.3)). Du Sautoy and Grunewald ([@duSG/00]), however, proved the existence of associated varieties whose reduction behaviour mod $p$ governs the local zeta functions. The two questions “overlap” if these varieties are zero-dimensional. We note that $d=2r=2e\deg(f)$, $d'=2$. For a given maximal lattice $\Lcen$ of type $(p^{s},1)$, $s \geq 1$, there exists $\alpha =(\alpha_i^j)\in Sl_2(\Zp)$ such that that the admissibility condition (\[newlatticecondition\]) reads as $$\Lab M_{(f,e)}(\alpha^1 )\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod } p^s.$$ The column vector $\alpha^1=(\alpha_1^1,\alpha_2^1)^t$ is unique only up to multiplication by a $p$-adic unit and up to addition of multiples of $p^s\cdot\alpha^2$ and therefore determines a unique element in $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/(p^s)).$ In particular, $v_p(f(\alpha^1)) \leq s,$ where $v_p$ is the $p$-adic valuation. We say that $$[\Lcen]\equiv x\;:\Leftrightarrow \alpha^1 \equiv x \mbox{ mod }p, \;x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p).$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} A(p,T)&=&1+\sum_{x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)} \sum_{[\Lcen]\equiv x}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}\nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)}\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{p+1}y+\sum_{[\Lcen]\equiv x}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}\right)}_{=:A(p,T,x)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here we have distributed the constant term of $A(p,T)$ over the $p+1$ sector-families to get a formal sum over the points in $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)$. For the computation of the $A(p,T,x)$ we only have to distinguish two cases: Case 1: : $ f(x)\not\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod } p.$ Case 2: : $ f(x)\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod } p,$ i.e. $x$ is a [*simple[^5] zero*]{} mod $p$. As to case 1: $M_{(f,e)}(\alpha^1 )$ has unit determinant in this case, so by Definition \[definition:new-weight-function\] $$w'([\Lcen])=s(2r+1).$$ We readily compute $$A(p,T,x)=\frac{1}{p+1}+\frac{p^{2r}T^{2r+1}}{1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}}=:A_{\emptyset}(p,T) \label{A_emptyset}.$$ As to case 2: By Hensel’s Lemma we know that a simple zero of $f(t)$ mod $p$ lifts to a zero mod $p^n$ for all $n$ and “eventually” to a zero in $\Zp$. Vertices of the Bruhat-Tits tree with distance $n$ from the root vertex are identified with points on the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/p^n)$. A zero in $\mathbb{P}^1(\Qp)$ may hence be viewed as an end in the Bruhat-Tits tree. We know that $f$ has a simple zero mod $p$ at $x\equiv\alpha^1$. However, $w'([\Lcen])$ depends on the exact vanishing order of $f(\alpha^1)$ mod $p^s$. By Definition \[definition:new-weight-function\] we have $$\boxed{w'([\Lcen])=s+2(rs-\mbox{min}\{s,e\cdot v_p(f(\alpha^1))\}).} \label{weight irreducible, non-unit case}$$ This follows from the fact that the matrix $M(\alpha^1)$ always has a $2(r-1)\mbox{-minor}$ which is a $p$-adic unit, which again follows from inspection of the presentation (\[indecomposable-even-presentation\]). Thus the map $$[\Lcen] \mapsto p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}$$ factorizes over the set $\coneN:=\{(a,b)\in \mathbb{N}_{>0}^2|\; a\geq b \geq 1\}$ as $\psi \phi$ where $$\begin{aligned} \phi:[\Lcen] &\mapsto & (s, v_p(f(\alpha^1))) \nonumber \\ \psi:(a,b) &\mapsto &p^{2ra}T^{(2r+1)a-2min\{a,eb\}}. \label{formula-factorization-over-cone}\end{aligned}$$ We view $N$ as intersection of $\N_{>0}^2$ with a closed rational polyhedral cone $C$ in $\mathbb{R}_{>0}^2$. Notice that the cardinality of the preimage of $\phi$ is given by $$\label{preimage phi} |\phi^{-1}(a,b)|=\left\{\begin{array}{cl} 1 & \mbox{if }a=b, \\ (1-p^{-1})p^{a-b} & \mbox{if }a>b. \end{array} \right.$$ What we want to compute is $$A(p,T,x)=\frac{1}{p+1}+\sum_{(a,b) \in N} |\phi^{-1}(a,b)| \psi(a,b). \label{gen.fun.over S}$$ In order to eliminate the “$\min$” in the expression (\[formula-factorization-over-cone\]) we decompose the sector $N$ into sub-cones $N_j$ on which it is easier to sum over $|\phi^{-1}(a,b)| \psi(a,b)$. The technical idea is to substitute the variables $X,Y$ in the zeta functions for the respective sub-cones $N_j$ by certain Laurent monomials[^6] $m_{jX}(p,T)$, $m_{jY}(p,T)$ in $p$ and $T$. We choose the decomposition $$\begin{aligned} N&=&N_0+N_1 + N_2, \\ N_0&:=& \{(a,b)\in N|\; a=b\geq 1\},\nonumber \\ N_1&:=& \{(a,b)\in N|\; eb>a>b\geq1\}, \nonumber \\ N_2&:=& \{(a,b)\in N|\; a \geq eb\}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with respective zeta functions $$\begin{aligned} F_0(X,Y)&:=&\sum_{\substack{(a,b)\in N_0}}X^aY^b=\frac{YX}{1-YX},\nonumber\\ F_1(X,Y)&:=&\sum_{\substack{(a,b)\in N_1}}X^aY^b=\frac{YX^2}{(1-X)(1-YX)}-\frac{YX^e}{(1-X)(1-YX^e)}, \nonumber \\ F_2(X,Y)&:=&\sum_{\substack{(a,b)\in N_2}}X^aY^b=\frac{YX^e}{(1-X)(1-YX^e)}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We set $n_j:=\dim(N_j)$, $j=0,1,2$, where, of course, by the [*dimension*]{} of $N_j$ we mean the dimension of the corresponding polyhedral cone in $\mathbb{R}_{>0}^2$. The Laurent monomials in $p,T$ which we have to substitute for $X,Y$ are easily read off from formulae (\[formula-factorization-over-cone\]) and (\[preimage phi\]). We have $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{A(p,T,x)=\frac{1}{p+1}+\sum_{j=0}^2(1-p^{-1})^{n_j-1}F_j(X,Y)|_{\substack{X=m_{jX}(p,T)\\Y=m_{jY}(p,T)}}}\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{p+1}+F_0(p^{2r}T^{2r+1},T^{-2}) \nonumber \\ &&\quad +(1-p^{-1})\left(F_1(p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1},p^{-1})+F_2(p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1},p^{-1}T^{-2e})\right) \nonumber\\ &=:&A_{\{1\}}(p,T). \label{A_1}\end{aligned}$$ The formula for $A(p,T)$ is now obtained by counting occurrences of the two cases and routine computations with rational functions. Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{A(p,T)=\left(p+1-\fFp \right)A_{\emptyset}(p,T)+\fFp A_{\{1\}}(p,T)=}\nonumber \\ &&\frac{P_1(p,T)+\fFp P_2(p,T)}{(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1})(1-p^{(2r+1)e-1}T^{(2r-1)e})},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $P_i(p,T)$, $i=1,2$ defined as in the statement of Proposition \[indecomposable\_even\]. We apply Observation \[observation:fu.eq.\] to equation (\[formula: W\_i indecomposable even\]) to deduce \[fun.eq. for indecomposable\_even\] For almost all primes $p$ $$\z_{G,p}(s)|_{p\rightarrow p^{-1}}=-p^{\binom{2r+2}{2}-(4r+2)s}\cdot\z_{G,p}(s)$$ $\Box$ Proof of Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\] {#proof of theorem 2} --------------------------------------------------- As commensurable -groups have identical local zeta functions for almost all primes we may assume $G$ is a -group and that $\LieL(G)$ is presented as in (\[Lie ring presentation\]) where $$\begin{aligned} M({\bf y})&:=&\bigoplus_{i=1}^m M_{(f_i,{\bf e}_i)}({\bf y})\oplus \bigoplus_{k=1}^n \underbrace{M_0^{l_k}({\bf y})}_{\substack{\mbox{``indecomp. of odd}\\ \mbox{Hirsch length''} }}, \label{general Dstar Lie algebra presentation formula} \\ M_{(f_i,{\bf e}_i)}({\bf y})&:=&\oplus_{j=1}^{r_i} \underbrace{M_{(f_i,e_{ij})}({\bf y})}_{\substack{\mbox{``indecomp. of even}\\ \mbox{Hirsch length''} }},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for a set of irreducible polynomials $\mathcal{F}=\{f_1,\dots,f_m\}$ of degree $deg(f_i)=d_i$ and suitable $m,n,l_k,e_{ij},\,r_i\in\N$, using the notation of Theorem \[GS-theorem 2\]. The vector ${\bf e}_i=(e_{ij})$ will be called the [vector of multiplicities of $f_i$]{}. Note that (\[general Dstar Lie algebra presentation formula\]) just spells out $(ii)$ of Theorem \[GS-theorem 2\] and that $$d=\sum_{i=1}^{m}2d_i\left(\sum_{j=1}^{r_i}e_{ij}\right)+\sum_{k=1}^n(2l_k+1),\: d'=2.$$ Excluding a finite set of primes if necessary we may assume that $p$ is unramified in each of the $\Q[t]/f_i(t)$, $f_i\in\mathcal{F},$ and that if any two polynomials $f_i,f_j\in\mathcal{F}$ have simple zeros $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_j$ in $\Zp$ and $\alpha_i\equiv\alpha_j\mod p$, then $\alpha_i=\alpha_j$. Viewing roots as ends in the Bruhat-Tits tree emanating from the root gives an easy geometric interpretation this condition: distinct ends shall only have the root in common. Again we have to analyse $$A(p,T)=\sum_{x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)}\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{p+1}+\sum_{[\Lcen]\equiv x}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}\right)}_{=A(p,T,x)}.$$ In fact we will see that, for $x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)$, $A(p,T,x)$ is a rational function which only depends on the set of $f_i$’s, together with their multiplicities, which happen to have a simple zero at $x$, and on $\sum_{k=1}^nl_k$ and $n$, the total size and number of “indecomposable blocks of odd Hirsch length”. In particular the dependence of $A(p,T,x)$ [*on the prime $p$*]{} will be encoded in the set $$I(x):=\{i\in \{1,\dots,m\}|\,f_i(x)\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod }p \}$$ so that for $I\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ we may set $$A_{I}(p,T):=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} A(p,T,x) & \mbox{ if } I=I(x)\mbox{ for some }x\in\mathbb{P}^1(\Fp),\\ 0 &\mbox{ otherwise.} \end{array} \right.\label{A(p,T,x) depends only on I(x)}$$ Assuming for a moment that (\[A(p,T,x) depends only on I(x)\]) is well-defined we have $$\begin{aligned} A(p,T)&=&\sum_{x\in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_p)} A(p,T,x)=\nonumber\\ &&\sum_{I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}}c_{p,I}A_{I}(p,T)=\label{c_p,I-formula}\\ &&(p+1)A_{\emptyset}(p,T)+\sum_{I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}}c_{p,I}\left(A_{I}(p,T)-A_{\emptyset}(p,T)\right), \label{functional-equation-formula}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{p,I}$ are defined as in Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\]. Note that $\sum_{I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}}c_{p,I}=p+1$ trivially. Together with Lemma \[lemma 1\], formula (\[c\_p,I-formula\]) clearly implies the first part of Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\], whereas the functional equation will follow from (\[functional-equation-formula\]) and Observation \[observation:fu.eq.\] once we have established that $$A'_{I}(p,T):=\left\{\begin{array}{rl} (p+1)A_{\emptyset}(p,T) & \mbox{ if }\emptyset=I ,y\\ A_{I}(p,T)-A_{\emptyset}(p,T)& \mbox{ if }\emptyset\not=I\subseteq \{1,\dots,m\} \end{array}\right.$$ satisfies the functional equation $$A'_I(p,T)|_{\substack{p \rightarrow p^{-1} \\T \rightarrow T^{-1} }}=-p \cdot A'_{I}(p,T),\; I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}. \label{functional-equation_A'_I(p,T)}$$ We now proceed to compute $A_{\emptyset}(p,T)$ and show that our definition (\[A(p,T,x) depends only on I(x)\]) is well-defined for a general $\emptyset\not=I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}.$ We will give an algorithm for the computation of the $A_{I}(p,T)$, $I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}$ and prove inductively that the rational functions $A'_{I}(p,T)$ satisfy the functional equation (\[functional-equation\_A’\_I(p,T)\]). To compute $A(p,T,x)$ for $x$ such that $f_i(x)\not\equiv 0$ mod $p$ for all $1\leq i \leq m$ fix a class $[\Lcen]\equiv x$ of distance $s$ from the root. Consider the admissibility condition $$\Lab M(\alpha^1 )\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod } p^s.$$ By our choice of $x$ all the $M_{(f_i,{\bf e}_i)}(\alpha^1)$, $1\leq k \leq n$, have unit determinant. All the $M_0^{l_k}(\alpha^1)$ have determinant zero but have a unit minor of maximal size. It follows that $$w'([\Lcen])=s(d+1-n)$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned} A'_{\emptyset}(p,T)&=&(p+1)A_{\emptyset}(p,T)=\frac{1+p^dT^{d+1-n}}{1-p^{d+1}T^{d+1-n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $I=\emptyset$, one easily reads off the functional equation (\[functional-equation\_A’\_I(p,T)\]). Now we consider $A(p,T,x)$ for an $x$ such that $$\exists\;1\leq i \leq m:f_i(x)\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod }p$$ and we set $I(x):=\{i\in \{1,\dots,m\}|\,f_i(x)\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod }p\}\not=\emptyset$. Fix a class $[\Lcen]\equiv x$ of distance $s$ from the root. It is determined by an element $\alpha^1\in\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/(p^s))$ congruent to $x$ mod $p$. We may assume that locally around $x$ all the $f_i(t)$, $i\in I(x)$, are given by $u_it=0$ for some $p$-adic units $u_i\in\Zp^*$. We put $v_p(\alpha^1)=c$, $1\leq c \leq s$. Then $$w'([\Lcen])=s(d+1-n)-2(\sum_{i\in I(x)}\sum_{j=1}^{r_i}\min(s,e_{ij}\cdot c)).$$ (We recover formula (\[weight irreducible, non-unit case\]) as a special case.) Exactly as in the proof of Theorem \[indecomposable\_even\], the map $$[\Lcen] \mapsto p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot d}T^{w'([\Lcen])}$$ factorizes over the set $N:=\{(a,b)\in \mathbb{N}_{>0}^2|\; a\geq b \geq 1\}$ as $\psi \phi$ where $$\begin{aligned} \phi:[\Lcen] &\mapsto & (s,c) \nonumber \\ \psi:(a,b) &\mapsto &p^{ad}T^{a(d+1-n)-2(\sum_{i\in I}\sum_{j=1}^{r_i}\min(a,e_{ij}b))}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We have $$A(p,T,x)=\frac{1}{p+1}+\sum_{(a,b)\in N} |\phi^{-1}(a,b)| \psi(a,b), \label{gen.fun.over N}$$ a rational function in $p$ and $T$ which depends only on $({\bf e}_i)_{i\in I(x)}$, $d$ and $n$. This shows that $A_I(p,T)$ is well-defined and proves the first part of Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\]. We will now give an algorithm to compute the $A_I(p,T)$ and prove the functional equation. To ease notation we will rewrite $\psi$ such that $$\psi(a,b)=p^{ad}T^{c_0b+\sum_{r=1}^sc_rmin(a,e_rb)+c_{s+1}a} \label{rewrite psi}$$ with constants $c_i,e_r\in \mathbb{Z},\; i\in\{0,\dots, s+1\},\; r\in\{1,\dots,s\},\;e_r> 1$. We will apply the same trick as in the proof of Proposition \[indecomposable\_even\]: To eliminate the “min” in (\[rewrite psi\]) we again define sub-sectors $N_j$, $0 \leq j \leq s+1$, of $N$ on which $|\phi^{-1}(a,b)| \psi(a,b)$ are easier to sum over. We choose the subdivision $$\begin{aligned} N&=&N_0+N_1+\dots+N_{s+1}, \nonumber \\ N_0&:=&\{ (a,b)\in N|\;b=a \geq 1\}, \nonumber \\ N_1&:=&\{ (a,b)\in N|\; e_1b >a\geq b\geq 1\}, \nonumber \\ N_2&:=&\{ (a,b)\in N|\; e_2b > a \geq e_1b\}, \nonumber \\ &\vdots& \nonumber \\ N_{s+1}&:=&\{ (a,b)\in N|\;a \geq e_sb\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We put $n_j:=\dim(N_j)$ and observe that $n_0=1$ and $n_j=2$ for $1\leq j \leq s+1$. Let $$F_j(X,Y):=\sum_{(a,b)\in N_j}X^aY^b,\;0\leq j \leq s+1$$ denote the generating function for the sub-sector $N_j$. We can now break up the generating function $A_I(p,T)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} A_I(p,T)=A(p,T,x)&=&\frac{1}{p+1}+\sum_{j=0}^{s+1} \sum_{(a,b)\in N_j} |\phi^{-1}(a,b)| \psi(a,b)=\\ &&\frac{1}{p+1}+\sum_{j=0}^{s+1}(1-p^{-1})^{n_j-1}F_j(X,Y)|_{\substack{X=m_{jX}(p,T)\\Y=m_{jY}(p,T)}},$$ where $m_{jX}(p,T),m_{jY}(p,T)$, $0\leq j \leq s+1$, are suitable Laurent monomials. They are recorded in Table \[table-general-dstar-group\], together with the $n_j$ and the generating functions $F_j(X,Y)$. j $n_j$ $F_j(X,Y)$ $m_{jX}(p,T)$ $m_{jY}(p,T)$ ----- ------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 0 1 $\frac{YX}{1-YX}$ $p^{d+1}T^{\sum_{r=1}^{s+1}c_r}$ $p^{-1}T^{c_0}$ 1 2 $\frac{YX^2}{(1-X)(1-YX)}-\frac{YX^{e_1}}{(1-YX^{e_1})(1-X)}$ $p^{d+1}T^{\sum_{r=1}^{s+1}c_r}$ $p^{-1}T^{c_0}$ 2 2 $\frac{Y(X^{e_1}-X^{e_2})}{(1-YX^{e_1})(1-YX^{e_2})(1-X)}$ $p^{d+1}T^{\sum_{r=2}^{s+1}c_r}$ $p^{-1}T^{c_0+c_1e_1}$ s 2 $\frac{Y(X^{e_{s-1}}-X^{e_s})}{(1-YX^{e_{s-1}})(1-YX^{e_s})(1-X)}$ $p^{d+1}T^{c_s+c_{s+1}}$ $p^{-1}T^{c_0+\sum_{r=1}^{s-1}c_re_r}$ s+1 2 $\frac{YX^{e_s}}{(1-YX^{e_s})(1-X)}$ $p^{d+1}T^{c_{s+1}}$ $p^{-1}T^{c_0+\sum_{r=1}^{s}c_re_r}$ : In order to compute $A_I(p,T)$ one subdivides $N$ into sub-sectors $N_j$. \[table-general-dstar-group\] Note that the table contains all necessary data to compute $A_I(p,T)$ explicitly. Presently we are only interested in proving one feature of the resulting rational function - the functional equation of $A_I(p,T)-A_{\emptyset}(p,T)$. We will prove it by an induction on the number of $2$-dimensional sub-sectors of $N$. Proposition \[indecomposable\_even\] serves as induction base. Assume the functional equation holds for $s$ such sub-sectors. We want to show that it holds for $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{A'_I(p,T)=A_I(p,T)-A_{\emptyset}(p,T)=} \nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{(a,b)\in N}|\phi^{-1}(a,b)| T^{c_0b+\sum_{r=1}^sc_rmin(a,e_rb)+c_{s+1}a}-\frac{p^dT^{c_{s+1}}}{1-p^{d+1}T^{c_{s+1}}}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ By the induction hypothesis, we know that the rational function $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{B'_I(p,T):=B_I(p,T)-B_{\emptyset}(p,T)=} \nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{(a,b)\in N}|\phi^{-1}(a,b)| T^{c_0b+\sum_{r=1}^{s-1}c_rmin(a,e_rb)+(c_s+c_{s+1})a}-\frac{p^dT^{c_s+c_{s+1}}}{1-p^{d+1}T^{c_s+c_{s+1}}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ satisfies the functional equation. Note that $B'_I(p,T)$ does not need to come from a -group. It is clearly enough to show the functional equation for the difference $$\begin{aligned} C'_I(p,T)&:=&A'_I(p,T)-B'_I(p,T)=\nonumber\\ &&A_I(p,T)-B_I(p,T)-(A_{\emptyset}(p,T)-B_{\emptyset}(p,T)) \label{definition C'} \end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} A_{\emptyset}(p,T)-B_{\emptyset}(p,T)&=&\frac{p^dT^{c_{s+1}}(1-T^{c_s})}{(1-p^{d+1}T^{c_{s+1}})(1-p^{d+1}T^{c_s+c_{s+1}})} \label{A_emptyset-B_emptyset}\end{aligned}$$ As to $A_I(p,T)-B_I(p,T)$, note that the two functions differ only on the sector $N_{s+1}$, which makes the computation of their difference a lot easier. Using the last row of the above table and setting $$Z:=p^{(d+1)e_s-1}T^{\sum_{r=0}^sc_re_r+c_{s+1}e_s}$$ we find $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{A_I(p,T)-B_I(p,T)=}\nonumber\\ &&(1-p^{-1})F_{s+1}(X,Y)|_{\substack{X=p^{d+1}T^{c_{s+1}} \\Y=p^{-1}T^{c_0+\sum_{r=1}^sc_re_r}}}\nonumber\\ &&-(1-p^{-1})F_{s+1}(X,Y)|_{\substack{X=p^{d+1}T^{c_s+c_{s+1}} \\Y=p^{-1}T^{c_0+\sum_{r=1}^{s-1}c_re_r}}}=\nonumber\\ &&\frac{(p-1)Z\cdot p^{d}T^{c_{s+1}}(1-T^{c_s})}{(1-Z)(1-p^{d+1}T^{c_{s+1}})(1-p^{d+1}T^{c_s+c_{s+1}})} \label{A_I-B_I}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[A\_emptyset-B\_emptyset\]) and (\[A\_I-B\_I\]) in equation (\[definition C’\]) we get $$C'_I(p,T)=\left(\frac{(p-1)Z}{1-Z}-1\right)\frac{p^dT^{c_{s+1}}(1-T^{c_s})}{(1-p^{d+1}T^{c_{s+1}})(1-p^{d+1}T^{c_s+c_{s+1}})}$$ which clearly satisfies $$C'_I(p,T)|_{\substack{p\rightarrow p^{-1}\\T\rightarrow T^{-1}}}=-p^{-1}\cdot C'_I(p,T).$$ This prove Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\]. Proof of Theorem \[main theorem\] {#section4} ================================= We will compute the generating function $$A(p,T)=\sum_{[\Lcen]}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot 2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}$$ associated to the vertices of the building $\Delta_3$ as explained in Section \[section2\]. We will put to use the decomposition of $\Delta_3$ into [*sector-families*]{} $\SF$, $F\in\Fpthree$, the simplicial complex of proper subspaces in the finite vector space $\Fp^3$. This decomposition is not disjoint. Sector-families overlap at their [*boundaries*]{} $\partial\SF$, and care has to be taken not to over-count. We write $$\pthreetwo=p^2+p+1,\;\ptwoone=p+1$$ for the $p$-binomial coefficients. We thus have $$A(p,T)=\sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}(p,3)}\ApTSF$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \ApTSF&:=&\frac{1}{\pthreetwo \ptwoone}+\frac{1}{\ptwoone}\sum_{[\Zp^3]\not=[\Lcen]\in\partial\mathcal{S}_F}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}\nonumber\\ &&+\sum_{[\Lcen]\in\mathcal{S}_F^{\circ}}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}.\label{flag-formula}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the terms coming from vertices in the sector-family’s boundary are [*weighted*]{} by factors, reflecting the fact that they are shared by more than one sector-family. We will now explain why we decompose $\Delta_3$ into sector-families $\mathcal{S}_F$. For a given lattice $\Lcen$ of type $(p^{s+t},p^t,1)$, $s,t \geq 0$ there is a unique coset $$\alpha G_{\nu} \in Sl_3(\Zp)/G_{\nu},$$ where $G_{\nu}:=\mbox{Stab}_{Sl_3(\Zp)}(\Zp^3\cdot\mbox{diag}(p^{s+t},p^t,1))$, such that admissibility condition (\[newlatticecondition\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda_{ab}M(\alpha^1) &\equiv& 0\mbox{ mod } p^{s+t} \label{eqn_alpha1} \\ \Lambda_{ab}M(\alpha^2) &\equiv& 0\mbox{ mod } p^{t}, \label{eqn_alpha2} \end{aligned}$$ where we denote by $\a^j$ the $j$-th column of the matrix $\a$. We are free to multiply both $\a^1,\a^2$ by $p$-adic units and to add multiples of $p^s\a^2$ to $\a^1$ and multiples of $\a^1$ to $\a^2$. In particular, if $s\geq 1$ and $t \geq1$, the reduction mod $p$ $\overline{a^1}$ defines a [*point*]{} and $\langle \overline{a^1}, \overline{a^2} \rangle$ defines a [*line*]{} in $\PtwooverFp$, and $[\Lcen]$ defines a vertex in the [*interior*]{} of $\mathcal{S}_F$, where $F=( \overline{a^1},\langle \overline{a^1}, \overline{a^2} \rangle)$ in $\Fpthree$. As explained in Section \[section2\], we now have to analyse the elementary divisors of the systems of linear equations (\[eqn\_alpha1\]) and (\[eqn\_alpha2\]). This only depends on how the flag $F$ meets the [*degeneracy locus*]{} of the matrix $M({\bf y})$. As we are looking to prove a result for almost all primes $p$, we may assume $p+1>r$ to make sure that no line in $\mathbb{P}^2(\Fp)$ is contained in $\overline{V}$, where $V=(\det(R({\bf y}))=0)$. It thus suffices to compute $A(p,T,F)$ for the following two cases: Case 1: : \[offpoint-offline\] $det(R(\overline{a^1}))\not\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod }p$. $\ApTSF=:\Woffoff$. Case 2: : \[smoothpoint-offline\] $det(R(\overline{a^1}))\equiv 0 \mbox{ mod }p$. $\ApTSF=:\Wsmptoff$. Here the subscripts denote the flag’s relative position to the curve $V$: its point either defines a point [*off*]{} the curve or a [*smooth point*]{}, whereas the line is never a component of $V$. As to case 1: Both matrices in (\[eqn\_alpha1\]) and (\[eqn\_alpha2\]) are non-singular, so that admissibility conditions (\[eqn\_alpha1\]) and (\[eqn\_alpha2\]) become $$\Lab \equiv 0 \mbox{ mod } p^{s+t}.$$ We compute the weight function on vertices over this sector-family as $$\boxed{w'([\Lcen])={s+2t+2r(s+t)}={(2r+1)s+(2r+2)t}.}\label{weight function:A_off/off}$$ The boundary of a sector-family in $\Delta_3$ falls into three components: the root vertex, (maximal) lattices of type $(p^s,1,1)$, and lattices of type $(p^t,p^t,1)$. For $s,t\geq 1$ there are $p^{2(s-1)}$, $p^{2(t-1)}$ and $p^{s-1}p^{t-1}p^{s+t-1}=p^{2s+2t-3}$ lattices in $\SF$ of type $(p^s,1,1)$, $(p^t,p^t,1)$ and $(p^{s+t},p^t,1)$, respectively. If we write $\ApTSF$ as in (\[flag-formula\]), we therefore get $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\Woffoff=}\nonumber \\ &&\frac{1}{\pthreetwo \ptwoone}+\frac{1}{\ptwoone}\left(\sum_{s\geq 1}p^{(2r+2)s-2}T^{(2r+1)s}+\sum_{t\geq 1}p^{(4r+2)t-2}T^{(2r+2)t}\right)+\nonumber\\ &&\quad\sum_{s,t\geq 1}p^{(2r+2)s+(4r+2)t-3}T^{(2r+1)s+(2r+2)t}=\nonumber\\ &&\frac{1+p^{2r}T^{2r+1}+p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}+p^{4r}T^{2r+2}+p^{4r+1}T^{2r+2}+p^{6r+1}T^{4r+3}}{\pthreetwo\ptwoone(1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})}.\label{A_off/off}\end{aligned}$$ As to case 2: In this case, the matrix $M(\alpha^2)$ in (\[eqn\_alpha2\]) may be assumed to be non-singular, as the column vector $\alpha^2$ may be moved along the line $\langle \alpha^1,\alpha^2 \rangle$ and we assume that this line contains a point for which the matrix is not degenerate. We may choose affine local coordinates $(x,y,1)$ around $\alpha^1\in \mathbb{P}^2(\Zp)$ such that (\[eqn\_alpha1\]), (\[eqn\_alpha2\]) may be written as $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda_{ab}\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 &\mbox{diag}(x,1,\dots,1) \\ -\mbox{diag}(x,1,\dots,1) &0 \end{array} \right) &\equiv& 0 \mbox{ mod } p^{s+t} \\ \Lambda_{ab}&\equiv& 0\mbox{ mod } p^{t}\end{aligned}$$ ($x\in p\Z/(p^s)$). Therefore the weight function $w'$ is given by $$\boxed{w'([\Lcen])={(2r+1)s+(2r+2)t-2\min(s,v_p(x))}.} \label{weight function:A_smpt/off}$$ We begin by summing over the component of the boundary consisting of lattices of type $(p^s,1,1)$, $s\geq1$. We will do this generalizing the method which we developed to prove Theorem \[general rank 2 centres theorem\]. We observe that the map $$[\Lcen] \mapsto p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}$$ factorizes over the set $N:=\{(a,b,c) \in \mathbb{N}_{>0}^3|\;a\geq b, a \geq c\}$ - which we view again as the intersection of $\mathbb{N}_{>0}^3$ with some closed polyhedral cone $C$ in $\mathbb{R}_{>0}^3$ - as $\psi \phi$ where $$\begin{aligned} \phi:[\Lcen] &\mapsto& (s,v_p(x),v_p(y)) \nonumber \\ \psi:(a,b,c) &\mapsto& p^{2ra}T^{(2r+1)a-2\min(a,b)} \label{psi - smpt}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\label{preimage phi - smpt} |\phi^{-1}(a,b,c)|=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{if }a=b=c, \\ (1-p^{-1})\;p^{a-b} & \mbox{if }a>b, a=c, \\ (1-p^{-1})\;p^{a-c} & \mbox{if }a>c, a=b, \\ (1-p^{-1})^2p^{2a-b-c} & \mbox{if }a>b, a>c. \end{array} \right.$$ Again we will decompose the cone $N$ into sub-cones $N_j$ on which the values $|\phi^{-1}(a,b,c)|\psi(a,b,c)$ are easier to sum over. We choose the decomposition $$\begin{aligned} N&=&N_0+N_1+N_2+N_3, \label{subdivision N dim 3 into 4 parts}\\ N_0&:=&\{(a,b,c)\in N|\;a=b=c\geq 1\},\nonumber\\ N_1&:=&\{(a,b,c)\in N|\;a=c>b\geq 1\},\nonumber \\ N_2&:=&\{(a,b,c)\in N|\;a=b>c\geq 1\},\nonumber \\ N_3&:=&\{(a,b,c)\in N|\;a>b\geq 1,\,a>c\geq 1\}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Again we set $n_j:=\dim(N_j)$. Table \[smpt-table\] records the generating functions $F_j(X,Y,Z)$ together with the integers $n_j$ and Laurent monomials $m_{jX}(p,T)$, $m_{jY}(p,T)$, $m_{jZ}(p,T)$. The latter are easily read off from (\[psi - smpt\]) and (\[preimage phi - smpt\]). j $n_j$ $F_j(X,Y,Z)$ $m_{jX}(p,T)$ $m_{jY}(p,T)$ $m_{jZ}(p,T)$ --- ------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------- --------------- 0 1 $\frac{XYZ}{1-XYZ}$ $p^{2r}T^{2r+1}$ $T^{-2}$ $1$ 1 2 $\frac{X^2YZ^2}{(1-XYZ)(1-XZ)}$ $p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}$ $p^{-1}T^{-2}$ $1$ 2 2 $\frac{X^2Y^2Z}{(1-XYZ)(1-XY)}$ $p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1}$ $1$ $p^{-1}$ 3 3 $\frac{X^2YZ(1-X^2YZ)}{(1-XYZ)(1-XY)(1-XZ)(1-X)}$ $p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1}$ $p^{-1}T^{-2}$ $p^{-1}$ : Computing $\Wsmptoff$ - lattices of type $(p^s,1,1)$.[]{data-label="smpt-table"} We get an expression for the desired generating function counting over lattices of type $(p^s,1,1)$ in the boundary of this sector-family by substituting the respective Laurent monomials into the $F_j(X,Y,Z)$ and summing them up. More precisely: $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\sum_{[\Lcen]}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}=}\nonumber\\ &&\sum_{j=0}^3\sum_{(a,b,c)\in N_j}|\phi^{-1}(a,b,c)|\psi(a,b,c)= \nonumber \\ &&\sum_{j=0}^3(1-p^{-1})^{n_j-1}F_j(X,Y,Z)|_{\substack{ X=m_{jX}(p,T)\\ Y=m_{jY}(p,T)\\ Z=m_{jZ}(p,T)}}=\nonumber\\ &&\frac{p^{2r}T^{2r-1}(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1})}{(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})}, \label{gen.fu.smpt}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\Lcen]$ in the first sum ranges over all classes of lattices whose maximal element is of type $(p^s,1,1),\,s\geq 1$ in the boundary of $\SF$. The generating function counting over lattices of type $(p^t,p^t,1)$, $t\geq1$, is clearly the same as in the previous case, i.e. is given by $$\sum_{t\geq 1}p^{2t-2}\cdot p^{4rt}T^{(2r+2)t}=\frac{p^{4r}T^{2r+2}}{1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2}}.\label{gen.fu.offline}$$ Counting over the interior of the fixed sector-family, i.e. over lattices of type $(p^{s+t},p^t,1)$, $s,t\geq1$, is now easy. The generating function equals $p$ times the product of the respective generating functions counting over the boundary. Indeed, there are $p$ lattices of type $(p^2,p^1,1)$ in $\SF$, all of which carry the same weight $w'([\Lcen])=4r+1$ and $$w'=w'|_{s=0}+w'_{t=0} \label{independence condition}$$ on the interior of $\SF$. Therefore the parameters  $s,t$ “grow independently” and the generating function is given by the product of the ones dealing with the cases $t=0$ and $s=0$, respectively. Thus, by (\[gen.fu.smpt\]) and (\[gen.fu.offline\]) we have $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\sum_{[\Lcen]}p^{w([\Lcen])\cdot2r}T^{w'([\Lcen])}=}\nonumber\\ &&p\cdot\frac{p^{2r}T^{2r-1}(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1})}{(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})}\cdot\frac{p^{4r}T^{2r+2}}{1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2}},\label{gen.fu.smpt-offline interior}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\Lcen]$ in the first sum ranges over all classes of lattices whose maximal element is of type $(p^{s+t},p^t,1),\,s,t\geq 1$ in the interior of $\SF$. Combining (\[gen.fu.smpt\]), (\[gen.fu.offline\]) and (\[gen.fu.smpt-offline interior\]) we get $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\Wsmptoff=}\nonumber\\ &&\frac{1}{\pthreetwo \ptwoone}+\frac{1}{\ptwoone}\left(\frac{p^{2r}T^{2r-1}(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1})}{(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})}+\frac{p^{4r}T^{2r+2}}{1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2}}\right)\nonumber \\ &&+\frac{p^{6r+1}T^{4r+1}(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1})}{(1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})}.\label{A_smpt/off}\end{aligned}$$ By simply counting the respective occurrences yields an expression for the generating $A(p,T)$: $$\begin{aligned} A(p,T)&=&\left(\pthreetwo-|C(\Fp)|\right)\ptwoone \Woffoff+\\ &&\quad|C(\Fp)|\ptwoone \Wsmptoff\\ &=&A_1(p,T)+|C(\Fp)|A_2(p,T),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} A_1(p,T)&=&\frac{1+p^{2r}T^{2r+1}+p^{2r+1}T^{2r+1}+p^{4r}T^{2r+2}+p^{4r+1}T^{2r+2}+p^{6r+1}T^{4r+3}}{(1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})},\nonumber\\ A_2(p,T)&=&\frac{(1-T)(1+T)p^{2r}T^{2r-1}(1+p^{4r+1}T^{2r+2})}{(1-p^{4r+2}T^{2r+2})(1-p^{2r+2}T^{2r+1})(1-p^{2r+1}T^{2r-1})}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ But recall that in Lemma \[lemma 1\] in Section \[section2\] we described the local normal zeta function as a product of $A(p,p^{-s})$ and Riemann zeta functions. Thus we have produced the promised explicit formulae for the rational functions $W_i(X,Y)$, $i=1,2$, and proved Theorem \[main theorem\]. (of Corollary \[corollary to main theorem: fun. eq.\]). Let $V$ be a non-singular, absolutely irreducible projective variety over $\Fp$ of dimension $n$. If $b_{V,e}$, $e\geq1$, denotes the number of $\mathbb{F}_{p^e}$-rational points of $V$, it is a well-known consequence of the [*rationality*]{} of the Weil zeta function $$Z_V(u)=\exp\left(\sum_{e=1}^\infty \frac{b_{V,e}u^e}{e}\right)$$ that there are complex numbers $\beta_{r,j}$, $r=0,\dots,2n$, $j=1,\dots,B_r$, $B_r\in \N$, such that $$b_{V,e}=\sum_{r=0}^{2n}(-1)^r\sum_{j=1}^{t_r}\beta^e_{r,j},$$ and that the function $$\begin{aligned} \N_{\geq0}&\rightarrow&\N \\ e&\mapsto&b_{V,e}\end{aligned}$$ has a [*unique*]{} extension to $\Z$ (cf [@DenefMeuser/91], Lemma 2). The [*functional equation*]{} of the Weil zeta function $$Z_V(1/p^nu)=\pm (p^{n/2}u)^\chi Z_V(u),$$ where $\chi = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} (-1)^iB_i$, implies the $1-1$-correspondences $$\left\{\frac{p^n}{\beta_{r,j}}|\;1\leq j \leq B_r\right\}\stackrel{1-1}{\longleftrightarrow}\left\{\beta_{2n-r,i}|\;1 \leq i \leq B_{2n-r}\right\}$$ for $0\leq j \leq 2n$ (cf [@Igusa/00], p. 213). This gives $$b_{V,-e}=p^{-en}\,b_{V,e}$$ formally. The corollary follows immediately from Observation \[observation:fu.eq.\] if we set $V=C$, $e=1$ and observe that $n=1$, $|C(\Fp)|=b_{C,1}$ and $$\begin{aligned} A_1(p,T)|_{\substack{p \rightarrow p^{-1} \\ T \rightarrow T^{-1}}}=p^3A_1(p,T)\\ A_2(p,T)|_{\substack{p \rightarrow p^{-1} \\ T \rightarrow T^{-1}}}=p^4A_2(p,T).\end{aligned}$$ In [@duS-ecII/01], du Sautoy gave an example of a -group $G(E)$ which is not finitely uniform. The associated Lie ring $\LieL(G(E))$ was presented as in Theorem \[main theorem\] with $$R({\bf y})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} Dy_3 &y_1&y_2\\ y_1&y_3&0 \\ y_2&0&y_1 \end{array}\right).$$ Note that $det(R({\bf y}))=Dy_1y_3^2-y_1^3-y_2y_3$, a polynomial defining the (projective) elliptic curve $$E=y^2+x^3-Dx.$$ It follows readily from our Theorem \[main theorem\] that for almost all primes $p$ we have $$\z_{G,p}(s)=W_1(p,p^{-s})+|E(\Fp)|W_2(p,p^{-s}),$$ where $$\begin{aligned} W_1(X,Y)&=&\frac{(1+X^{6}Y^{7}+X^{7}Y^{7}+X^{12}Y^{8}+X^{13}Y^{8}+X^{19}Y^{15})}{\prod_{i=0}^6(1-X^iY)\cdot(1-X^9Y^{18})(1-^{14}Y^8)(1-X^8Y^7)}, \label{W1-ec} \\ W_2(X,Y)&=&\frac{(1-Y)(1+Y)X^6Y^5(1+X^{13}Y^8)}{\prod_{i=0}^6(1-X^iY)\cdot(1-X^9Y^{18})(1-X^{14}Y^8)(1-X^8Y^7)(1-X^7Y^5)}. \label{W2-ec}\end{aligned}$$ The functional equation (\[fun. eq. main theorem\]) follows from the well-known fact that for each fixed curve $E$ there are complex numbers $\pi_p$ such that $\pi_p\cdot\overline{\pi_p}=p$ and $$|E(\mathbb{F}_{p^e})|=1-\pi_p^e-\overline{\pi_p}^e+p^e$$ and thus $$|E(\mathbb{F}_{p^{-e}})|=p^{-e}|E(\mathbb{F}_{p^e})|.$$ [^1]: Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St. Giles’, Oxford, OX1 3LB, United Kingdom [^2]: Supported by an EPSRC Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Mathematics. [^3]: Recall that the link of a vertex $v$ in a simplicial complex is $\overline{St(v)} - St(v)$, where the vertices’ [*star*]{} $St(v)$ is the union of all open simplices having $v$ as vertex. [^4]: These are clearly the classes of lattices whose elementary divisor type contains at least two repeated $p$-powers. [^5]: The zero has to be [*simple*]{} since we have excluded ramified primes. [^6]: By a [*Laurent monomial*]{} in $p,T$ we mean of course a term $p^aT^b$ where $a,b\in\Z$.

--- abstract: 'We discuss different ways that neutron stars can generate gravitational waves, describe recent improvements in modelling the relevant scenarios in the context of improving detector sensitivity, and show how observations are beginning to test our understanding of fundamental physics. The main purpose of the discussion is to establish promising science goals for third-generation ground-based detectors, like the Einstein Telescope, and identify the various challenges that need to be met if we want to use gravitational-wave data to probe neutron star physics.' address: | $^1$School of Mathematics, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK\ $^2$Dipartimento di Fisica “G. Marconi”, Sapienza Universit\` a di Roma and Sezione INFN ROMA1, piazzale Aldo Moro 2, I-00185 Rome, Italy\ $^3$Theoretical Astrophysics, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany\ $^4$ Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut, Potsdam-Golm, Germany\ $^5$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA author: - 'N. Andersson$^1$, V. Ferrari$^2$, D.I. Jones$^1$, K.D. Kokkotas$^3$, B. Krishnan$^4$, J. Read$^4$, L. Rezzolla$^{4,5}$ & B. Zink$^3$' title: 'Gravitational waves from neutron stars: Promises and challenges' --- Context ======= Neutron stars are cosmic laboratories of exotic and exciting physics. With a mass of more than that of the Sun compressed inside a radius of about 10 kilometers, their density reaches beyond nuclear saturation. In essence, our understanding of these extreme circumstances requires physics that cannot be tested in terrestrial laboratories. Instead, we must try to use astrophysical observations to constrain our various theoretical models. We already have a wealth of data from radio, X-ray and gamma-ray observations, providing evidence of an incredibly rich phenomenology. We have learned that neutron stars appear in many different disguises, ranging from radio pulsars and magnetars to accreting millisecond pulsars, radio transients and intermittent pulsars. Our models for these systems remain rather basic, despite four decades of effort going into modelling the violent dynamics of supernovae and gamma-ray bursts, trying to understand the radio pulsar emission mechanism, glitches, accreting systems etcetera. In the next few years we expect “gravitational-wave astronomy” to (finally) become reality. This is an exciting prospect, because gravitational-wave (GW) observations have the potential to probe several aspects of neutron star physics [@2009astro2010S.229O]. Moreover, the information gleaned will be complementary to electromagnetic observations. In particular, we would hope to be able to provide constraints on the state of matter at extreme densities. In the last few years the first generation of large-scale interferometric GW detectors (LIGO, GEO600 and Virgo) have reached the original design sensitivity in a broad frequency window [@abbott]. Achieving a sensitivity to detect a (dimensionless) strain amplitude of $h < 10^{-21}$ at a frequency around 100 Hz is obviously an enormously impressive feat of technology. Moreover, the detectors are very stable. A full years worth of (triple coincidence) high quality data was taken during the LIGO S5 run. This data is now being analysed and, even though there has not yet been a detection, the experiment has provided interesting information. The LIGO detectors are now running in an enhanced configuration. In the next five year period, they will be upgraded using advanced technology. Once this upgrade is complete, around 2015, the second generation of ground-based detectors will reach the level of sensitivity where the first detection can be expected (about one order of magnitude more sensitive than the first generation). Meanwhile, the discussion of third generation (3G) detectors has begun in earnest with the EU funded Einstein Telescope (ET) design study. The aim of 3G detectors is to improve the broadband sensitivity by (roughly) another order of magnitude. The main aim of this article is to give a brief overview of how future observational capabilities may impact on our understanding of neutron stars. We will try to identify the promising scenarios, and how we need to improve our theoretical models if we want to extract maximum neutron star science from an instrument like ET. Neutron stars radiate gravitationally in a number of ways. The most promising scenarios involve: **Inspiralling binaries**: The slow orbital evolution is well modelled within the post-Newtonian approximation, and a detection would allow the extraction of the individual masses, spins etcetera. The internal composition of the bodies will become important at some point before merger, but it is still not clear to what extent the compressibility, or tidal resonances, lead to observable features in the GW signal. For second generation detectors this issue may not be so important because the late stages of binary evolution will be difficult to detect anyway. The situation will be very different for 3G detectors, for which a key science target will be to extract as much physics information from these systems as possible. **Supernova core collapse**: The violent dynamics associated with a supernova core collapse is expected to lead to GW emission through a number of channels [@2003LRR.....6....2N; @2009CQGra..26f3001O]. The large scale neutrino asymmetries associated with the standing accretion shock instability (SASI) should be relevant, the global dynamics of the collapsing core through the shock bounce, and the oscillations of the hot newly born compact object will also affect the signature. Current simulations suggest that core collapse events in our galaxy should be detectable with current technology. Simple scaling out to distances visible with ET suggests that, even though the event rate may still not be overwhelmingly impressive, the detection of GWs from supernovae provides a key target. In particular, it appears that different suggested supernova explosion mechanisms may lead to rather different GW signals. **Rotating deformed stars**: Rotating neutron stars will radiate gravitationally due to asymmetries. The required deformation can be due to strain built up in the crust, or indeed the deep core if it has elastic properties, the magnetic field or arise as a result of accretion. Our current understanding of this problem is mainly based on attempts to establish how large a deformation the star can sustain, e.g. before the crust breaks. The best estimates suggest that the crust is rather strong [@2009PhRvL.102s1102H], and that it could, in principle, sustain asymmetries as large as one part in $10^5$ [@2006MNRAS.373.1423H]. However, it is important to understand that this does not in any way suggest that neutron stars will have deformations of this magnitude. The real problem is to provide a reasonable scenario that leads to the development of sizeable deformations. In this sense, accreting systems are promising because of the expected asymmetry of the accretion flow near the star’s surface. Of course, accreting systems are quite messy so the required modelling is very hard. **Oscillations and instabilities**: Neutron stars have rich oscillation spectra which, if detected, could allow us to probe the internal composition. The basic strategy for such “gravitational-wave asteroseismology” has been set out [@1998MNRAS.299.1059A], but our models need to be made much more realistic if the method is to be used in practice. It is also important to establish why various oscillation modes would be excited in the first place, and obviously what level of excitation one would expect. In order to address this problem we need to be able to model potentially relevant scenarios like magnetar flares and pulsar glitches. It seems inevitable that such events will emit GWs at some level, but at the present time we do not have any realistic estimates (although see [@2009arXiv0910.3918S]). We need more work on these problems, even if the end result is that these systems are not promising sources. The most promising scenarios may be associated with unstable modes. There are a number of interesting instabilities, like the GW driven instability of the f- and r-modes, the dynamical bar-mode and low $T/W$ instabilities, instabilities associated with a relative flow in a superfluid core etcetera. In recent years our understanding of these instabilities has improved considerably, but we are still quite far away from being able to make quantitative predictions. As we will discuss, modelling these different scenarios is far from easy. Basically, our understanding of neutron stars relies on much poorly known physics. In order to make progress, we must combine supranuclear physics (the elusive equation of state) with magnetohydrodynamics, the crust elasticity, a description of superfluids/superconductors (which is relevant since these systems are “cold” on the nuclear physics temperature scale) and potentially exotic phases of matter like a deconfined quark-gluon plasma or hyperonic matter. Moreover, in order to be quantitatively accurate, all models have to account for relativistic gravity. It is probably unrealistic to expect that we will be able to resolve all the involved issues in the next decade. Most likely, we will need better observational data to place constraints on the many theoretical possibilities. Thus, it is very important to consider what we can hope to learn about the different emission mechanisms from future GW observations. This discussion is particularly relevant for ET (and other 3G detectors) where key design decisions still have to be made. In this context it is relevant to ask what we can hope to achieve with ET, but not (necessarily) with the second generation of detectors. How much better can you do with (roughly) a one order of magnitude improvement in broadband sensitivity? Are there situations where this improvement is needed to see the signals in the first place, or is it more a matter of doing better astrophysics by getting better statistics and an increased signal-to-noise to faciliate parameter extraction? Note: various detector noise cuves are used in this article. The Advanced LIGO curves are taken from the LIGO technical document LIGO-T0900288-v2 “Advanced LIGO anticipated sensitivity curves”. The Virgo curve is taken from [@2009arXiv0907.0462R]. The ET curve was obtanied from the website of the Working Group 4 of the Einstein Telescope project (`https://workarea.et-gw.eu/et/WG4-Astrophysics/`). Note also that this review is not exhaustive in any sense. We have focussed on some of the (in our opinion) key aspects. We are often citing the most recent work rather than providing a complete history. Binary inspiral and merger ========================== The late stage of inspiral of a binary system provides an excellent GW source [@sathya]. As the binary orbit shrinks due to the energy lost to radiation, the GW amplitude rises and the frequency increases as well. This inspiral “chirp” is advantageous for the observer in many ways. First of all, it is well modelled by post-Newtonian methods and does not depend (much) on the actual physics of the compact objects involved. In fact, much of the signal is adequately described by a point-mass approximation. From an observed binary signal one would expect to be able to infer the individual masses, the spin rates of the objects and the distance to the source. A key fact that makes binary systems such attractive sources is that the amplitude of the signal is “calibrated” by the two masses. The only uncertainty concerns the event rate for inspirals in a given volume of space. Given this, it is natural to discuss the detectability of these systems in terms of the “horizon distance” $d_h$, the distance at which a given binary signal would be observable with a given detector. Let us assume that detection requires a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 8, and focus on equal mass neutron star binaries (we take each star to have mass $1.4 M_\odot$). For such systems, the current and predicted future horizon distance and the expected event rates are given in Table \[tab1\] below [@2008ApJ...675.1459K; @isenberg-2008]. detector $d_h$ event rate --------------------- --------- ---------------------------------------- LIGO S5 30 Mpc 1 event per 25-400 yrs Advanced LIGO/Virgo 300 Mpc Several to hundreds of events per year ET 3 Gpc Tens to thousands of events per year : Horizon distances and estimated event rates for different generations of GW detectors. \[tab1\] From this data we learn a number of things. First of all, we see why it would be quite surprising if a binary neutron star signal were to be found in the LIGO S5 data. Given even the most optimistic estimated event rate from population synthesis models, these events would be rare in the observable volume of space. The situation changes considerably with Advanced LIGO/Virgo. Based on our current understanding, one would expect neutron star binaries to be seen once the detectors reach this level of sensitivity. However, it is also clear that if the most pessimistic rate estimates are correct, then we will not be able to gather a statistically significant sample of signals. Most likely, we will need detectors like ET to study populations. A third generation of detectors is also likely to be required if we want to study the final stages of inspiral, including the merger. This is a very interesting phase of the evolution, given that the merger will lead to the formation of a hot compact remnant with violent dynamics. It may also trigger a gamma-ray burst [@2003ApJ...585L..89K; @2003ApJ...589..861K; @2006ApJ...641L..93F; @2009ApJ...702.1171C; @2009CQGra..26t4016C]. Most of this dynamics radiates at kHz frequencies. The tidal disruption that leads to the merger occurs above 600 Hz or so and the oscillations of the remnant could lead to a signal at several kHz. However, the merger signal should be rich in information. In particular, it should tell us directly whether a massive neutron star or a black hole is formed, thus placing constraints on the (hot) neutron star equation of state (EOS). As we will discuss below, recent numerical relativity simulations [@2003PhR...376...41B; @BGR08; @2009PhRvD..80f4037K; @BGR09] illustrate the complexity of the merger signal. On the one hand, this is problematic because we are unlikely to reach a stage where we have truly reliable theoretical signal templates. On the other hand, one should be able to make progress by focussing on “robust” characteristics of the signal. However, it seems clear that we will need 3G detectors if we want to explore the science of the merger event. Combining the expected binary inspiral rates with the results in Figure \[fig:hs\_psd\_pol\_vs\_IF\] we learn that, roughly, if the inspiral phase is observable with Advanced LIGO/Virgo then ET should be able to detect the merger. This is strong motivation for not compromising on the high-frequency performance of a 3G detector. The final stages of binary evolution before merger may also encode the detailed properties of matter beyond nuclear saturation [@2009PhRvD..79l4033R; @2009JPhCS.189a2024M]. As the binary tightens the equation of state begins to influence the GW signal, making it possible to extract additional information (other than the masses and spins). For mixed neutron-star/black-hole binaries, the characteristic frequency of tidal disruption, which terminates the inspiral in some cases, also depends on the equation of state [@2006PhRvD..73b4012F; @2008PhRvD..77h4002E; @tidal1; @tidal2; @2009PhRvD..79d4030S]. The signal from a binary containing a strange quark star would also be quite distinct in this respect [@2005PhRvD..71f4012L; @2007PhR...442..109L; @2008arXiv0801.4829G; @2009arXiv0910.5169B]. For double neutron-star binaries, the tidal deformation due to the other body can modify the orbital evolution in late inspiral. The tidal phase corrections for most realistic equations of state, although invisible to Advanced LIGO/Virgo, make potentially distinguishable contributions to the signal in ET [@2009arXiv0911.3535H]. The deformability of a given mass neutron star is encoded in the so-called Love numbers, which depend on the equation of state and the resulting radius for a given mass [@2008ApJ...677.1216H; @2008PhRvD..77b1502F]. Roughly, larger neutron stars are deformed more easily. Further effects of matter dynamics, such as tidal resonances, may also contribute to the signal [@1995MNRAS.275..301K; @2006PhRvD..74b4007L; @2007PhRvD..75d4001F]. In order to illustrate the information that one may hope to extract from detecting the final merger of these sources we consider the GW emission produced by two equal-mass neutron stars. Detailed simulations of such systems have been presented in [@BGR08; @BGR09]. Here we simply recall that the simulations were performed using high-resolution shock-capturing methods for the hydrodynamics equations and high-order finite-differencing techniques for the Einstein equations. The complete set of equations was solved using adaptive mesh-refinement techniques with “moving boxes” and the properties of the black holes produced in the merger were extracted using the isolated-horizon formalism. The initial data was obtained from a self-consistent solution of Einstein’s equations in the conformally-flat approximation and represents a system of binary neutron stars in irrotational quasicircular orbits. The matter was evolved using two idealized EOS given either by the “cold” or polytropic EOS $p = K \rho^{\Gamma}$, or the “hot” (ideal fluid) EOS $p = (\Gamma-1) \rho\, \epsilon$, where $\rho$ is the rest-mass density, $\epsilon$ the specific internal energy, $K$ the polytropic constant and $\Gamma$ the adiabatic exponent. It should be noted that because the polytropic EOS is isentropic it is unrealistic for describing the post-merger evolution. Nevertheless, it provides a reasonably realistic description of the inspiral phase, during which the neutron stars are expected to interact only gravitationally. Moreover, because these two EOSs are mathematically equivalent in the absence of shocks, one can employ the *same* initial data and thus compare directly the influence that the EOS has on the evolution. Also, because they represent “extremes” of the possible fluid behaviour, they offer insights into the expected range in dynamical behaviour. In order to quantify the impact that different EOSs have on the GW signal we consider the power spectral density (PSD) of the effective amplitude ${\tilde h}(f)$ $${\tilde h}(f)\equiv \sqrt{\frac{{\tilde h}^2_{+}(f)+ {\tilde h}^2_{\times}(f)}{2}}\,,$$ where $f$ is the gravitational-wave frequency and where $${\tilde h}_{+,\times}(f) \equiv \int_0^{\infty} e^{2\pi i f t} h_{+,\times}(t) dt$$ are the Fourier transforms of the gravitational-wave amplitudes $h_{+,\times}(t)$, built using only the (dominant) $l=m=2$ multipole. 1.0cm 0.5cm -0.5cm Fig. \[fig:hs\_psd\_pol\_vs\_IF\] shows the PSD of the $l=m=2$ component of ${\tilde h}(f) f^{1/2}$ for a binary with total gravitational mass $M=2.98\,M_{\odot}$ (“high-mass” binary, left panel) and for a binary with $M=2.69\,M_{\odot}$ (“low-mass” binary, right panel) at a distance of $300\,{{\rm Mpc}}$. In both cases the binaries are evolved from an initial separation of $45$ km. To emphasize the differences induced by the EOS, we show the PSDs when the binary is evolved with either the “cold” or the “hot” EOS. For comparison, we also provide the result for an equal-mass, nonspinning black-hole binary with total mass $M=200\,M_{\odot}$ (also at a distance of $300\,{{\rm Mpc}}$). Finally, we show the phenomenological evolutionary tracks obtained by combining post-Newtonian and numerical relativity results [@Aetal07; @Aetal08]. The PSD for the high-mass cold-EOS binary (blue curve in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:hs\_psd\_pol\_vs\_IF\]) is quite simple to interpret. It shows, besides the large power at low frequencies corresponding to the inspiral, a peak at $f\approx 4\,{{\rm kHz}}$ corresponding to the rapid merger of the two neutron stars. For this cold EOS the merger is not influenced by increased pressure forces via shock heating, so the GW signal terminates abruptly with a prompt collapse to black hole and a cut-off corresponding to the fundamental quasi-normal mode (QNM) of the black hole at $f_{_{\rm QNM}} \simeq 6.7\,{{\rm kHz}}$. In contrast, the PSD for the high-mass hot-EOS binary is more complex, with the inspiral peak being accompanied by a number of other peaks, the two most prominent, at $f\approx 1.75\,{{\rm kHz}}$ and $f\approx 3\,{{\rm kHz}}$, having almost comparable amplitude. These additional peaks are related to the post-merger phase and the dynamics of the hypermassive neutron star that is formed after the merger. The signal is sensitive to the dynamics of the cores of the two neutron stars, which merge and “bounce” several times before the hypermassive neutron star eventually collapses to a black hole, leaving a signature at $f\approx 4\,{{\rm kHz}}$. The fundamental QNM frequency at $f_{_{\rm QNM}} \simeq 7.0\,{{\rm kHz}}$ marks the cutoff of the signal also in this case. We can interpret the PSDs of the low-mass binaries in a similar way. The cold EOS results, in particular, show a very broad peak between $f\approx 2\,{{\rm kHz}}$ and $\approx 3.5\,{{\rm kHz}}$ related to the dynamics of the bar-shaped hypermassive neutron star that persists for several milliseconds after the merger. A small excess at $f\gtrsim 4\,{{\rm kHz}}$ is associated with the collapse to a black hole, whose fundamental QNM has a frequency of $f_{_{\rm QNM}} \simeq 7.3\,{{\rm kHz}}$. Interestingly, the low-mass hot EOS PSD does not show the broad peak. Instead, there is a very narrow and high-amplitude peak around $f\approx 2\,{{\rm kHz}}$. This feature is related to a long-lived bar deformation of the hypermassive neutron star, which was evolved for $\sim 16$ revolutions without the hypermassive neutron star collapsing to a black hole. It should be noted that the simulations were performed assuming a rotational symmetry [@BGR08], which prevents the growth of the $m=1$ modes which have been shown to limit the persistence of the bar-mode instability (see [@BdPMR07] for a detailed discussion). Although it is reasonable to expect that the bar deformation will persist for several milliseconds after merger, it is unclear whether this prominent peak will remain (and if so at what amplitude) when the simulations are repeated with more generic boundary conditions. The high-frequency part of the PSD for the low-mass hot-EOS binary obviously does not show the expected cut-off introduced by the collapse to black hole. An estimate based on the secular increase of the central density suggests that, in this case the collapse takes on a timescale of $\sim 110\,{{\rm ms}}$, much longer than the simulations. Three main conclusions can be drawn from the results shown in Fig. \[fig:hs\_psd\_pol\_vs\_IF\]. First of all, with the exception of very massive neutron stars (in which case the collapse of the hypermassive neutron star occurs essentially simultaneously with the merger), the GW signal from binary neutron stars is considerably richer (and more complex) than that from binary black holes. Secondly, while small differences between the two EOSs appear already during the inspiral, it is really the post-merger phase that is markedly different. Hence, an accurate description of the post-merger evolution is *essential* not only to detect this part of the signal, but also to extract information concerning the neutron star interior structure. Finally, the parts of the PSD that are most interesting and most likely to yield fundamental clues to the physics beyond nuclear density, are likely to be only marginally detectable by detectors like advanced LIGO/Virgo. As a result, 3G detectors like ET may provide the first realistic opportunity to use GWs as a Rosetta stone to decipher the physics of neutron star interiors. Core collapse supernovae and hot remnants ========================================= Neutron stars are born when a massive star runs out of nuclear fuel and collapses under its own gravity. The dynamics of the stellar evolution after core bounce is tremendously complicated, and depends on the interplay of a number of physical mechanisms. This complex process can produce GWs through a number of different channels, some of which are connected to the dynamics of the proto-neutron star and its immediate environment (usually associated with high-frequency components of the signal), and others which depend on the convective zone behind the stalled shock front (which gives rise to low frequency signals). For slowly rotating iron cores, bounce and initial ringdown are expected to lead to signals with peak frequencies in the range of $700 - 900 \, \mathrm{Hz}$ and dimensionless strain amplitudes of less than $5 \times 10^{-22}$ at a distance of 10 kpc [@2008PhRvD..78f4056D], i.e. within our Galaxy. Faster rotation amplifies the bounce signal: If the iron core has moderate rotation, the peak frequencies span the larger range of $400 - 800 \, \mathrm{Hz}$ with amplitudes of $5 \times 10^{-22}$ up to $10^{-20}$. Very rapid rotation leads to bounce at subnuclear densities, and GW signals in a significantly lower frequency band of hundreds of Hz and strains around $5 \times 10^{-21}$ at 10 kpc. Prompt convection occuring shortly after core bounce due to negative lepton gradients lead to Galactic signal amplitudes in the range of $10^{-23}$ to $10^{-21}$ at frequencies of $50 - 1000 \, \mathrm{Hz}$ (all data is taken from from table 2 in [@2009CQGra..26f3001O], see also ), whereas signals of convection in the proto-neutron star have strains of up to $5 \times 10^{-23}$ in a somewhat larger range of frequencies. Neutrino-driven convection and a potential instability of the accretion-shock, the standing accretion shock instability (SASI), could be relevant sources as well, with strain amplitudes up to $10^{-22}$ at $100 - 800 \, \mathrm{Hz}$. In addition, an acoustic mechanism has been proposed for supernova explosions [@2006ApJ...640..878B] which is connected with low-order g-mode oscillations in the proto-neutron star. If this mechanism is active, very large strain amplitudes of up to $5 \times 10^{-20}$ at 10 kpc could be reached in extreme cases [@2006PhRvL..96t1102O]. A major uncertainty connected with supernova models is the initial state, in particular the angular momentum distribution in the iron core. Current expectations from stellar evolution calculations imply a very slowly rotating core as a canonical case [@2004ApJ...603..221M]. This is further supported by the observation that neutron stars seem to be born with comparatively low rotation rates, and by recent evidence for massive loss of angular momentum of stars before the white-dwarf stage [@2009Natur.461..501C]. Strong GW signals can only be obtained by invoking processes which break the approximate spherical symmetry of the system. If the core rotates faster than expected, for example for collapsing stars that lead to gamma-ray bursts [@2006ApJ...637..914W], then rotational instabilities may become relevant sources of GWs. Of course, these instabilities (or magnetic fields) must be effective enough to spin down young neutron stars after birth, in order to reconcile this scenario with the observed neutron star spin distribution. Also, magnetic wind-up may in some cases open channels to magnetically driven explosions, which could give rise to detectable signals. The traditional bar-mode instability operates only at very high spin rates (measured in terms of the ratio of rotational kinetic to gravitational binding energy, $T/|W|$, the limit is about $0.25$ in general relativity), which are not expected even in more extreme models [@2008PhRvD..78f4056D]. Moreover, recent work [@2007PhRvD..75d4023B] suggests that once it is active the instability does not persist for long due to nonlinear mode-mode coupling. Long-lived bar configurations require extreme fine-tuning of the initial data, something that nature is rather unlikely to provide. However, if the proto-neutron star is sufficiently differentially rotating, so-called low $T/|W|$ instabilities may be operative [@2005ApJ...618L..37W]. This may lead to substantial deformations which could be detectable. The associated signal-to-noise ratio depends (essentially) on the number of cycles and the saturation level of the instability. A typical value for the maximal strain obtained in numerical simulations is $10^{-21}$ at $10 \, \mathrm{kpc}$ with a frequency around $400 - 900 \, \mathrm{Hz}$ [@2007PhRvL..98z1101O]. Finally, secular instabilities (e.g. driven by the GW emission) could be active during or after the unbinding of the stellar envelope. We will discuss these instabilities later. The different emission mechanisms all have quite characteristic signatures, so GW measurements would provide an unusually direct (probably the only besides neutrinos) way of probing the conditions inside core collapse supernovae [@2009CQGra..26f3001O]. However, the signal-to-noise ratio estimated from numerical simulations make a detection of an extragalactic core collapse supernova from a slowly rotating (canonical) iron core seem unlikely even with second generation detectors. Even if higher core rotation rates are assumed, detections will be possible maybe up to at most 1 or $2 \, \mathrm{Mpc}$. Since the rates of (successful) supernovae are known from observations, we know that Galactic events happen every $30 - 100$ years. Even at a distance of 1 Mpc, that is for very optimistic GW estimates, the event rate is low enough that we may have to be lucky to even see a single event during the whole operation of Advanced LIGO. However, at a distance of $3-5~\mathrm{Mpc}$, a range which could admit a detectable signal in a 3G detector, the event rate rate would be a few per year [@2005PhRvL..95q1101A; @2008arXiv0810.1959K]. Therefore, it is safe to say that investigating the core collapse supernova mechanism with GWs absolutely requires a 3G detector to obtain meaningful statistics. The proto-neutron star that is born in a core collapse is a hot and rapidly evolving object. After the first tenths of seconds of the remnant’s life, the lepton pressure in the interior decreases due to extensive neutrino losses, the mantle contracts and the radius reduces to about $20-30$ km [@1986ApJ...307..178B]. This is known as a proto-neutron star. The subsequent evolution is “quasi-stationary”, and can be described by a sequence of equilibrium configurations [@pons1]. Initially, the diffusion of high-energy neutrinos from the core to the surface generates a large amount of heat within the star, while the core entropy approximately doubles. Within $\sim$ 10 s the lepton content of the proto-neutron star is drastically reduced. While the star is very hot, neutrino pairs of all flavours are thermally produced and dominate the emission. As the neutrinos continue to diffuse and cool the star, their average energy decreases and their mean free path increases. After a few tens of seconds, the mean free path becomes comparable to the stellar radius, the net lepton number in the interior has decreased to very low values, the temperature has dropped to around $10^{10}$ K, and the star becomes a neutrino-transparent neutron star. The strong entropy and temperature gradients which develop in the interior during this evolution strongly affect the star’s oscillation frequencies. As examples of this let us consider the fundamental mode and the first gravity g-mode, cf. the discussion in [@hotstar1]. During the first 5 s of evolution the frequencies of these modes change dramatically. In the case of the f-mode, the frequency scales with the square root of the average density so it will more than double as the star shrinks to the final 10 km radius. Meanwhile, the g-modes depend on the strong temperature gradients that only prevail as long as the neutrinos are trapped. Detailed calculations [@hotstar1; @hotstar2] confirm that, during the first few tens of seconds, the mode frequencies and damping times are considerably different from those of a cold neutron star. Moreover, dissipative processes “competing” with GW emission, (essentially due to neutrino viscosity, diffusivity, thermal conductivity, or thermodiffusion) have timescales of the order $t_{diss} \approx 10-20$ seconds (see [@hotstar1] for details). For instance, for the f-mode the GW damping time $t_f$ is such that $t_f < t_{diss}$ when $t \gappreq 0.2$ seconds. Therefore, if some energy is initially stored into this mode, it will be emitted in GWs. In contrast, the g-mode is an efficient emitter of GWs only during the first second, since after this time its damping time becomes larger than $t_{diss}$. As we will discuss later, it is straightforward to estimate the detectability of an oscillation mode once we know the associated frequency and damping time. Figure \[figval\] shows results from [@hotstar1] for the f- and the most promising g-mode of a proto-neutron star. The data corresponds to signals detectable with a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 in ET. For a galactic source, at a distance of 10 kpc, this would require an energy equivalent to $\Delta E_f \sim 2\times 10^{-12}~M_\odot c^2$ and $\Delta E_g \sim 3\times 10^{-11}~M_\odot c^2$ to be radiated through the f- and g-mode, respectively (note that the signal strength scales with the square root of the radiated energy). This level of energy releases is not unrealistic. Recent core collapse simulations suggest that a conservative estimate of the amount of energy emitted in GWs is of the order of $10^{-9}-10^{-8}~M_\odot c^2$. (As a comparison and useful upper limit, the collapse to a black hole of an old and rapidly rotating neutron star would emit an energy in GWs of the order of $10^{-6}~M_\odot c^2$ [@Baiotti06].) If a small fraction of this energy goes into the excitation of the two modes shown in Figure \[figval\], they may be observable. Moreover, given such a signal one would expect to be able to identify features in the waveform. For instance, one may infer the slope of the g-mode signal, or the detailed structure of the f-mode waveform. From these features one could hope to gain insight into physical processes occurring inside the star. In this way ET has the potential to be a powerful instrument for exploring the physics of newly born neutron stars. ![ This figure compares the strain amplitude of the signal emitted by a proto-neutron star oscillating in either the f-mode or the g-mode to the sensitivity of Advanced LIGO and ET. The signal is assumed to have an amplitude at the detector site which corresponds to an ET detection with a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 using matched filtering techniques. For a galactic source at distance of 10 kpc, this would require an energy equivalent to $\Delta E_f \sim 2\times 10^{-12}~M_\odot c^2$ and $\Delta E_g \sim 3\times 10^{-11}~M_\odot c^2$ to be radiated through the f- and g-mode, respectively. A key point of these results is that the oscillation spectrum evolves during the observation. It is important to establish to what extent future detections, e.g. with ET, may be able to extract the characteristics of these signals and allow us to probe the physics of newly born neutron stars. []{data-label="figval"}](figval.eps){width="60.00000%"} Rotating deformed neutron stars =============================== Asymmetries, generated either by strains in the star’s crust or by the magnetic field, are expected to slowly leak rotational energy away from spinning neutron stars. Such sources would be the GW analogue of radio pulsars. Indeed, the known radio pulsar population, together with the accreting low-mass X-ray binary systems, are prime candidates for GW detection via targeted searches, where the observed electromagnetic phase is used to guide the gravitational search. Equally interestingly, there may be a population of neutron stars currently invisible via electromagnetic observations, spinning down by GW emission. These require an all-sky blind search, the computational costs of which are very high, requiring the sort of computing power made available by the [Einstein@Home]{} project [@s4eah]. How likely is a detection of a spinning deformed star, and how does ET enter into the game? For targeted searches for stars of known distance, spin frequency and spin-down rate, one can place an upper bound on the GW emission by assuming that all of the kinetic energy being lost is being converted into GWs. Such a plot is shown in Figure \[fig:spindown\] for the known pulsar population, with various detector noisecurves, including ET, shown for reference. Superficially, the figure would suggest that several tens of pulsars might be detectable by Advanced LIGO/Virgo, with many more potentially detectable by ET. However, this plot makes a dangerous assumption: by assuming 100% conversion of kinetic energy into GW energy, it implicitly requires neutron stars to be capable of supporting asymmetries of sufficient size to power the necessary GW emission. The crucial question then becomes: what level of asymmetry would one expect a neutron star to have? This is a complicated multi-faceted problem, where the answer depends not only on the properties of the star, but also on the star’s evolutionary history. So far, theoretical modelling has mainly focused on establishing what the largest possible neutron star “mountain” would be [@2000MNRAS.319..902U]. Expressing this in terms of a (quadrupole) ellipticity, the most detailed modelling of crustal strains suggest that [@2006MNRAS.373.1423H] $$\epsilon < 2\times 10^{-5} \left( {u_\mathrm{break} \over 0.1} \right) , \label{maxeps}$$ where $u_\mathrm{break}$ is the crustal breaking strain. Recent molecular dynamics simulations [@2009PhRvL.102s1102H] suggest that this may be as large as $0.1$, much larger than had been anticipated. This would make the neutron crust super-strong! In comparison, terrestrial materials have $u_\mathrm{break} \approx 10^{-4} - 10^{-2}$. Basically, the available estimates suggest that the crust would break if the deformation were to exceed about 20 cm (on a 10 km star). State-of-the-art calculations of the high density equation of state suggest that solid phases may also be present at higher densities, allowing the construction of stars with larger deformations. Based on a model of a solid strange quark star, Owen [@2005PhRvL..95u1101O] estimates $\epsilon < 6 \times 10^{-4} (u_\mathrm{break}/10^{-2})$, while, based on a crystalline colour superconducting quark phase, Haskell et al estimate $\epsilon < 10^{-3} (u_\mathrm{break}/10^{-2})$ [@2007PhRvL..99w1101H]. (Note that the molecular dynamics simulations of [@2009PhRvL.102s1102H] do not apply to such exotic phases.) So, significantly larger mountains *might* be provided by nature, depending upon the high density equation of state. The magnetic field will also tend to deform the star, but for typical pulsar field strengths the deformation is small [@2008MNRAS.385..531H; @2008MNRAS.385.2080C; @2009MNRAS.395.2162L]: $$\epsilon \approx 10^{-12} \left(\frac{B}{10^{12} \rm \, G}\right)^2 \ .$$ Note however that it is the *internal*, rather than the external field strength that counts. Also, the above estimate assumes a normal fluid core; a superconducting core complicates this picture, and could produce larger asymmetries. A simple estimate for a type II superconducting core gives [@2002PhRvD..66h4025C; @2008MNRAS.383.1551A] $$\epsilon \approx 10^{-9} \left(\frac{B}{10^{12} \rm \, G}\right) \left(\frac{H_{\rm crit}}{10^{15} \rm \, G}\right) \ ,$$ where $H_{\rm crit}$ is the so-called critical field strength [@2002PhRvD..66h4025C]. Clearly, this is a rather complicated story, with different physical assumptions leading to very different possible maximum mountain sizes. To gain some understanding of how the maximum mountain size affects detection prospects, in Figure \[fig:max\_epsilon\] we re-plot the spin-down limits of Figure \[fig:spindown\], this time limiting the maximum mountain size to $10^{-7}$, a possibly optimistic but certainly not unrealistic value. We plot the original spin down limits of Figure \[fig:spindown\] as open circles, and the limits obtained by putting a $10^{-7}$ cut-off in ellipticity as solid circles. Clearly, Figure \[fig:max\_epsilon\] tells a rather different story from Figure \[fig:spindown\]. Most of the younger pulsars, on the left of the diagram, have dropped off completely: the ellipticites needed for them to radiate all of their kinetic energy via GWs are unphysically large. In contrast, the millisecond pulsars on the right hand side have stayed put: they are able to spin down via the GW channel with ellipticites smaller than $10^{-7}$. Interestingly, many of the millisecond pulsars lie below the Advanced LIGO/Virgo noise curves but above the ET one. So, if nature supplies millisecond pulsars deformed at the level of one part in $10^7$, ET may provide the key to detecting them. This dependence on rather uncertain physics makes the prospect of a detection all the more exciting. In fact, observations of targeted radio pulsars are already providing interesting results. An observational milestone was reached recently, when LIGO data from the first 9 months of the S5 science run was used to beat the Crab pulsar spin-down limit [@ligo_crab]. Since then a larger data set, taken from the full S5 run, has been analysed; it was found that no more than $2\%$ of the spin-down energy was being emitted in the GW channel, corresponding to an ellipticity bound of approximately $\epsilon < 10^{-4}$ [@2009arXiv0909.3583T]. This result shows that GW emission does not dominate the spin-down of the Crab. As argued in , there was no real possibility that 100% of the spin-down was GW powered, as pure gravitational spin-down would conflict with the Crab’s measured braking index. However, the fact that the GW contribution to spin-down is less than $2\%$ was not at all obvious. It tells us, for instance, that the Crab is not a maximally strained quark star. How are these results likely to improve in the future? This is quite easy to estimate since the sensitivity of a search increases in inverse proportion to the detector noise level and as the square root of the observation time. This means that, in the case of the Crab, a search over two years of Advanced LIGO/Virgo data would be sensitive to mountains of about $10^{-5}$, while ET may push the limit to $10^{-6}$, a sufficiently small value that even a conventional neutron star crust may radiate at a detectable level. Similarly, ET may be able to detect deformations at the $\epsilon \sim 10^{-9}$ level in some of the millisecond pulsars. One would probably expect a signal to be detected before this level is reached, but unfortunately we do not know this for sure. The main challenge concerns the generation mechanism for deformations. Why is the neutron star deformed in the first place? This is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed by theorists. A key question concerns the size of the “smallest” allowed mountain. Based on current understanding, the interior magnetic field sets the lower limit, as given above. Clearly, for a typical pulsar this limit is $\epsilon \approx 10^{-12}$, too small to ever be detected. Of equal interest is the likely – as opposed to maximum – size of an elastic mountain, but this is an even more difficult problem, depending not just upon the material properties of the crust but also on its “geological” history. As far as evolutionary scenarios are concerned, accreting neutron stars in low-mass X-ray binaries have attracted the most attention. This is natural for a number of reasons. First of all, the currently observed spin distribution in these systems seems consistent with the presence of a mechanism that halts the spin-up due to accretion well before the neutron star reaches the break-up limit [@1998ApJ...501L..89B]. GW emission could provide a balancing torque if the accretion leads to non-axisymmetries building up in the crust [@1998ApJ...501L..89B; @2000MNRAS.319..902U; @2009MNRAS.395.1972V; @2005ApJ...623.1044M; @2009arXiv0910.5064W]; the required deformation is certainly smaller than (\[maxeps\]). Alternatively, accreting stars might rotate fast enough for some modes of oscillation to go unstable, again provide a gravitational spin-down torque to oppose the accretion spin-up [@1999ApJ...516..307A; @1999ApJ...517..328L; @2002MNRAS.337.1224A]. The problem is that accreting systems are very messy. In particular, we do not understand the detailed accretion torque very well [@2005MNRAS.361.1153A]. To make progress we need to improve our theoretical models, and we also need future high precision X-ray timing observations to help constrain the binary parameters. Unlike say binary neutron star mergers or stellar collapse, the detection of long-lasting periodic GWs from a deformed neutron star would be a significant data analysis and computational problem even if we had perfect theoretical templates. This warrants an extended discussion of the data analysis problems that must be addressed before data from Advanced LIGO/Virgo and ET can be fully exploited for continuous wave signal detection and astrophysics. The difficulty arises because of a combination of the expected low signal-to-noise ratio and the very large parameter space of possible signal shapes. Here we briefly review existing search techniques and discuss the improvements necessary in the ET era, to detect continuous wave signals. Ignore the various systematic signal model uncertainties for the moment, and consider searching for the signals using different techniques, ranging from optimal matched filtering to time-frequency methods. The GW phase model typically considered for these searches is, in the rest frame of the neutron star $$\label{eq:phasemodel} \Phi(\tau) = \Phi_0 + 2\pi \left[f(\tau-\tau_0) + \frac{\dot{f}}{2}(\tau-\tau_0)^2 + \ldots \right]\,.$$ Here $\tau$ is time in the rest frame of the star, $\Phi_0$ the initial phase, $\tau_0$ a fiducial reference time, and $f$, $\dot{f}$ are respectively the instantaneous frequency and its time derivative at $\tau_0$. Going from $\tau$ to detector time $t$ requires us to take into account the motion of the detector in the solar system and, if the neutron star is in a binary system, the parameters of its orbit. Using matched filtering, the signal-to-noise ratio builds up with the observation time $T$ as $T^{1/2}$. More precisely, the minimum detectable amplitude $h_0^{min}$ for a single template search at a frequency $f$ for $D$ detectors, each with a single sided noise power spectral density $S_n(f)$ is $$\label{eq:h0min} h_0^{min} = 11.4 \sqrt{\frac{S_n(f)}{DT}}\,.$$ Here we have chosen thresholds corresponding to a false alarm rate of $1\%$ and a false dismissal rate of $10\%$, and averaged over all possible pulsar orientations and sky positions. For the isolated neutron stars discussed previously, if a fraction $p$ of their spindown energy goes into GWs, the required observation time for a detection is proportional to $S_n(f)/(Dp)$. Thus, if we wish to probe the Crab pulsar at say the $p=1\%$ level as opposed to the $6\%$ limit set by the LIGO S5 search, we would need to observe six times longer. This longer observation time leads to much more stringent requirements on the accuracy of the signal model used in the search. Presently, one assumes that the GWs are locked to the EM phase. Do we really believe that this assumption holds over say, a 5 year observation period, corresponding to a frequency offset of $\sim 6 \times 10^{-9}\,$Hz? Furthermore, there might be interesting physics causing the GW frequency to be slightly different from twice the radio signal frequency. The accuracy with which we can determine this deviation (and the parameters of any model describing these deviations) is proportional to the inverse of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). We could, even without a 3G detector, try to improve the SNR by increasing the observation time. However, a larger observation time typically implies a larger parameter space to search. This makes the search computationally harder and also adversely affects the statistical significance of any discoveries. This argues in favour of increasing the SNR by either increasing the number of detectors or making them more sensitive. The same holds, in fact to a much greater degree, for the wide parameter space searches as we now discuss. If we do not know the signal parameters *a priori*, then we need to perform a search over a parameter space informed by astrophysical constraints. The most straightforward way of doing the search is to lay a grid of templates over this parameter space and to find the template leading to the largest value of the appropriate detection statistic. It turns out that in most cases, the number of templates increases very quickly with $T$. This search over a large number of templates has two main effects, both of which affect the sensitivity adversely. The first is that the larger number of statistical trials leads to a correspondingly larger probability of a statistical false alarm or equivalently, to a larger threshold if we want to maintain a fixed false alarm rate. The second and more important effect is simply that the number of templates might become so large that the computational cost becomes a key factor limiting the largest value of $T$ that we can consider. For isolated neutron stars, the relevant parameters in a blind search are the sky position and the frequency and higher time derivatives of the frequency. For a pulsar in a binary system, the orbital parameters need to be considered as well, leading to three additional parameters for circular orbits (five if we include eccentricity). A detailed analysis, including a catalogue of accreting neutron stars of potential interest for GW searches can be found in [@lmxbdetect]. This data analysis challenge needs to be addressed with better techniques and larger computational resources. Examples of more efficient data analysis techniques are the so-called semi-coherent methods which break up the data set of duration $T$ into $N$ smaller segments of length $T_{coh}$ and combine the results of a coherent matched filter search from each segment. While such a method would be suboptimal when we are not computationally limited, it would lead to a closer to optimal method in the presence of computational constraints. Examples of such methods are described in [@stackslide; @hough; @virgohough], and examples of GW searches employing them are [@s2hough; @s4psh; @s4eah; @s5powerflux]. The sensitivity of these searches is $$\label{eq:h0min-semicoh} h_0^{min} = \frac{k}{N^{1/4}}\sqrt{\frac{S_n(f)}{DT_{coh}}}$$ where $k$ is typically $\sim 30$. The goal here is to make $T_{coh}$ as large as computational resources allow. Further developments of these techniques (a notable example is [@pletschallen]), and the ability to follow up candidate events enabling multi-stage hierarchical searches (see e.g. [@hierarchical]) will be necessary for both isolated and binary systems. A different kind of technique is based on cross-correlating data from multiple detectors. These are again less sensitive than coherent matched filtering, but they are computationally easy and highly robust against signal uncertainties. A description of an algorithm tailored towards continuous wave signals can be found in [@crosscorr]. It is shown that this method is, in a suitably generalized sense, also an example of a semi-coherent technique. This approach is expected to be especially valuable for binary systems where there are potential uncertainties in the signal model. It has, in fact, already been applied to LIGO S4 data [@s4radiometer]. The continued development of larger computational platforms, and increasing the available computational resources faster than the baseline improvement predicted by Moore’s law will be critical. A good example of a large platform tailored towards such searches is the `Einstein@Home` project, and the increased use of GPUs is another. On the timescale relevant for ET we expect to see significant improvement of our computational resources. One crucial point is that there is more to the detection process than simply observing the amplitude of the signal – higher precision will allow you to extract more physics. Even in the simple case of a steadily rotating star, getting an accurate fix on the phase allows detailed comparison between the electromagnetic and gravitational signals, something which can provide information (in a model dependent way) on the coupling between the stellar components and possibly on the nature of pulsar timing noise [@2004PhRvD..70d2002J]. Alternatively, if the rotating star undergoes free precession or contains a pinned superfluid component misaligned with the principal axes, there will be radiation at multiple harmonics, some of which might be significantly weaker than others [@2002MNRAS.331..203J; @2005CQGra..22.1825V]. Observing these harmonics, and comparing their sizes, will yield yet more information on the stellar interior [@2009arXiv0909.4035J]. Higher quality observations can also be used to measure the distances to (sufficiently nearby) pulsars [@2005PhRvD..71l3002S], thus allowing an estimate of the ellipticity to be made using GW data alone and helping us to build a three dimensional picture of the source distribution. The key point for instruments like ET is this: it is not enough to simply detect a signal – the higher the signal-to-noise, the more detailed a picture of the waveform can be built up. This provides strong motivation for a 3G search for GWs, even if second generation detectors prove successful in identifying signals. Oscillations and instabilities ============================== In principle, the most promising strategy for constraining the physics of neutron stars involves observing their various modes of oscillation. We have already discussed the particular case of newly born neutron stars. The problem for mature neutron stars is similar, in the sense that different families of modes can be (more or less) directly associated with different core physics. For example, the fundamental f-mode (which should be the most efficient GW emitter) scales with average density, while the pressure p-modes overtones probe the sound speed throughout the star, the gravity g-modes are sensitive to thermal/composition gradients and the w-modes represent oscillations of spacetime iself. A mature neutron star also has elastic shear modes in the crust [@2007MNRAS.374..256S] and superfluid modes associated with regions where various constituents form large scale condensates [@2008PhRvD..78h3008L]. Magnetic stars may have complex dynamics due to the internal magnetic field. Finally, in a rotating star, there is a large class of inertial modes which are restored by the Coriolis force. One of these rotationally restored modes is the r-mode. The r-mode is particularly interesting because it may be driven unstable by the emission of gravitational radiation. While the asteroseismology strategy seems promising [@1996PhRvL..77.4134A; @1998MNRAS.299.1059A; @2001MNRAS.320..307K; @2004PhRvD..70l4015B; @2007GReGr..39.1323B; @2008GReGr..40..945F] (provided we can model neutron stars at a sufficient level of realism), it is clear that it relies on how well future GW detectors will be able to detect the various pulsation modes. It is quite easy to make this question quantitative since a typical GW signal from a neutron star pulsation mode will take the form of a damped sinusoid, with oscillation frequency $f$ and damping time $t_d$. That is, we would have $$h(t) = {\cal A} e^{-(t-T)/t_d} \sin [ 2\pi f (t-t_0)] \quad \mbox{ for } t > t_0$$ where $t_0$ is the arrival time of the signal at the detector (and $h(t)=0$ for $t<t_0$). Using standard results for the GW flux the amplitude ${\cal A}$ of the signal can be expressed in terms of the total energy radiated in the oscillation, $${\cal A} \approx 7.6\times 10^{-24} \sqrt{{\Delta E_\odot \over 10^{-12} } {1 \mbox{ s} \over t_d}} \left( {1 \mbox{ kpc} \over d } \right) \left({ 1 \mbox{ kHz} \over f} \right) \ .$$ where $\Delta E_\odot = \Delta E/M_\odot c^2$. Finally, the signal-to-noise ratio for this signal can be estimated from $$\left({S \over N} \right)^2 = { 4Q^2 \over 1+4Q^2} {{ \cal A}^2 t_d \over 2S_n} \label{sign}$$ where the “quality factor” is $Q=\pi f t_d$ and $S_n$ is the spectral noise density of the detector. It is worth noting that, for oscillations lasting longer than the observation time $T$ (i.e. when $Q\gg1$) we regain the continuous-wave result that the signal-to-noise ratio improves as the square root of $T$. So far, the key parameters are the oscillation frequency and the damping time of the mode. We now need an astrophysical scenario that excites the oscillations. Moreover, this scenario has to be such that it can be modeled using linear perturbation theory (with a “slowly” evolving background configuration as reference). This means that one would not expect to deal with the violent dynamics immediately following the formation of a hot neutron star, either after binary merger or core collapse. As we have already discussed, these problems are the realm of nonlinear simulations. Once the (proto-)neutron star settles down to a relatively slow evolution, the mode-problem becomes relevant. Of course, in this regime it is less obvious that the oscillations will be excited to large amplitude. Hence, the interest in the various instabilities that may affect the star as it evolves is natural. We can also ask general questions concerning the amount of energy that would need to be channeled through the various modes, and whether these energy levels are astrophysically “reasonable”. An optimistic scenario would perhaps consider that as much as $10^{-6}M_\odot c^2$ may be radiated (this would be the energy level expected from collapse to a black hole [@Baiotti06]). However, this number is likely only relevant (if at all) for the oscillations of a hot remnant. For mature neutron stars, significantly lower energy levels should be expected. We can take as a bench-mark the energy involved in a typical pulsar glitch, in which case one might (still optimistically?) radiate an energy equivalent to $10^{-13}M_\odot c^2$ [@2001PhRvL..87x1101A]. As far as instabilities are concerned, the GW driven instability of the r-mode remains (after more than a decade of scrutiny) the most promising [@1998ApJ...502..708A; @1998ApJ...502..714F; @1998PhRvL..80.4843L; @1999ApJ...510..846A; @2001IJMPD..10..381A; @cqg]. The r-mode instability window depends on a balance between GW driving and various dissipation mechanisms. In principle, this provides a sensitive probe of the core physics. To illustrate this let us consider a simple model of a neutron star composed of neutrons, protons and electrons, ignoring issues to do with the crust physics, superfluidity, magnetic fields etcetera. If we take the overall density profile to be that of an $n=1$ polytrope (a simple yet useful approximation) then the characteristic growth timescale for the $l=m=2$ r-mode is $$t_{\rm gw} \approx 50 \left( {1.4 M_\odot \over M } \right) \left( {10\ \mathrm{km} \over R} \right)^4 \left( {P \over 1\ \mathrm{ms} } \right)^6 \ \mbox{s}$$ where $P$ is the spin-period of the star. In the simplest model the unstable mode is damped by shear and bulk viscosity. At relatively low temperatures (below a few times $10^9$ K) the main viscous dissipation mechanism arises from momentum transport due to particle scattering, modelled as a macroscopic shear viscosity. In a normal fluid star neutron-neutron scattering provides the most important contribution. This leads to a typical damping time $$t_{\rm sv} \approx 7\times10^7 \left( {1.4 M_\odot \over M } \right)^{5/4} \left( { R \over 10\ \mathrm{km}} \right)^{23/4} \left({ T \over 10^9\ \mathrm{K} } \right)^2 \mbox{ s} \label{sv1}$$ In other words, at a core temperature of $10^9$ K the damping timescale is longer than a year. At higher temperatures bulk viscosity is the dominant dissipation mechanism. Bulk viscosity arises as the mode oscillation drives the fluid away from beta equilibrium. It depends on the extent to which energy is dissipated from the fluid motion as weak interactions try to re-establish equilibrium. This is essentially a resonant mechanism that is efficient when the oscillation timescale is similar to the reaction timescale. At higher and lower frequencies (or, equivalently, temperatures) the bulk viscosity mechanism shuts off. This resonance is apparent in the schematic instability window shown in Figure \[instab\]. In the Cowling approximation one can show that the bulk viscosity damping timescale (relevant just above $10^9$ K, i.e. in region 3 in Figure \[instab\]) is given by $$t_{\rm bv} \approx 3 \times10^{11} \left( { M \over 1.4 M_\odot} \right) \left({ 10\ \mathrm{km} \over R} \right)\left( {P \over 1\ \mathrm{ms} } \right)^2 \left({ 10^9\ \mathrm{K} \over T} \right)^6 \mbox{ s} \label{bulkest}$$ It is easy to see that, while this damping is inefficient at $10^9$ K it is very efficient at $10^{10}$ K. From these estimates we learn that the r-mode instability will only be active in a certain temperature range. To have an instability we need $t_{\rm gw}$ to be smaller in magnitude than both $t_{\rm sv}$ and $t_{\rm bv}$. We find that shear viscosity will completely suppress the r-mode instability at core temperatures below $10^5$ K. This corresponds to region 4 in Figure \[instab\]. Similarly, bulk viscosity will prevent the mode from growing in a star that is hotter than a few times $10^{10}$ K. This is the case in region 2 of Figure \[instab\]. However, if the core becomes very hot (as in region 1 in Figure \[instab\]), then the nuclear reactions that lead to the bulk viscosity are strongly suppressed. For our chosen model, this region is likely not very relevant since neutron stars will not remain at such extreme temperatures long enough that an unstable mode can grow to a large amplitude. Having said that, one should be aware that the “resonance temperature” where the bulk viscosity is strong is highly model dependent and there may well be situations where region 1 is relevant. Finally, in the intermediate region 3 in figure \[instab\], there is a temperature window where the growth time due to gravitational radiation is short enough to overcome the viscous damping and the mode is unstable. This schematic picture holds for all modes that are driven unstable by GWs, but the instability windows are obviously different in each case. Detailed calculations show that viscosity stabilizes all f-modes below $\Omega_c \approx 0.95\Omega_K$ in a Newtonian star, while the r-modes are stable below $\Omega_c \approx 0.04\Omega_K$. (Note that the instability windows are likely to be significantly smaller in more realistic models.) For the $n=1$ polytrope that we have considered the break-up limit $\Omega_K$ would correspond to a spin period of around 1.2 ms (for uniform rotation). Because of the potentially very large instability window, the r-modes have been studied in a variety of contexts, at many different levels of detail. (It is perhaps worth noting that, with the exception of [@2001PhRvD..63b4019L; @2001MNRAS.328..678R; @2002MNRAS.330.1027R; @2003PhRvD..68l4010L], most of the relevant studies have not accounted for relativistic gravity.) We now (think we) know that key issues concern the interaction with magnetic fields in the star [@Rezzolla00; @Rezzolla01a; @Rezzolla01b], the damping due to the vortex mediated mutual friction in a superfluid [@1991ApJ...380..530M; @2000PhRvD..61j4003L; @2006MNRAS.368..162A; @2009MNRAS.397.1464H], the role of turbulence [@2009arXiv0911.1609M], the boundary layer at the crust-core interface [@2000PhRvD..62h4030L; @2006PhRvD..74d4040G; @2006MNRAS.371.1311G; @2006ApJ...644L..53P] and exotic bulk viscosity due to the presence of hyperons [@2002PhRvD..65f3006L; @2006PhRvD..73h4001N] or deconfined quarks [@1998PhRvL..81.3311M; @2000PhRvL..85...10M] in the deep neutron star core. These problems are all very challenging. In addition, we need to model the GW signal from an unstable r-mode. This is also difficult because, even though the r-mode growth phase is adequately described by linear theory, nonlinear effects soon become important [@1998PhRvD..58h4020O]. Detailed studies show that the instability saturates at a low amplitude due to coupling to other inertial modes [@2002ApJ...571..435M; @2002PhRvD..65b4001S; @2003ApJ...591.1129A; @2004PhRvD..70l1501B; @2004PhRvD..70l4017B; @2005PhRvD..71f4029B]. The subsequent evolution is very complex, as is the associated GW signal [@2002CQGra..19.1247O; @2007PhRvD..76f4019B; @2009PhRvD..79j4003B]. While we improve our understanding of this mechanism, we should not forget about the f-mode instability. Basically, we know that the strongest f-mode instability in a Newtonian model is associated with the $l=m=4$ modes [@1991ApJ...373..213I]. The situation is different in a relativistic model where the $l=m=2$ modes may also be unstable [@1998ApJ...492..301S]. The quadrupole modes are more efficient GW emitters and so could lead to an interesting instability. Moreover, the supposed “killer blow” of superfluid mutual friction suppression [@1995ApJ...444..804L] only acts below the critical temperature for superfluidity. This means that, even in the worst case scenario, the f-mode could experience an instability in very young neutrons stars (provided that they are born spinning fast enough) [@2009PhRvD..79j3009A]. This problem clearly needs further attention. In particular, it should be noted that the various dissipative mechanisms have only been discussed in Newtonian gravity. This means that we have no realistic estimates of the damping of the unstable quadrupole mode. Moreover, not much effort has gone into understanding the associated saturation amplitude and potential GW signal. To model a truly realistic oscillating neutron star may be difficult, but the potential reward is considerable. This is clear from recent results for the quasiperiodic oscillations that have been observed in the tails of magnetar flares. These oscillations have been interpreted as torsional oscillations of the crust. These crust modes should be easier to excite than poloidal oscillations since they do not involve density variations. Three giant flare events, with peak luminosities in the range 10$^{44}$ - 10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$, have been observed so far; SGR 0526-66 in 1979, SGR 1900+14 in 1998, and SGR 1806-20 in 2004. Timing analysis of the last two events revealed several quasiperiodic oscillations in the decaying tail, with frequencies in the expected range for toroidal crust modes [@Israel2005; @SW2005; @WS2006a; @SW2006; @WS2006b]. If this interpretation is correct, then we are already doing neutron star asteroseismology! Subsequent calculations have shown how observations may constrain both the mass, radius and crust thickness of these stars [@SA2007; @SA2009]. Eventually, it may also be possible to probe the magnetic field configuration [@2008MNRAS.385.2161S]. There are, however, important conceptual issues that we need to resolve in order to make progress on this problem. A key question concerns the existence of a magnetic continuum [@2006MNRAS.368L..35L; @2007MNRAS.377..159L; @2007MNRAS.375..261S; @2007MNRAS.374.1015L; @2008MNRAS.385.2069L; @2008MNRAS.385L...5S; @2009MNRAS.395.1163S; @2009MNRAS.396.1441C; @2009MNRAS.397.1607C] and its potential effect on the dynamics of the system. Our current models may not be particularly reliable, but they should motivate us to improve our understanding of the key physics (like the interior magnetic field [@Bfield1], superfluid phases [@2008MNRAS.391..283V; @2009MNRAS.396..894A] and the dynamical coupling between the crust and the core [@2001PhRvD..64d4009M]). It is also possible that the magnetar events, such as the 27/12/2004 burst in SGR 1806-20, generate GWs. Indeed, LIGO data has already been searched for signals from soft-gamma ray repeaters [@Abbott2007; @Abbott2008; @2009ApJ...701L..68A], including searches at frequencies at which f-modes might be expected to radiate. No detections have yet been made. Is this surprising? Given our current uncertainty as to just which parts of the star are set in motion following a burst, probably not. Basically, pure crust oscillations would not generate strong GWs due to the low density involved. The situation may change if the dense core fluid is involved in the oscillation, e.g. through magnetic coupling [@2006MNRAS.368L..35L; @GSA2006], but in that case we do not yet know what the exact signature of the event would be so it is difficult to search for. It would most likely not be appropriate to search for a signal at the observed frequencies in the X-ray data. We need to make progress on a number of issues if we want to understand these events. In absence of better information perhaps the best we can do is “look under the light”. Challenges ========== GW astronomy promises to provide insights into the “dark side” of the Universe. Because of their density, neutron stars are ideal GW sources and we hope to be able to probe the extreme physics of their interior with future detectors. The potential for this is clear, in particular with third generation detectors like the Einstein Telescope. However, in order to detect the signals and extract as much information as possible, we need to improve our theoretical models considerably. It seems natural to conclude this survey of scenarios by discussing some of the main challenges that we need to meet in the next few years. For binary inspirals, we need to work out when finite size effects begin to affect the evolution. We should consider tidal resonances and compressibility in detail and ask at what level they affect the late stages of inspiral. It is also important to quantify to what extent we will be able to “read off” neutron star physics from a detected signal. For hot young remnants, resulting from binary mergers or core collapse events, we need to refine our large scale numerical simulations. It is important to understand that, despite great progress in recent years, these simulations are not yet in the truly “convergent” regime. Key technical issues (like how one should model, and keep track of, the fluid to vacuum transition at the surface) still need to be resolved. Future simulations must use “realistic” equations of state, and consider evolving composition, heat/neutrino cooling and magnetic fields with as few “cheats” as possible. To some extent this effort may be helped by the fact that many effects that are important in a mature neutron are less so on the dynamical timescales that lend themselves to large-scale simulations. For rotating deformed neutron stars, we need to go beyond producing upper limits on possible signal strengths, and address the much more subtle issue of their *likely* deformations. It will also be vitial for the source modelling community to engage further with the high energy physics/QCD theorists, whose models of matter at high density could prove crucial in interpreting future detections. Finally, the data analysis challenge involved in looking for the long-lived signals expected from rotating stars is formidable — further work on reducing the computational burden of these searches is crucial. In parallel, we need to build on our current understanding of neutron star oscillations and instabilities. This effort should aim at accounting for as much of the interior physics as possible. If we want to model proto-neutron stars then we need to refine our understanding of heat conduction (in general relativity) and the role of the trapped neutrinos. For mature neutron stars we need to model the crust, which will contain a “decoupled” neutron superfluid. The complex composition of the core, with potentially several exotic phases of matter, poses a number of challenges. To meet these we need to improve our models for multi-fluid systems. It is also key to understand the relevance of proton superconductivity. After all, the magnetic field will always play some role. For magnetars it may, in fact, be the dominant factor. Finally, it is crucial that we find a way to model systems that evolve on a secular timescale. The archetypal problem may be the nonlinear saturation and subsequent evolution of an unstable r-mode. At the present time, the available models are based on the explicit calculation of, and transfer of energy between, coupled modes. It will not be easy to extend this calculation to more realistic neutron star models, and it seems natural to ask if there is some alternative way of modelling such problems. Finally, we need a clearer phenomenological understanding of pulsar glitches, accreting neutron stars, magnetar flares etcetera. It is natural to develop this as part of an effort in multi-messenger astronomy [@2008cosp...37.2316O; @2009CQGra..26t4014O], a theme we have only touched upon briefly. Electromagnetic and GW data have in fact already been usefully combined. For instance, LIGO data was used to show that the gamma ray burst GRB070201, which originated in the direction of the spiral arms of the Andromeda galaxy, was *not* powered by a neutron star inspiral at the distance of Andromeda [@2008ApJ...681.1419A]. The improved sensitivity of 3G detectors will allow for more frequent and more powerful statements to be made, covering a whole host of electromagnetic observations. In particular, it seems appropriate to ask what we can learn from more detailed radio observations with SKA and Lofar (for example). Future X-ray data should also continue to provide key information — just think how much we have learned from RXTE. In fact, accurate neutron star timing data is key for GW science. Of course, we should not simply wait for our colleagues in other fields to give us answers. We should ask if our modelling effort can help shed light on phenomena in “mainstream” astronomy. Given the accurate neutron star models that we are now developing, it would seem obvious that this is the case. NA and DIJ acknowledges support from STFC in the UK via grant number PP/E001025/1. KDK and BZ are supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) via SFB/TR7. We would like to thank Thomas Janka, Andrew Melatos, Ben Owen and B. Sathyaprakash for helpful comments. We also acknowledge many fruitful discussions with our colleagues in the Compstar network. [170]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , , , in ** (), vol. of **, pp. . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , (), . , , , , , , (), . , ****, (), . , , , , , , , ****, (), . , in ** (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (). , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (). , (). , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , (), . , , , (), . , , , , (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (). , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , , (), . , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (). , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (). , ****, (), . , ****, (). , , , ****, (), . , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (), . , ****, (). , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , ****, (), . , , , ****, (), . , in ** (), vol.  of **, pp. . , ****, (), . , ****, (), .

--- abstract: | Scaling or smiliarity laws of plasmas are of interest if lab size plasma sources are to be scaled for industrial processes. In the case of direct current (DC) magnetron sputtering the scales can range from few centimeters in the lab to several meters if one takes the flat glass industry as one example. Ideally, the discharge parameters of the scaled plasmas are predictable and the fundamental physical processes are unaltered. Naturally, there are limitations and ranges of validity.\ Scaling laws for direct current glow discharges are well known. If a well diagnosed discharge is scaled, the field strength in the positive column, the gas amplification and the normal current density can easily be estimated. For non-stationary high power discharges like high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS) plasmas, scaling is not as straight forward. Here, one deals with a non-stationary complex system with strong changes in plasma chemistry and symmetry breaks during the pulses. Because of the huge parameter space no good parameters are available to define these kind of discharges unambiguous at the moment.\ In this contribution we will discuss the scaling laws for DC glow discharges briefly and present experimental results for a discharge with copper electrodes and helium as plasma forming gas. This discharge was operated in a pressure range from $200$ to $1600\;$hPa with three different electrode diameters ($D=2.1$, $3.0$ and $4.3\;$mm). Results from breakdown voltage measurements indicate that the pressure and electrode distance cannot be varied independently. Also limitations of the theoretical Paschen curves will be adressed. Effects of the scaling on the reduced normal current density, the reduced normal electric field in the positive column and discharge temperature will be discussed and limitations highlighted.\ Compared with these results the added complexity of HiPIMS plasmas will be described. Suggestions in the community how to obtain experimental finger prints of the plasmas will be reviewed and implications from the experiences with DC discharges on the development of similarity laws for HiPIMS plasmas will be discussed. address: | $^1$Research Department Plasmas with Complex Interactions, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Institute for Experimental Physics II, D-44780 Bochum, Germany\ $^2$Institute of Applied Physics, Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria author: - 'C. Maszl$^{1}$[^1], J. Laimer$^2$, A. von Keudell$^1$ and H. Störi$^2$' bibliography: - 'bibmac.bib' title: Scaling and laws of DC discharges as pointers for HiPIMS plasmas --- Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This project is supported by the DFG (German Science Foundation) within the framework of the Coordinated Research Center SFB-TR 87 and the Research Department ”Plasmas with Complex Interactions” at Ruhr-University Bochum. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [^1]:

--- abstract: 'Existing techniques to encode spatial invariance within deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) apply the same warping field to all the feature channels. This does not account for the fact that the individual feature channels can represent different semantic parts, which can undergo different spatial transformations w.r.t. a canonical configuration. To overcome this limitation, we introduce a learnable module, the volumetric transformer network (VTN), that predicts channel-wise warping fields so as to reconfigure intermediate CNN features spatially and channel-wisely. We design our VTN as an encoder-decoder network, with modules dedicated to letting the information flow across the feature channels, to account for the dependencies between the semantic parts. We further propose a loss function defined between the warped features of pairs of instances, which improves the localization ability of VTN. Our experiments show that VTN consistently boosts the features’ representation power and consequently the networks’ accuracy on fine-grained image recognition and instance-level image retrieval.' author: - Seungryong Kim - Sabine Süsstrunk - Mathieu Salzmann bibliography: - 'main.bib' title: Volumetric Transformer Networks --- Introduction ============ Learning discriminative feature representations of semantic object parts is key to the success of computer vision tasks such as fine-grained image recognition [@Fu17; @Zheng17], instance-level image retrieval [@Noh17; @Radenovic18], and people re-identification [@Zheng15; @Li18]. This is mainly because, unlike generic image recognition and retrieval [@imagenet_cvpr09; @Everingham15], solving these tasks requires handling subtle inter-class variations. A popular approach to extracting object part information consists of exploiting an attention mechanism within a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) [@Gregor15; @Xu15; @Noh17; @Woo18]. While effective at localizing the discriminative parts, such an approach has limited ability to handle spatial variations due to, e.g., scale, pose and viewpoint changes, or part deformations, which frequently occur across different object instances [@Felzenszwalb10; @Jaderberg15; @Dai17]. To overcome this, recent methods seek to spatially warp the feature maps of different images to a canonical configuration so as to remove these variations and thus facilitate the subsequent classifier’s task. This trend was initiated by the spatial transformer networks (STNs) [@Jaderberg15], of which many variants were proposed, using a recurrent formalism [@Lin17inv], polar transformations [@Esteves18], deformable convolutional kernels [@Dai17], and attention based samplers [@Recasens18; @Zheng19]. All of these methods apply the *same* warping field to *all* the feature channels. This, however, does not account for the findings of [@Ren15; @Bau17; @Garcia18], which have shown that the different feature channels of standard image classifiers typically relate to different semantic concepts, such as object parts. Because these semantic parts undergo different transformations w.r.t. the canonical configuration, e.g., the wings of a bird may move while its body remains static, the corresponding feature channels need to be transformed individually. \ \ In this paper, we address this by introducing a learnable module, the volumetric transformer network (VTN), that predicts channel-wise warping fields. As illustrated by [Fig. \[img:1\]]{}, this allows us to correctly account for the different transformations of different semantic parts by reconfiguring the intermediate features of a CNN spatially and channel-wisely. To achieve this while nonetheless accounting for the dependencies between the different semantic parts, we introduce an encoder-decoder network that lets information flow across the original feature channels. Specifically, our encoder relies on a channel-squeeze module that aggregates information across the channels, while our decoder uses a channel-expansion component that distributes it back to the original features. As shown in previous works [@Jaderberg15; @Yi16; @Lin17inv; @Esteves18], training a localization network to achieve spatial invariance is challenging, and most methods [@Jaderberg15; @Yi16; @Lin17inv; @Esteves18] rely on indirect supervision via a task-dependent loss function, as supervision for the warping fields is typically unavailable. This, however, does not guarantee that the warped features are consistent across different object instances. To improve the localization ability of the predicted warping fields, we further introduce a loss function defined between the warped features of pairs of instances, so as to encourage similarity between the representation of same-class instances while pushing that of different-class instances apart. Our experiments on fine-grained image recognition [@WelinderEtal2010; @Krause15; @Maji13; @Horn18] and instance-level image retrieval [@Radenovic18], performed using several backbone networks and pooling methods, evidence that our VTNs consistently boost the features’ representation power and consequently the networks’ accuracy. Related Work ============ [[**Attention mechanisms.**]{}]{} As argued in [@Zhu19], spatial deformation modeling methods [@Jaderberg15; @Lin17inv; @Dai17; @Recasens18], including VTNs, can be viewed as hard attention mechanisms, in that they localize and attend to the discriminative image parts. Attention mechanisms in neural networks have quickly gained popularity in diverse computer vision and natural language processing tasks, such as relational reasoning among objects [@Battaglia16; @Santoro17], image captioning [@Xu15], neural machine translation [@Bahdanau15; @Vaswani17], image generation [@Xu18; @Zhang19], and image recognition [@Hu18; @Wang18]. They draw their inspiration from the human visual system, which understands a scene by capturing a sequence of partial glimpses and selectively focusing on salient regions [@Itti98; @Larochelle10]. Unlike methods that consider spatial attention [@Gregor15; @Xu15; @Noh17; @Woo18], some works [@Wang17; @Zhang18; @Hu18; @Fu19] have attempted to extract channel-wise attention based on the observation that different feature channels can encode different semantic concepts [@Ren15; @Bau17; @Garcia18], so as to capture the correlations among those concepts. In those cases, however, spatial attention was ignored. While some methods [@Chen17; @Woo18] have tried to learn spatial and channel-wise attention simultaneously, they only predict a fixed spatial attention with different channel attentions. More importantly, attention mechanisms have limited ability to handle spatial variations due to, e.g., scale, pose and viewpoint changes, or part deformations [@Felzenszwalb10; @Jaderberg15; @Dai17]. [[**Spatial invariance.**]{}]{} Recent work on spatial deformation modeling seeks to spatially warp the features to a canonical configuration so as to facilitate recognition [@Jaderberg15; @Lin17inv; @Dai17; @Esteves18; @Recasens18]. STNs [@Jaderberg15] explicitly allow the spatial manipulation of feature maps within the network while attending to the discriminative parts. Their success inspired many variants that use, e.g., a recurrent formalism [@Lin17inv], polar transformations [@Esteves18], deformable convolutional kernels [@Dai17], and attention based warping [@Recasens18; @Zheng19]. These methods typically employ an additional network, called localization network, to predict a warping field, which is then applied to all the feature channels identically. Conceptually, this corresponds to using hard attention [@Gregor15; @Xu15; @Noh17; @Woo18], but it improves spatial invariance. While effective, this approach concentrates on finding the regions that are most discriminative across all the feature channels. To overcome this, some methods use multi-branches [@Jaderberg15; @Zheng17], coarse-to-fine schemes [@Fu17], and recurrent formulations [@Li17], but they remain limited to considering a pre-defined number of discriminative parts, which restricts their effectiveness and flexibility. [[**Fine-grained image recognition.**]{}]{} To learn discriminative feature representations of object parts, conventional methods first localize these parts and then classify the whole image based on the discriminative regions. These two-step methods [@Berg14; @Huang16] typically require bounding box or keypoint annotations of objects or parts, which are hard to collect. To alleviate this, recent methods aim to automatically localize the discriminative object parts using an attention mechanism [@Fu17; @Zheng17; @Li17; @Sun18; @Rodriguez18; @Recasens18; @Chen19; @Zheng19] in an unsupervised manner, without part annotations. However, these methods do not search for semantic part representations in the individual feature channels, which limits their ability to boost the feature representation power. Recently, Chen et al. [@Chen19] proposed a destruction and construction learning strategy that injects more discriminative local details into the classification network. However, the problem of explicitly processing the individual feature channels remains untouched. [[**Instance-level image retrieval.**]{}]{} While image retrieval was traditionally tackled using local invariant features [@Lowe04; @Mikolajczyk05] or bag-of-words (BoW) models [@Sivic03; @Arandjelovic13], recent methods use deep CNNs [@Babenko15; @Tolias16; @Kalantidis16; @Tolias16; @Noh17; @Radenovi19tpami] due to their better representation ability. In this context, the main focus has been on improving the feature representation power of pretrained backbone networks [@Krizhevsky12; @Simonyan15; @He16], typically by designing pooling mechanisms to construct a global feature, such as max-pooling (MAC) [@Tolias16], sum-pooling (SPoC) [@Babenko15], weighted sum-pooling (CroW) [@Kalantidis16], regional max-pooling (R-MAC) [@Tolias16], and generalized mean-pooling (GeM) [@Radenovi19tpami]. These pooling strategies, however, do not explicitly leverage the discriminative parts, and neither do the methods [@Gordo17; @Radenovi19tpami] that have tried to fine-tune the pretrained backbone networks [@Krizhevsky12; @Simonyan15; @He16]. While the approach of [@Noh17] does, by learning spatial attention, it ignores the channel-wise variations. Taking such variations into account is the topic of this paper. Volumetric Transformer Networks =============================== Preliminaries ------------- Let us denote an intermediate CNN feature map as ${U} \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times K}$, with height $H$, width $W$, and $K$ channels. To attend to the discriminative object parts and reduce the inter-instance spatial variations in the feature map, recent works [@Jaderberg15; @Yi16; @Lin17inv; @Esteves18] predict a warping field to transform the features to a canonical pose. This is achieved via a module that takes ${U}$ as input and outputs the parameters defining a warping field ${G} \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 2}$ to be applied to ${U}$. The representation in the canonical pose is then obtained via a feature sampling mechanism, which, for every pixel $i$ in the output representation, produces a warped feature such that ${V(i)}=U(i+G(i))$. As argued above, while this reduces spatial variations and lets the network focus on discriminative image regions, the same warping field is applied across all the channels, without considering the different semantic meanings of these individual channels. Moreover, this does not explicitly constrain the warped features of different instances of the same class to be consistent. \ Motivation and Overview ----------------------- By contrast, our volumetric transformer network (VTN), which we introduce in the remainder of this section, encodes the observation that each channel in an intermediate CNN feature map acts as a pattern detector, i.e., high-level channels detect high-level semantic patterns, such as parts and objects [@Bau17; @Chen17; @Garcia18; @Woo18], and, because these patterns can undergo different transformations, one should separately attend to the discriminative parts represented by the individual channels to more effectively warp them to the canonical pose. To achieve this, unlike existing spatial deformation modeling methods [@Jaderberg15; @Lin17inv; @Dai17; @Recasens18], which apply the same warping field to all the feature channels, as in [Fig. \[img:2\]]{}(b), our VTN predicts channel-wise warping fields, shown in [Fig. \[img:2\]]{}(d). Concretely, a VTN produces a warping field ${G}_c\in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 2}$ for each channel $c$. Rather than estimating the warping field of each channel independently, to account for dependencies between the different semantic parts, we design two modules, the channel squeeze and expansion modules, that let information flow across the channels. Furthermore, to improve the computational efficiency and localization accuracy, we build a group sampling and normalization module, and a transformation probability inference module at the first and last layer of VTN, respectively. To train the network, instead of relying solely on a task-dependent loss function as in [@Jaderberg15; @Lin17inv; @Dai17; @Recasens18], which may yield poorly-localized warping fields, we further introduce a loss function based on the distance between the warped features of pairs of instances, thus explicitly encouraging the warped features to be consistent across different instances of the same class. Volumetric Transformation Estimator ----------------------------------- Perhaps the most straightforward way to estimate channel-wise warping fields is to utilize convolutional layers that take the feature map ${U}$ as input and output the warping fields $G = \{G_c\} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times 2 \times K}$. This strategy, however, uses separate convolution kernels for each warping field $G_c$, which might be subject to overfitting because of the large number of parameters involved. As an alternative, one can predict each warping field $G_c$ independently, by taking only the corresponding feature channel ${U}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W\times1}$ as input. This, however, would fail to account for the inter-channel relationships, and may be vulnerable to outlier channels that, on their own, contain uninformative features but can yet be supported by other channels [@Garcia18; @Zhang19; @Jeong19]. To alleviate these limitations, we introduce the channel squeeze and expansion modules, which yield a trade-off between the two extreme solutions discussed above. We first decompose the input feature map across the channel dimension, and apply a shared convolution to each of the $K$ channels. We then combine the original feature channels into $K'$ new channels by a channel-squeeze module, parameterized by a learned matrix $W_\mathrm{cs}$, in the encoder and expand these squeezed feature channels into $K$ channels by a channel-expansion module, parameterized by a learned matrix $W_\mathrm{ce}$, in the decoder. Formally, as depicted by [Fig. \[img:4\]]{}, let us define an intermediate CNN feature map after a forward pass through an encoder as $Y=\mathcal{F}({U};{W}_\mathrm{s})\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times D \times K}$, where each feature channel is processed independently with spatial convolution parameters ${W}_\mathrm{s}$ shared across the channels, introducing an additional dimension of size $D$. We introduce a channel squeeze module, with parameters ${W}_\mathrm{cs} \in \mathbb{R}^{K \times K'}$, $K'<K$, applied to the reshaped $Y\in\mathbb{R}^{HWD \times K}$, whose role is to aggregate the intermediate features so as to output $Z = \mathcal{F}(Y;{W}_\mathrm{cs})\in\mathbb{R}^{HWD\times K'}$, which can also be reshaped to $\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times D\times K'}$. In short, this operation allows the network to learn how to combine the initial $K$ channels so as to leverage the inter-channel relationships while keeping the number of trainable parameters reasonable. We then incorporate a channel expansion module, with parameters ${W}_\mathrm{ce} \in \mathbb{R}^{K' \times K}$, which performs the reverse operation, thereby enlarging the feature map $Z\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times D\times K'}$ back into a representation with $K$ channels. This is achieved through a decoder. We exploit sequential spatial convolution and channel squeeze modules in the encoder, and sequential spatial convolution and channel expansion modules in the decoder. In our experiments, the volumetric transformation estimator consists of an encoder with 4 spatial convolution and channel squeeze modules followed by max-pooling, and a decoder with 4 spatial convolution and channel expansion modules followed by upsampling. Each convolution module follows the architecture Convolution-BatchNorm-ReLU [@Ioffe15]. \ [[**Grouping the channels.**]{}]{} In practice, most state-of-the-art networks [@Simonyan15; @He16; @huang2017densely] extract high-dimensional features, and thus processing all the initial feature channels as described above can be computationally prohibitive. To overcome this, we propose a group sampling and normalization module inspired by group normalization [@Wu18] and attention mechanisms [@Woo18]. Concretely, a group sampling and normalization module takes the feature map ${U}$ as input and separates it into $C$ groups following the sequential order of the channels. We then aggregate the features $U_c$ in each group $c\in\{1,\dots,C\}$ by using two pooling operations: ${U}^\mathrm{max}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 1}$ and ${U}^\mathrm{avg}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 1}$, and concatenate them as ${X}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 2}$, followed by group normalization without per-channel linear transform [@Wu18]. We then take the resulting $X = \{{X}_c\}\in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times 2 \times K}$ as input to the volumetric transformation estimator described above, instead of $U$. \ [[**Probabilistic transformation modeling.**]{}]{} Unlike existing spatial deformation modeling methods [@Jaderberg15; @Lin17inv] that rely on parametric models, e.g., affine transformation, VTNs estimate non-parametric warping fields, thus having more flexibility. However, regressing the warping fields directly may perform poorly because the mapping from the features to the warping fields adds unnecessary learning complexity. To alleviate this, inspired by [@Tompson15; @Sun19], we design a probabilistic transformation inference module that predicts probabilities for warping candidates, instead of directly estimating the warping field. Specifically, we predict the probability $P_c(i,j)$ of each candidate $j \in {N}_i$ at each pixel $i$, and compute the warping field ${G}_c$ by aggregating these probabilities as $${G}_c(i) = \sum\limits_{j \in {N}_i} P_c(i,j) (j-i).$$ Furthermore, instead of predicting the probability $P_c(i,j)$ directly, we compute a residual probability and then use a softmax layer such that $$P_c(i,j) = \Psi\left(\left({{U}^\mathrm{max}_c(j)+{U}^\mathrm{avg}_c(j)+E_c(i,j)}\right)/{\beta}\right),$$ where $E_c \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times |{N}_i|}$ is the output of the volumetric transformation estimator whose the size depends on the number of candidates $|{N}_i|$. Note that $E_c(i,j)$ is a scalar because $i$ denotes a spatial point over $H\times W$ and $j$ indexes a point among all candidates. $\Psi(\cdot)$ is the softmax operator and $\beta$ is a parameter adjusting the sharpness of the softmax output. At initialization, the network parameters are set to predict zeros, i.e., $E_c(i,j)=0$, thus the warping fields are determined by candidate feature responses $U^\mathrm{max}_c+U^\mathrm{avg}_c$, which provide good starting points. As training progresses, the network provides increasingly regularized warping fields. This is used as the last layer of the VTN. [Fig. \[img:5\]]{} visualizes the learned probability of some transformation candidates. {width="0.5\linewidth"} Loss Function ------------- Similarly to existing deformation modeling methods [@Jaderberg15; @Yi16; @Lin17inv; @Esteves18], our network can be learned using only the final task-dependent loss function $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{task}$, without using ground-truth warping fields, since all modules are differentiable. This, however, does not explicitly constrain the warped features obtained from the predicted warping fields to be consistent across different object instances of the same class. To overcome this, we draw our inspiration from semantic correspondence works [@Rocco18; @Kim19], and introduce an additional loss function modeling the intuition that the warped features of two instances of the same class should match and be similar. The simplest approach to encoding this consists of using a square loss between such features, which yields $$\mathcal{L} = \sum\limits_{i} {\|V({i})-V'({i})\|}^2,$$ where $V$ and $V'$ are the warped feature maps of two instances of the same class. Minimizing this loss function, however, can induce erroneous solutions, such as constant features at all the pixels. To avoid such trivial solutions, we use a triplet loss function [@Simo-Serra15b; @Yi16] simultaneously exploiting a sample $V'$ from the same class as $V$ and another sample $V''$ from a different class. We then express our loss as $$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{cons} = \sum\limits_{i} \left[\|V({i})-V'(i)\|^2-\|V({i})-V''(i)\|^2+\alpha \right]_{+},$$ where $\alpha>0$ is a threshold parameter and $\left[\cdot \right]_{+} = \mathrm{max}(\cdot,0)$. Our loss function jointly encourages the instances’ features from the same class to be similar, and the instances’ features from different classes to be dissimilar. Together, this helps to improve the features’ discriminative power, which is superior to relying solely on a task-dependent loss function, as in previous methods [@Jaderberg15; @Yi16; @Lin17inv; @Esteves18]. Note that our approach constitutes the first attempt at learning warping fields that generate consistent warped features across object instances. To train our VTNs, we then use the total loss $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{total}=\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{task}+\lambda\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{cons}$ with balancing parameter $\lambda$. [Fig. \[img:7\]]{} depicts the training procedure of VTNs. Implementation and Training Details ----------------------------------- We implemented VTNs using the [Pytorch]{} library [@paszke2017automatic]. In our experiments, we use VGGNet [@Simonyan15] and ResNet [@He16] backbones pretrained on ImageNet [@imagenet_cvpr09]. We build VTNs on the last convolution layers of each network. For fine-grained image recognition, we replace the 1000-way softmax layer with a $k$-way softmax layer, where $k$ is number of classes in the dataset [@WelinderEtal2010; @Krause15; @Maji13; @Horn18], and fine-tune the networks on the dataset. The input images were resized to a fixed resolution of $512\times512$ and randomly cropped to $448\times448$. We apply random rotations and random horizontal flips for data augmentation. For instance-level image retrieval, we utilize the last convolutional features after the VTNs as global representation. To train VTNs, we follow the experimental protocols of [@Radenovi19tpami; @Gordo17]. We set the hyper-parameters by cross-validation on CUB-Birds [@WelinderEtal2010], and then used the same values for all experiments. We set the size of the transformation candidates $|{N}_i|=11\times11$, the parameter $\beta=10$, the number of groups $C=32$, and the balancing parameter $\lambda=1$. We also set the threshold parameter $\alpha=20$ for VGGNet [@Simonyan15] and $\alpha=30$ for ResNet [@He16], respectively, because they have different feature distributions. The source code is available online at our project webpage: [http://github.com/seungryong/VTNs/]{}. [ &gt;m[0.3]{} &gt;m[0.2]{} &gt;m[0.10]{} &gt;m[0.10]{} &gt;m[0.10]{}]{} Methods &Backbone &[@WelinderEtal2010] &[@Krause15] &[@Maji13] &VGG-19 &71.4 &68.7 &80.7 &ResNet-50 &74.6 &70.4 &82.1 &VGG-19 &74.2 &70.1 &82.6 &ResNet-50 &76.7 &72.1 &83.7 &VGG-19 &72.1 &69.2 &81.1 &ResNet-50 &76.5 &71.0 &81.2 &VGG-19 &75.1 &72.7 &84.6 &ResNet-50 &77.7 &74.8 &83.1 &VGG-19 &76.2 &74.1 &82.4 &ResNet-50 &78.9 &75.2 &85.7 &VGG-19 &77.8 &78.6 &86.1 &ResNet-50 &80.1 &81.4 &86.9 &VGG-19 &76.3 &76.1 &84.4 &ResNet-50 &77.2 &79.1 &82.4 &VGG-19 &78.1 &79.7 &84.9 &ResNet-50 &79.0 &80.4 &85.1 &VGG-19 &79.2 &80.2 &87.1 &ResNet-50 &82.4 &82.1 &84.9 &VGG-19 &80.4 &81.9 &87.4 &ResNet-50 & & & \ \ Experiments =========== Experimental Setup ------------------ In this section, we comprehensively analyze and evaluate VTNs on two tasks: fine-grained image recognition and instance-level image retrieval. First, we analyze the influence of the different components of VTNs compared to existing spatial deformation modeling methods [@Jaderberg15; @Dai17; @Recasens18; @Zheng19] and the impact of combining VTNs with different backbone networks [@Simonyan15; @He16] and second-order pooling strategies [@Lin15; @Gao16; @Cui17; @Li17; @Li18]. Second, we compare VTNs with the state-of-the-art methods on fine-grained image recognition benchmarks [@WelinderEtal2010; @Krause15; @Maji13; @Horn18]. Finally, we evaluate them on instance-level image retrieval benchmarks [@Radenovic18]. Fine-grained Image Recognition ------------------------------ [[**Analysis of the VTN components.**]{}]{} To validate the different components of our VTNs, we compare them with previous spatial deformation modeling methods, such as STNs [@Jaderberg15], deformable convolution (Def-Conv) [@Dai17], saliency-based sampler (SSN) [@Recasens18], and attention-based sampler (ASN) [@Zheng19] on fine-grained image recognition benchmarks, such as CUB-Birds [@WelinderEtal2010], Stanford-Cars [@Krause15], and FGVC-Aircraft [@Maji13]. For the comparison to be fair, we apply these methods at the same layer as ours, i.e., the last convolutional layer. In this set of experiments, we utilize VGGNet-19 [@Simonyan15] and ResNet-50 [@He16] as backbone networks. As an ablation study, we evaluate VTNs without the channel squeeze and expansion modules, denoted by VTNs wo/${W}_\mathrm{cs},{W}_\mathrm{ce}$, without the group sampling and normalization module, denoted by VTNs wo/Group, and without the transformation probability inference module, denoted by VTNs wo/T-Probability. We further report the results of VTNs trained without our consistency loss function, denoted by VTNs wo/$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{cons}$. The results are provided in Table \[tab:1\] and [Fig. \[img:8\]]{}. Note that all versions of our approach outperform the existing deformation modeling methods [@Jaderberg15; @Dai17; @Recasens18; @Zheng19]. Among these versions, considering jointly spatial and channel-wise deformation fields through our squeeze and expansion modules improves the results. The group sampling and normalization and transformation probability inference modules also boost the results. Using the consistency loss function $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{cons}$ further yields higher accuracy by favoring learning a warping to a consistent canonical configuration of instances of the same class and improving the discriminative power of the intermediate features. [ &gt;m[0.35]{} &gt;m[0.10]{} &gt;m[0.10]{} &gt;m[0.10]{}]{} Methods &[@WelinderEtal2010] &[@Krause15] &[@Maji13] Base &74.6 &70.4 &82.1 BP [@Lin15] &80.2 &81.5 &84.8 CBP [@Gao16] &81.6 &81.6 &88.6 KP [@Cui17] &83.2 &82.9 &89.9 MPN-COV [@Li17] &84.2 &83.1 &89.7 iSQRT-COV [@Li18] &88.1 &90.0 &92.8 Base+[**VTNs**]{} &83.1 &82.7 &89.2 BP [@Lin15]+[**VTNs**]{} &84.9 &84.1 &90.6 CBP [@Gao16]+[**VTNs**]{} &85.2 &84.2 &91.2 KP [@Cui17]+[**VTNs**]{} &85.1 &83.2 &91.7 MPN-COV [@Li17]+[**VTNs**]{} &86.7 &88.1 &90.6 iSQRT-COV [@Li18]+[**VTNs**]{} & & & [ &gt;m[0.27]{} &gt;m[0.24]{} &gt;m[0.08]{} &gt;m[0.08]{} &gt;m[0.08]{}]{} Methods &Backbone &[@WelinderEtal2010] &[@Krause15] &[@Maji13] RA-CNN [@Fu17] &3$\times$VGG-19 &85.3 &92.5 &88.2 MA-CNN [@Zheng17] &3$\times$VGG-19 &86.5 &92.8 &89.9 DFL-CNN [@Wang18] &ResNet-50 &87.4 &93.1 &91.7 DT-RAM [@Li17] &ResNet-50 &87.4 &93.1 &91.7 MAMC [@Sun18] &ResNet-50 &86.5 &93.0 &92.9 NTSN [@Sun18] &3$\times$ResNet-50 &87.5 &91.4 &93.1 &VGG-16 &86.9 &94.1 &91.2 &ResNet-50 &87.8 &94.5 &93.0 &VGG-19&86.1 &93.2 &- &ResNet-50 &87.9 &93.8 &- [@Li18]+TASN [@Zheng19]&ResNet-50 &89.1 &- &- DCL [@Chen19]+[**VTNs**]{}&ResNet-50 &89.2 &95.1 &93.4 [@Li18]+[**VTNs**]{}&ResNet-50 &89.6 &93.3 &93.4 [@Li18]+TASN [@Zheng19]+[**VTNs**]{}&ResNet-50 & & & [ &gt;m[0.2]{} &gt;m[0.16]{} &gt;m[0.16]{} &gt;m[0.16]{} &gt;m[0.16]{}]{} Super Class &ResNet [@He16] &SSN [@Recasens18] &TASN [@Zheng19] &[@Li18]+[**VTNs**]{} Plantae &60.3 &63.9 &66.6 & Insecta &69.1 &74.7 &77.6 & Aves &59.1 &68.2 &72.0 & Reptilia &37.4 &43.9 &46.4 & Mammalia &50.2 &55.3 &57.7 & Fungi &62.5 &64.2 &70.3 & Amphibia &41.8 &50.2 &51.6 & Mollusca &56.9 &61.5 &64.7 & Animalia &64.8 &67.8 &71.0 & Arachnida &64.8 &73.8 &75.1 & Actinoopterygii &57.0 &60.3 &65.5 & Chromista &57.6 &57.6 &62.5 & Protozoa &78.1 &79.5 &79.5 & Total &58.4 &63.1 &66.2 & [ &gt;m[0.44]{} &gt;m[0.14]{} &gt;m[0.14]{}]{} Methods &top-1 err. &top-5 err. GoogLeNet+GAP [@Zhou16] &59.00 &- VGGNet+ACoL [@Zhang18] &54.08 &43.49 ResNet+GCAM [@Selvaraju17] &53.42 &43.12 ResNet+STNs [@Jaderberg15]+GCAM [@Selvaraju17] &54.21 &43.33 ResNet+[**VTNs**]{}+GCAM [@Selvaraju17] & & \ \ \ [ &gt;m[0.36]{} &gt;m[0.1]{} &gt;m[0.1]{} &gt;m[0.1]{} &gt;m[0.1]{}]{} & & &$\mathcal{R}$Oxf &$\mathcal{R}$Par &$\mathcal{R}$Oxf &$\mathcal{R}$Par Pretr.+MAC [@Tolias16] &41.7 &66.2 &18.0 &44.1 Pretr.+SPoC [@Babenko15] &39.8 &69.2 &12.4 &44.7 Pretr.+CroW [@Kalantidis16] &42.4 &70.4 &13.3 &47.2 Pretr.+GeM [@Radenovi19tpami] &45.0 &70.7 &17.7 &48.7 Pretr.+R-MAC [@Tolias16] &49.8 &74.0 &18.5 &52.1 DELF [@Noh17; @Tolias16; @Philbin07] &67.8 &76.9 &43.1 &55.4 [@Radenovi19tpami]+GeM &64.7 &77.2 &38.5 &56.3 [@Gordo17]+R-MAC &60.9 &78.9 &32.4 &59.4 [@Gordo17]+R-MAC+STNs [@Jaderberg15] &61.3 &79.4 &36.1 &59.8 DELF [@Noh17; @Tolias16; @Philbin07]+[**VTNs**]{} & &78.1 &45.1 &56.4 [@Radenovi19tpami]+GeM+[**VTNs**]{} &67.4 &80.5 & &57.1 [@Gordo17]+R-MAC+[**VTNs**]{} &65.6 & &43.3 & [[**Incorporating second-order pooling strategies.**]{}]{} While our VTNs can be used on their own, they can also integrate second-order pooling schemes, such as bilinear pooling (BP) [@Lin15], compact BP (CBP) [@Gao16], kernel pooling (KP) [@Cui17], matrix power normalized covariance pooling (MPN-COV) [@Li17], and iterative matrix square root normalization of covariance pooling (iSQRT-COV) [@Li18], which yield state-of-the-art results on fine-grained image recognition. In this set of experiments, we use ResNet-50 [@He16] as backbone. As shown in Table \[tab:2\], our VTNs consistently outperform the corresponding pooling strategy on its own, thus confirming the benefits of using channel-wise warped regions. [[**Comparison with the state-of-the-art methods.**]{}]{} We also compare VTNs with the state-of-the-art fine-grained image recognition methods, such as RA-CNN [@Fu17], MA-CNN [@Zheng17], DFL-CNN [@Wang18], DT-RAM [@Li17], MAMC [@Sun18], NTSN [@Sun18], DCL [@Chen19], and TASN [@Zheng19]. Since our VTN is designed as a generic drop-in layer that can be combined with existing backbones and pooling strategies, we report the results of VTNs combined with DCL [@Chen19], TASN [@Zheng19], and iSQRT-COV [@Li18], which are the top-performers on this task. As can be seen in Table \[tab:3\], our method outperforms the state of the art in most cases. In Table \[tab:4\], we further evaluate VTNs with iSQRT-COV [@Li18] on iNaturalist-2017 [@Horn18], the largest fine-grained recognition dataset, on which we consistently outperform the state of the art. [[**Network visualization.**]{}]{} To analyze the feature representation capability of VTNs, we applied Grad-CAM (GCAM) [@Selvaraju17], which uses gradients to calculate the importance of the spatial locations, to STN- and VTN-based networks. As shown in [Fig. \[img:10\]]{} and Table \[tab:5\], compared to the ResNet-50 [@He16] backbone, STNs [@Jaderberg15] only focus on the most discriminative parts, and thus discard other important parts. Unlike them, VTNs improve the feature representation power by allowing the networks to focus on the most discriminative parts represented by each feature channel. Instance-level Image Retrieval ------------------------------ Finally, we evaluate our VTNs on the task of instance-level image retrieval using the $\mathcal{R}$Oxford and $\mathcal{R}$Paris benchmarks [@Radenovic18], which address some limitations of the standard Oxford-5K [@Philbin07] and Paris-6K benchmarks [@Philbin08], such as annotation errors, size of the dataset, and level of difficulty, and comprise 4,993 and 6,322 images, respectively. Following standard practice, we use the mean average precision (mAP) [@Philbin07] for quantitative evaluation. We follow the evaluation protocol of [@Radenovic18], using two evaluation setups (*Medium* and *Hard*). As baselines, we use a pretrained ResNet-50 [@He16] backbone, followed by various pooling methods, such as MAC [@Tolias16], SPoC [@Babenko15], CroW [@Kalantidis16], R-MAC [@Tolias16], and GeM [@Radenovi19tpami]. We also evaluate deep local attentive features (DELF) [@Noh17] with an aggregated selective match kernel [@Tolias16] and spatial verification [@Philbin07] that learns spatial attention, and incorporate our VTNs into them. Furthermore, we report the results of end-to-end training techniques [@Radenovi19tpami; @Gordo17], and incorporate our VTNs on top of them. As evidenced by our significantly better results in Table \[tab:6\], focusing on the most discriminative parts at each feature channel is one of the key to the success of instance-level image retrieval. Note that the comparison with STNs shows the benefits of our approach, which accounts for different semantic concepts across different feature channels and thus, even for rigid objects, is able to learn more discriminative feature representations than a global warping. [Fig. \[img:11\]]{} visualizes some warping fields of VTNs. Conclusion ========== We have introduced VTNs that predict channel-wise warping fields to boost the representation power of an intermediate CNN feature map by reconfiguring the features spatially and channel-wisely. VTNs account for the fact that the individual feature channels can represent different semantic information and require different spatial transformations. To this end, we have developed an encoder-decoder network that relies on channel squeeze and expansion modules to account for inter-channel relationships. To improve the localization ability of the predicted warping fields, we have further introduced a loss function defined between the warped features of pairs of instances. Our experiments have shown that VTNs consistently boost the features’ representation power and consequently the networks’ accuracy on fine-grained image recognition and instance-level image retrieval tasks. In the future, we will aim to apply VTNs to other tasks, such as person re-identification and local feature matching. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation via the Sinergia grant CRSII5-180359. The work of S. Kim was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020-0-00368, A Neural-Symbolic Model for Knowledge Acquisition and Inference Techniques).

--- abstract: 'Recently, Chan, Cooper and Sica conjectured two congruences for coefficients of classical $_2F_1$ hypergeometric series which also arise from power series expansions of modular forms in terms of modular functions. We prove these two congruences using combinatorial properties of the coefficients.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore, 2 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543; Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik, Vivatsgasse 7, D-53111, Bonn, Germany' - ' Department of Mathematics, University of the Aegean, 83200 Karlovassi, Samos, Greece' - 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Nordbergstrasze 15, A-1090 Vienna, Austria: [http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/\~kratt]{}' - 'School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland' author: - 'Heng Huat Chan, Aristides Kontogeorgis, Christian Krattenthaler and Robert Osburn' title: 'Supercongruences satisfied by coefficients of $_2F_1$ hypergeometric series' --- Introduction ============ The sequence $$\alpha_n=\sum_{k=0}^n {\begin{pmatrix} n \\ k \end{pmatrix}}^2{\begin{pmatrix} n+k \\ k \end{pmatrix}}^2,$$ introduced by R. Apéry [@AperAA] in his proof of the irrationality of $\zeta(3)$, has many interesting arithmetical properties. For example, F. Beukers [@Beukers-87 p. 276] showed that $\alpha_n$ arises from the power series expansion of a modular form of weight 2 in terms of a modular function.[^1] More precisely, if $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$ with $\text{Im}\, \tau>0$, $$\begin{gathered} \eta(\tau) = q^{1/24}\prod_{n=1}^\infty (1-q^n),\\ Z(\tau) = \frac{\bigl(\eta(2\tau)\eta(3\tau)\bigr)^7}{\bigl(\eta(\tau)\eta(6\tau)\bigr)^5} \quad\text{and}\quad X(\tau) = \left(\frac{\eta(\tau)\eta(6\tau)}{\eta(2\tau)\eta(3\tau)}\right)^{12} ,\end{gathered}$$ then $$\label{eq1.1} Z(\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \alpha_nX^n(\tau).$$ Other properties of $\alpha_n$ were soon discovered by S. Chowla, J. Cowles and M. Cowles [@CCC]. They showed that for all primes $p>3$, $$\alpha_p\equiv \alpha_1 \pmod{p^3}.$$ Subsequently, I. M. Gessel [@Gessel] showed that, for all positive integers $n$ and primes $p>3$, $$\label{eq1.2} \alpha_{np}\equiv \alpha_n\pmod{p^3}.$$ Recently, an analogue of Apéry numbers was found. The corresponding sequence is formed by the Domb numbers [@CCL], defined by $$\beta_n=(-1)^n\sum_{k=0}^n{\begin{pmatrix} n \\ k \end{pmatrix}}^2{\begin{pmatrix} 2k \\ k \end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix} 2(n-k) \\ n-k \end{pmatrix}}.$$ It can be shown (see [@CCL (4.14)]) that if $$\mathcal Z(\tau) = \frac{\bigl(\eta(\tau)\eta(3\tau)\bigr)^4}{\bigl(\eta(2\tau)\eta(6\tau)\bigr)^2}\quad \text{and}\quad \mathcal X(\tau) = \left(\frac{\eta(2\tau)\eta(6\tau)}{\eta(\tau)\eta(3\tau)}\right)^6,$$ then $$\label{eq1.3} \mathcal Z(\tau) =\sum_{n=0}^\infty \beta_n\mathcal X^n(\tau).$$ In [@CCS], H. H. Chan, S. Cooper and F. Sica showed, using Gessel’s idea, that $$\label{eq1.4} \beta_{np}\equiv \beta_n\pmod{p^3}.$$ The similarities between and , as well as between and , indicated that perhaps sequences arising from power series expansions of modular forms of weight 2 in terms of modular functions may have properties similar to and . Motivated by this idea, Chan, Cooper and Sica constructed seven sequences $a_n$ from $\eta$-quotients, analogues of theta functions and various modular functions, and they conjectured that, under certain conditions on the primes $p$, these seven sequences satisfy congruences of the type $$\label{eq1.5} a_{np}\equiv a_n\pmod{p^r},$$with $r= 1$, $2$, or $3$. Unfortunately, these conjectures do not follow immediately from Gessel’s method, and therefore new methods have to be devised. The purpose of this note is to give an elementary approach to proving two of these conjectures. \[T1.1\] Let $(a)_n=(a)(a+1)(a+2)\cdots (a+n-1)$. 1. For $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$ and $$s_n =64^n\frac{\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)_n^2}{(1)_n^2},$$ we have $$\label{eq1.6} s_{np}\equiv s_n \pmod{p^2}.$$ 2. For $p\equiv 1\pmod{6}$ and $$t_n = 108^n\frac{\left(\frac{1}{6}\right)_n\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)_n}{(1)_n^2},$$ we have $$\label{eq1.6.1} t_{np}\equiv t_n \pmod{p^2}.$$ The proof of will be given in Sections 2 to 4. The proof of will be given in Section 5. Some parts of the proof of will only be sketched as they are similar to that of . We conclude this introduction by indicating the analogues of and . Let $$Z_2=\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty q^{m^2+n^2} \quad\text{and}\quad X_2=\frac{\eta^{12}(2\tau)} {\displaystyle Z_2^6 }.$$ Then the $s_n$’s are obtained from the expansion $$Z_2=\sum_{n=0}^\infty s_nX_2^n.$$ Incidentally, the coefficients $s_n$ can be obtained from the coefficients$\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)_n\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)_n/(1)_n^2$ studied by S. Ramanujan via a special case of Kummer’s transformation $$\, _2F_1\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4};1;x\right)=\frac{1}{\root{4}\of{1-x}}\, _2F_1\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4};1;\frac{x}{x-1}\right),$$ where $\, _2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is the classical Gaußian hypergeometric series. Let $$Z_3=\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty q^{m^2+mn+n^2}\quad\text{and}\quad X_3=\frac{\eta^6(\tau)\eta^6(\tau)} { Z_3^6}.$$ Then the $t_n$’s are obtained from the expansion $$Z_3=\sum_{n=0}^\infty t_nX_3^n.$$ The series associated with the coefficients $t_n$ were studied in [@Borweins-Garvan] and [@Chan-Chua-Sole], and these coefficients are related to the coefficients $\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)_n\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)_n/(1)_n^2$ studied by Ramanujan and the Borweins by means of the transformation formula $$\, _2F_1\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3};1;x\right)= \, _2F_1\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{6};1;4x(1-x)\right).$$ We remark here that, using , it is immediate (see and ) that, if $u_n=64^n\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)_n\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)_n/(1)_n^2$ and $v_n=27^n\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)_n\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)_n/(1)_n^2$, then $$u_p\equiv u_1\pmod{p^2}\quad\text{and}\quad v_p\equiv v_1\pmod{p^2}.$$ Although it is not clear how one can deduce the corresponding congruences for $s_p$ and $t_p$ from congruences satisfied by $u_p$ and $v_p$ using the $\, _2F_1$ transformation formulas, our proof of Theorem \[T1.1\] is clearly motivated by these relations. A Lemma for the proof of ========================= In this section, we establish a simple lemma which is interesting in its own right. \[L2.0\] For positive integer $n$ and prime $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$, $$\label{eq2.1} \left(\frac{3}{4}\right)_p\equiv 3\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)_p\pmod{p^3}.$$ By isolating the terms involving multiples of $p$ on both sides of , we find that it suffices to prove the congruence $$\label{eq2.2} \prod_{k=0}^{\frac{3p-7}{4}}\left(\frac{3}{4}+k\right)\prod_{k=\frac{3p+1}{4}}^{p-1} \left(\frac{3}{4}+k\right) \equiv \prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-5}{4}}\left(\frac{1}{4}+k\right)\prod_{k=\frac{p+3}{4}}^{p-1} \left(\frac{1}{4}+k\right) \pmod{p^2}.$$ Let the product on the left-hand side be $L(p)$ and the product on the right-hand side be $R(p)$. We group some of the terms in $L(p)$ in pairs as follows: $$\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{3p-3}{4}-k\right) \left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{3p-3}{4}+k\right)$$ for $$1\leq k\leq \frac{p-1}{4}.$$ We then conclude that $$L(p) \equiv \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{p-1}{4}} (-k^2)\prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-3}{2}}\left(\frac{3}{4}+k\right)\pmod{p^2}.$$ Similarly, for $$1\leq k\leq \frac{p-1}{4},$$ we perform the following pairing of some of the terms in the product in $R(p)$: $$\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{p-1}{4}-k\right) \left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{p-1}{4}+k\right).$$ Hence we have $$R(p) \equiv \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{p-1}{4}} (-k^2)\prod_{k=\frac{p+1}{2}}^{p-1}\left(\frac{1}{4}+k\right) \pmod{p^2}.$$ It now remains to verify that $$\label{eq2.3}\prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-3}{2}} \left(\frac{3}{4}+k\right)\equiv \prod_{k=\frac{p+1}{2}}^{p-1}\left(\frac{1}{4}+k\right)\pmod{p^2}.$$ Denoting the left-hand side of by $l(p)$ and the right-hand side by $r(p)$, we observe that we can write $l(p)$ and $r(p)$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:l(p)} l(p)&=\prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-5}{4}} \left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{p-5}{4}-k\right)\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{p-1}{4}+k\right)\\ &\equiv \prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-5}{4}} \left(-\frac{1}{4}-k-k^2\right)\pmod{p^2} \notag\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:r(p)} r(p)&=\prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-5}{4}} \left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{p+1}{2}+\frac{p-5}{4}-k\right)\left(\frac{1}{4}+ \frac{p+1}{2}+\frac{p-1}{4}+k\right)\\ &\equiv \prod_{k=0}^{\frac{p-5}{4}} \left(-\frac{1}{4}-k-k^2\right)\pmod{p^2}, \notag\end{aligned}$$ which implies . This completes the proof of . As a consequence, we have the following congruence. Let $p$ be a prime such that $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$. Then $$\label{eq2.4} \prod_{\substack{k=0 \\ k\neq \frac{3p-3}{4}}}^{p-1}(3+4k) \equiv \prod_{\substack{k=0\\ k\neq\frac{p-1}{4}}}^{p-1} (1+4k) \pmod{p^2}.$$ Simple properties of $s_n$ and the congruence for $n=1$ ======================================================= We first observe that $$\label{eq3.1} s_n=\frac{\left( \frac{1}{4}\right) _{n}^2 64^n}{ (n!)^2}= \frac{4^n}{(n!)^2} \prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (1+4i)^2.$$ \[L2.1\] If $p$ is a prime satisfying $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$, then $$\label{eq3.2} s_p\equiv s_1\pmod{p^2}.$$ From , we find that $$s_p=\frac{4^p}{(p!)^2}\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}(1+4i)^2.$$ Observe that $$s_p = \frac{4^p}{((p-1)!)^2} \prod_{\substack{i=0 \\ i\neq \frac{p-1}{4}}}^{p-1} (1+4i)^2.$$ By , we find that $$\begin{aligned} s_p& \equiv \frac{4^p}{((p-1)!)^2} \prod_{\substack{i=0 \\ i\neq \frac{p-1}{4}}}^{p-1}(1+4i) \prod_{\substack{k=0 \\ k\neq \frac{3p-3}{4}}}^{p-1}(3+4k) \pmod{p^2} \\ &\equiv \frac{1}{3}\frac{4^p}{(p!)^2} \prod_{i=0}^{p-1} (1+4i)\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}(3+4i) \pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq3.3} s_p &\equiv \frac{1}{3}\frac{4^p}{(p!)^2} \prod_{i=0}^{p-1}(1+4i)(3+4i)\pmod{p^2} \\ &\equiv \frac{1}{3}\frac{4^p}{(p!)^2}\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\frac{(1+4i)(3+4i)(2+4i)(4+4i)}{2^2(1+2i)(2+2i)}\pmod{p^2} \notag \\ &\equiv \frac{1}{3}{\begin{pmatrix} 4p \\ 2p \end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix} 2p \\ p \end{pmatrix}}\pmod{p^2}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ It is known that (see [@Kaz], respectively [@Bailey Theorem 4]), for positive integers $a$ and $b$, with $a\geq b$, and primes $p>3$, $$\label{eq3.4}{\begin{pmatrix} pa \\ pb \end{pmatrix}}\equiv {\begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix}}\pmod{p^3}.$$ Using in the last expression in , we conclude that $$s_p\equiv \frac{1}{3}{\begin{pmatrix} 4p \\ 2p \end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix} 2p \\ p \end{pmatrix}}\equiv \frac{1}{3}{\begin{pmatrix} 4 \\ 2 \end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}}\equiv 4\pmod{p^2}.$$ We end this section with a simple observation. Let $$\label{eq3.5} F(n) = 4^{p-1}\prod_{\substack{j=0 \\ j\neq \frac{p-1}{4}}}^{p-1} \left(1+4j+4np\right)^2 \prod_{i=0}^{p-2} \frac{1}{\left(1+i+np\right)^2 }.$$ From , we have the following congruence for $F(0)$. $$\label{eq3.6} F(0)\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}.$$ Completion of the proof of =========================== Let $F(n)$ be defined as in and suppose $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$. Then $F(n)\pmod{p^2}$ is independent of $n$. We first consider the denominator of $F(n)$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \prod_{i=0}^{p-2} \frac{1}{\left(1+i+np\right)^2 } &=\prod_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2} \frac{1}{(np+k)^2((n+1)p-k)^2}\\ &\equiv\prod_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\frac{1}{k^2(p-k)^2}\pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we split the numerator of $F(n)$ into two parts, namely, $$\prod_{\substack{j=0 \\ j\neq \frac{p-1}{4}}}^{p-1} \left(1+4j+4np\right)^2 =A(n)B(n),$$ where $$\begin{aligned} A(n)&=\prod_{j=1}^{(p-1)/4}\left(1+4\left(\frac{p-1}{4}-j\right)+4np\right)^2 \\ &\qquad\qquad\times \left(1+4\left(\frac{p-1}{4}+j\right)+4np\right)^2\\ &\equiv \prod_{j=1}^{(p-1)/4} 16^2j^4\pmod{p^2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} B(n)&=\prod_{k=1}^{(p-1)/4} \left(4np+2p+3+4\left(\frac{p-1}{4}-k\right)\right)^2\\ &\qquad\qquad\times \left(4np+2p+3+4\left(\frac{p-1}{4}+k-1\right)\right)^2 \\ &=\prod_{k=1}^{(p-1)/4}\left(4np+3p-(4k-2)\right)^2\left(4np+3p+(4k-2)\right)^2 \\ &\equiv\prod_{k=1}^{(p-1)/4} \left(-4+16k-16k^2\right)\pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The above computations show that both $A(n)\pmod{p^2}$ and $B(n)\pmod{p^2}$ are independent of $n$. Hence, $F(n)\pmod{p^2}$ is independent of $n$. Using , we arrive at the following conclusion. \[C4.1\] For all positive integers $n$ and $p\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}$, we have $$F(n)\equiv F(0)\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}.$$ Our aim is to show that $$s_{np}\equiv s_n\pmod{p^2}$$ for all positive integers $n$ and primes $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$. We shall accomplish this by an induction on $n$. From , we find that $$\label{eq4.1} s_{n+1}=4\left(\frac{1+4n}{1+n}\right)^2s_n.$$ Therefore $$s_{n+k}= 4^k \prod_{i=0}^{k-1}\left(\frac{1+4(i+n)}{1+n+i}\right)^2s_n.$$ In particular, $$\label{eq4.2} s_{n+p}= 4^p \prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(\frac{1+4(i+n)}{1+n+i}\right)^2s_n.$$ Now, for the induction hypothesis, suppose that $$\label{eq4.3}s_{np}\equiv s_n\pmod{p^2}.$$ By , we find that $$\begin{aligned} s_{(n+1)p}&=s_{np+p}=s_{np}4^p\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(\frac{1+4(i+np)}{1+i+np}\right)^2\\ & \equiv s_n 4^p\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(\frac{1+4(i+np)}{1+i+np}\right)^2\pmod{p^2},\end{aligned}$$ where we used in the last congruence. We observe that, if $$\label{eq4.4} 4^p\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(\frac{1+4(i+np)}{1+i+np}\right)^2\equiv 4\left(\frac{1+4n}{1+n}\right)^2\pmod{p^2},$$ then we would have $$s_{(n+1)p}\equiv s_n 4\left(\frac{1+4n}{1+n}\right)^2 \equiv s_{n+1}\pmod{p^2},$$ by . But the congruence is exactly the congruence in Corollary \[C4.1\]. This completes our proof of . A Lemma for the proof of ========================= \[L5.1\] Let $p=6q+1$ be a prime. Then $$4^p\left(\frac{1}{6}\right)_p\equiv \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)_p\pmod{p^3}.$$ We want to reduce the congruence to one that we can manage. Clearing denominators and dividing the terms which are multiples of $p$ on both sides, we see that we need to prove that $$\begin{aligned} 2^{6q}1\cdot 7\cdots &(6q-5)(6q+7)\cdots (36q+1)\\ &\equiv 2\cdot 5\cdots (12q-1)(12q+5)\cdots (18q+2) \pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We next match the terms $6q+1-6k$ to $6q+1+6k$ for $1\leq k\leq q$ and simplify the left-hand side to $$2^{6q}\prod_{k=1}^q (6q+1-6k)(6q+1+6k) \cdot M(q)\equiv 2^{8q}\cdot 3^{2q}\prod_{k=1}^q (-k^2)\cdot M(q)\pmod{p^2},$$ where $$M(q) = \prod_{k=1}^{4q} (12q+1+6k).$$ But $M(q)$ can also be expressed as $$M(q) =\prod_{k=1}^{2q} (24q+4-(6k-3))(24q+4+6k-3) \equiv 3^{4q}\prod_{k=1}^{2q} (2k-1)^2 \pmod{p^2}.$$ Hence the left-hand side is $$2^{8q}\cdot 3^{6q}\prod_{k=1}^q (-k^2)\prod_{k=1}^{2q} (2k-1)^2.$$ Similarly, the right-hand side can be expressed as $$\prod_{k=1}^{2q}(12q+2-3k)(12q+2+3k)\cdot N(q) \equiv 3^{4q}\prod_{k=1}^{2q} k^2 \cdot N(q)\pmod{p^2},$$ where $N(q)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} N(q) &= \prod_{k=1}^q \left(3q+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{6k-3}{2}\right) \left(3q+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{6k-3}{2}\right) \\ &\equiv \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2q}\prod_{k=1}^q (-(2k-1)^2)\pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Simplifying both sides, we observe that we need to prove that $$2^{10q}\prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (2k-1)^2 \equiv \prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} k^2 \pmod{p^2}.$$ We rewrite both sides, so that the above congruence turns out to be equivalent to $$2^{10q} \prod_{k=q+1}^{2q}(p-(2k-1))(p+(2k-1))\equiv \prod_{k=q+1}^{2q}(p-k)(p+k)\pmod{p^2}.$$ This leads to $$2^{11q}\prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (p-(2k-1))\equiv \prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (p+k)\pmod{p^2},$$ since $$\prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (p+(2k-1))=2^{q}\prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (p-k).$$ Now rewriting $$\prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (p-(2k-1)) = 2^q \prod_{k=q+1}^{2q} (3q-k+1),$$ we see that we must show that $$\begin{gathered} 2^{12q}(q+1)(q+2)\cdots (2q)\\ \equiv (q+1)(q+2)\cdots (2q) \left(1+p\left(H_{2q}-H_q\right)\right)\pmod{p^2},\end{gathered}$$ where $$H_n=\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k}.$$ Equivalently, we need to verify that $$\frac{2^{6q}-1}{p}\cdot 2 \equiv H_{2q}-H_q \pmod{p}.$$ But it is known (see [@Hardy-Wright Theorem 132]) that $$\frac{2^{p-1}-1}{p}\equiv H_{6q}-\frac{H_{3q}}{2}\pmod{p}.$$ Since $$H_{6q}\equiv 0\pmod{p},$$ it suffices to show that $$-H_{3q}+H_q-H_{2q}\equiv 0\pmod{p}.$$ Observe that $$H_{3q}=1+\frac{1}{2}+\cdots +\frac{1}{q}+H_{2q}-H_q+\frac{1}{2q+1}+\cdots +\frac{1}{3q}.$$ Now, for $1\leq i\leq q$, we pair the terms in the sums at both ends as follows: $$\frac{1}{i}+\frac{1}{3q+1-i}=\frac{3q+1}{i(3q+1-i)}\equiv \frac{1}{2i(3q+1-i)}\equiv \frac{1}{i}-\frac{2}{2i-1}\pmod{p}.$$ Hence, we deduce that $$H_{3q}\equiv H_q-2\left(H_{2q}-\frac{H_q}{2}\right)+H_{2q}-H_q \equiv -H_{2q}+H_q\pmod{p},$$ which completes the proof of the lemma. We are now ready to show that if $$t_n = 108^n \frac{\left(\frac{1}{6}\right)_n\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)_n}{(1)_n^2}$$ then $$\label{eq5.1} t_p\equiv t_1\pmod{p^2}$$ for all primes $p\equiv 1\pmod{6}.$ By Lemma \[L5.1\], $$\label{eq5.0.5} t_p\equiv 27^p\frac{\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)_p\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)_p}{(1)_p^2}\pmod{p^2}.$$ But the last expression can be written as $$\binom{3p}{p}\binom{2p}{p}\equiv 6\equiv t_1\pmod{p^2},$$ by using . This completes the proof of . The proof of for $n>1$ is similar to the proof of . We will simply list the corresponding identities that are needed in the proof. These are: (i) The sequence $t_n$ satisfies $$t_{n+1}=6\frac{(1+6n)(1+3n)}{(1+n)^2}t_n$$ and $$t_{n+p} = t_n 6^p\prod_{i=0}^{p-1} \frac{(1+6n+6i)(1+3n+3i)}{(1+n+i)^2}.$$ (ii) The expression $$G(n) = 6^{p-1}\prod_{\substack{j=0 \\ j\neq \frac{p-1}{6}}}^{p-1}(1+6j+6np)\prod_{\substack{j=0 \\ j\neq \frac{p-1}{3}}}^{p-1}(1+3j+3np)\prod_{i=0}^{p-2}\frac{1}{(1+i+np)^2}$$ is independent of $n$ modulo $p^2$, and $$G(n)\equiv G(0)\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}.$$ The proofs of (i) and (ii) are similar to those presented in Section 4. *Acknowledgments*. The first author was supported by NUS Academic Research Grant R-146-000-103-112. The work was carried out when the first author was visiting the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik (MPIM). He thanks the MPIM for providing a nice research environment. He also likes to take the opportunity to thank Elisavet Konstantinou for inviting him to the University of the Aegean, where he met the second author and had many fruitful discussions. The third author was partially supported by the Austrian Science Foundation FWF, grants Z130-N13 and S9607-N13, the latter in the framework of the National Research Network “Analytic Combinatorics and Probabilistic Number Theory." The fourth author was partially supported by Science Foundation Ireland 08/RFP/MTH1081. [99]{} R. Apéry, [*Irrationalit[é]{} de $\zeta(2)$ et $\zeta(3)$*]{}, in: Journées arithmétiques (Luminy, 1978), Ast[é]{}risque [**61**]{} (1979), 11–13. D. F. Bailey, [*Two $p^3$ variations of Lucas’ theorem*]{}, J. Number Theory [**35**]{} (1990), 208–215. F. Beukers, [*Irrationality proofs using modular forms*]{}, Journées arithmétiques (Besançon, 1985), Astérisque [**147-148**]{} (1987), 271–283. J. M. Borwein, P. B. Borwein, and F. G. Garvan, [*Hypergeometric analogues of the arithmetic-geometric mean iteration*]{}, Constr. Approx. [**9**]{} (1993), 509–523. H. H. Chan, S. H. Chan and Z. G. Liu, [*Domb’s numbers and Ramanujan-Sato type series for $1/\pi$*]{}, Adv. Math. [**186**]{} (2004), 396–410. H. H. Chan, K. S. Chua and P. Solé, [*Quadratic iterations to $\pi$ associated with elliptic functions to the cubic and septic base*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**355**]{} (2003), 1505–1520. H. H. Chan, S. Cooper and F. Sica, [*Congruences satisfied by Apéry-like numbers*]{}, Int. J. Number Theory, to appear. S. Chowla, J. Cowles and M. Cowles, [*Congruences properties of Apéry numbers*]{}, J. Number Theory [**12**]{} (1980), 188–190. I. M. Gessel, [*Some congruences for the Apéry numbers*]{}, J. Number Theory [**14**]{} (1982), 362–368. G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright, [*An introduction to the theory of numbers*]{}, fifth edition. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1979. G. S. Kazandzidis, [*Congruences on the binomial coefficients*]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. Grèce (N.S.) [**9**]{} (1968), 1–12. M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier, [*Periods*]{}, Mathematics Unlimited — 2001 and beyond, Springer, Berlin, 2001, pp. 771–808. [^1]: Beukers gave the modular form in terms of Lambert series. The product form can be found in [@KZ].

--- abstract: 'In this Perspective, I describe recent work on systems in which the traditional distinctions between **(i)** unentangled vs. well-entangled systems and **(ii)** melts vs. glasses seem least useful, and argue for the broader use in glassy polymer mechanics of two more dichotomies: systems which possess **(iii)** unary vs. binary and **(iv)** cooperative vs. noncooperative relaxation dynamics. I discuss the applicability of **(iii-iv)** to understanding the functional form of strain hardening. Results from molecular dynamics simulations show that the “dramatic” hardening observed in densely entangled systems is associated with a crossover from unary, noncooperative to binary, cooperative relaxation as strain increases; chains stretch between entanglement points, altering the character of local plasticity. Promising approaches for future research along these lines are discussed.' author: - 'Robert S. Hoy' title: 'Why is Understanding Glassy Polymer Mechanics So Difficult?' --- ![Schematic of stress-strain curves for ductile polymer glasses. Dramatic hardening coincides with the increase in slope at large strains. In brittle systems, fracture intervenes at lower strains because strain hardening is insufficient to stabilize the material against post-yield strain localization [@haward97].[]{data-label="fig:GSHschematic"}](fig1b.eps){width="3.1in"} One of the reasons dense polymeric systems so interest physical scientists, apart from their ubiquity and utility, is the wide range of energy, length, and time (EL&T) scales controlling their properties. Figure \[fig:GSHschematic\], a schematic depiction of typical stress-strain curves for ductile polymer glasses, illustrates the mechanical consequences of this range. Undeformed systems occupy low-lying regions of a rugged free energy landscape. In the linear elastic regime, systems remain near initial free energy minima, and stress is controlled by local forces at the Kuhn scale or below. Yield occurs when energetic barriers to segmental rearrangements are overcome; the resulting increase in local mobility produces strain softening. In the plastic flow regime, the stress $\sigma = \partial W/\partial \epsilon$ is relatively constant. Strain hardening begins when $\partial W/\partial \epsilon$ must increase to drive further segmental rearrangements while maintaining chain connectivity. This increase becomes more dramatic as the scale over which chains are oriented approaches that of the entanglement mesh. Finally, fracture occurs when cohesive forces, either primary covalent bonds or secondary nonbonded interactions, no longer suffice to maintain material integrity. The industrial importance of understanding strength and failure of polymeric materials has made quantitatively predicting the entire range of mechanical response shown in Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\] one of the main goals of physical polymer science. While great progress has been made in recent years towards understanding phenomena at strains up to and including the early stages of strain hardening within a single framework, a coherent theoretical picture including dramatic hardening and fracture remains elusive. In this Perspective I discuss some of the reasons why this is so, and outline possible strategies for moving forward. Polymer dynamics and mechanics are often cast in terms of polar dichotomies; a given system is classified as belonging to one “pole” or the other. The two most commonly employed dichotomies for bulk amorphous systems (at least those relevant to Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\]) are those between: **(i)** unentangled vs. well-entangled systems, and **(ii)** melts far above $T_g$ vs. glasses far below $T_g$. Dynamical behavior in polar limits (e. g. unentangled melts [@doi86]) is amenable to relatively simple theoretical treatment. Because the EL&T scales controlling relaxation are well separated, one may focus on a dominant scale and then treat relaxation on that scale. In the context of Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\], only glassy systems posess a finite plastic flow stress, and only entangled systems strain harden. Flow and hardening have therefore traditionally been explained in terms of local plasticity [@boyce88] and the work required to deform the entanglement network [@arruda93b], respectively. Dichotomies **(i-ii)** have obviously proven of great utility for understanding polymer mechanics, but for actively deforming systems, they are less useful. A classic example is the well known tendency of systems *above* their quiescent $T_g$ to exhibit glass-like mechanical features when deformed sufficiently rapidly. Significant strain hardening occurs when the product of strain rate $\dot\epsilon$ and chain-scale relaxation time $\tau$ exceeds unity. More recent experimental, theoretical and simulation work [@loo; @chen; @lee] has further blurred the distinction between melts and glasses by showing that systems *below* their quiescent $T_g$ become meltlike on short length scales under active deformation. Finite strain rates can reduce the segmental relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ by orders of magnitude; $\dot{\epsilon}\tau_{\alpha}$ drops well below unity at yield. This drop is partially reversed in the strain hardening regime, and in all cases, $\tau_{\alpha}$ increases dramatically when deformation is ceased. Clearly the terms “meltlike” and “glassy” poorly characterize such nonlinear behavior. Categorizing systems as either “entangled” or “unentangled” can be similarly complicated, because entanglements (unlike crosslinks) may be short-lived or long-lived compared to experimental time scales, and their relaxation is also altered by active deformation. These developments have helped clarify why developing a coherent theoretical framework for predicting the entire range of behavior depicted in Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\] is so difficult. How, then, to proceed? The great advances made by conceptualizing mechanical properties in terms of dichotomies **(i-ii)** suggest that looking for additional ones is a useful strategy. It seems to me that two potentially very useful dichotomies for improving our understanding of glassy polymer mechanics are: **(iii)** unary vs. binary relaxation and **(iv)** noncooperative vs. cooperative relaxation. Like **(i)** and **(ii)**, **(iii)** and **(iv)** are dichotomistic views of the *character* of the dominant relaxation mechanisms. The “poles” correspond to whether the constituents of a system can be accurately *treated* as relaxing independently of one another. If relaxation is unary and/or noncooperative, they can. If it is binary and/or cooperative, they cannot; instead, one must explicitly treat correlations between constituents. In systems with noncooperative relaxation, a tracer particle would have the same motion in a system where all other particles are frozen as in its unfrozen counterpart [@foffi00]. In systems with cooperative relaxation, the opposite is true. An example illustrating the unary vs. binary dichotomy is as follows; suppose the stress $\sigma$ is a function of the intra-chain statistics $\left<R^{2}(n)\right> = |\vec{r}_{i} - \vec{r}_{i+n}|^2$, and perhaps the history of $\left<R^{2}(n)\right>$, where $n$ is chemical distance. In other words, suppose the stress is controlled by chain configuration but interchain correlations are either unimportant or trivially integrable. Then the stress relaxation processes are unary. The classical theory of rubber elasticity, which assumes conformations of single strands at the scale $n = N_c$ (the distance between crosslinks) control stress, is a unary-relaxation theory. On the other hand, suppose local interchain orientation is important; relaxation processes will then be binary or higher order. A paradigmatic higher-order process in polymers is disentanglement, which occurs when one chain end deintersects another chain. This is a *binary* process because it involves two chains. While it is often useful to approximate disentanglement as an “infinite” order process and “wrap” it into a unary mean-field theory (*i. e.*, the tube theory of melt dynamics [@doi86]), it is well known that in many cases such a description becomes inadequate [@mcleish02]. In principle, binary processes require a formal description that utilizes some two point correlation function $F(\vec{r}_1, \vec{r}_2)$ where $\vec{r}_1$ and $\vec{r}_2$ lie on different chains. Dichotomies **(iii-iv)** are are not new concepts, and have previously been applied in polymer melt rheology [@mcleish02] as well as many other fields. They are subject to ambiguities similar to those mentioned above for **(i-ii)**; the same system may have unary and binary and / or cooperative and noncooperative relaxation processes occurring simultaneously on different length scales. Many processes are known to become increasingly cooperative as $T_g$ is approached from above [@ediger00], and remain so below $T_g$, but predicting the *degree* of cooperativity is difficult. Another useful measure of cooperativity is the degree of coupling between *different* relaxation processes. This clearly strengthens as separation of the relevant EL&T scales decreases, but quantitative prediction is challenging. Furthermore, in systems exhibiting nonlinear response, it is typically *a priori* unclear which couplings are most important in which regimes. Such issues remain controversial even for simple (e. g. metallic and colloidal) glassformers. However, since few theories of glassy polymer mechanics explicitly consider them, opportunities for progress abound. I now give an example illustrating how even *qualitative* treatment of dichotomies **(iii-iv)** can elucidate the nature of the crossover to dramatic hardening. Understanding the role played by entanglements in controlling the mechanical properties of polymer glasses has proven extremely difficult. The canonical [@haward93] functional form of stress-strain curves at large strains, “Gaussian” strain hardening, is given by $$\sigma = \sigma_0 + G_R g(\bar{\lambda}), \label{eq:gaussian}$$ where $\sigma_0$ is a flow stress, $G_R$ is the strain hardening modulus, $\bar\lambda$ is the macroscopic stretch tensor, and $g(\lambda)$ is alternately the (negative) derivative of the entropy density of an affinely stretched entanglement network, or a Neohookean term. The traditional entropic treatment of strain hardening in glasses [@arruda93b] qualitatively captures the shape of stress-strain curves, but has several flaws, extensively discussed in the literature (e. g. [@vanMelick03; @kramer05; @hoy08]). {width="5.92in"} Much progress has been made in the five years since Kramer challenged [@kramer05] the polymer physics community to resolve this issue. Most physically, the mechanisms underlying strain hardening in glasses have been shown to be largely viscous and closely connected to plastic flow [@hoy08; @govaert08]. Yet the underlying problem of distinguishing between models which assign different roles to entanglements yet make similar predictions remains unsolved. Theories which assume entanglements are all-important, and theories which assume they play no role, both predict the Gaussian form. It is seemingly predicted by practically *any* theory which predicts chains deform affinely on large scales, whether based on linearized entropic elasticity, Neohookean viscoplasticity [@hoy10] or alteration of interchain ordering and suppression of density fluctuations [@chen]. Similarly, sub-Gaussian hardening, i. e. $\sigma$ sublinear in $g$, is produced by subaffine large-scale deformation, whether this arises from relaxation of the entanglement network (as in melts or transient networks) or finite $\dot\epsilon \tau$ in uncrosslinked glasses [@vanMelick03; @hoy10]. Dramatic hardening ($\sigma$ supralinear in $g$) can be produced either by entropic depletion of configurations for finite-$n$ chain segments [@arruda93b] or by the increased plastic deformation and bond stretching required to deform chains affinely while maintaining their connectivity. Formulation of a robust microscopic theory predicting the entire range of mechanical response shown in Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\] seems doubtful while these ambiguities remain. One approach to resolving them is to connect changes in macroscopic mechanical response with increasing strain to changes in relationships between structural features and relaxation mechanisms at different length scales. Figure \[fig:btc\] presents results for the crossover to dramatic strain hardening, which I will argue can best be understood as representing crossovers from unary to binary and from noncooperative to cooperative relaxation phenomena. Results are obtained via molecular dynamics simulations of a simple coarse-grained bead-spring model [@kremer90] that captures the key physics of linear homopolymers. The simulation protocol is standard [@hoy08] and is described in the Appendix. Both flexible and semiflexible chains are studied to illustrate the behavior of “loosely” and “tightly” [@everaers04] entangled systems, respectively. Panel (a) compares the normalized stresses ($\sigma/(\sigma_0 + G_Rg(\lambda)$)), where $G_R$ is fit to the initial hardening regime ($.5 < |g(\lambda)| < 1$). The plateau for flexible chains indicates nearly Gaussian hardening at all strains. In contrast, semiflexible chains show dramatically supra-Gaussian hardening for $|g(\lambda)| \gtrsim 2$. Panel (b) shows the energy dissipated per damaged bond $U_d$ for the same systems. $U_d = \sigma^{Q}/P$, where $\sigma^{Q}$ is the dissipative component of the stress and $P$ is the rate of bond damage per unit strain (see the Appendix). Flexible chains again show a plateau, indicating $U_d$ is constant when hardening is Gaussian, while semiflexible chains show an increase in $U_d$ for $g(\lambda) \gtrsim 3$. Differences between loosely and tightly entangled systems are directly associated [@hoy08] with differing degrees of increase in the energetic component of stress, $\sigma^{U} = \sigma-\sigma^{Q}$. Panel (c) shows the correlation in bond tensions $T = \partial U_{FENE}/\partial \ell$ along chain backbones in tightly entangled systems. The correlations are roughly exponential. At intermediate $n$, $\left<T_{i}T_{i+n}\right> \sim exp(-2n/N_e)$ in the limit of large strains; the factor of $2$ suggests a binary suppression of relaxation, wherein tension is concentrated at increasingly localized entanglement points (with 2 chains/entanglement) and decorrelates between entanglement points. In contrast, bond tensions in flexible systems (not shown) are much smaller and less correlated. This is of interest since chain tension relief by covalent bond scission is a key mechanism leading to brittle fracture [@haward97; @footm]. Panel (d) shows the probability distribution for differential nonaffine jump sizes $D^{2}_{dna}$ in tightly entangled systems, defined by $$D^{2}_{dna} = \left|\vec{r}_{k+1} - \displaystyle\frac{\bar\lambda_{k+1}}{\bar\lambda_{k}}\vec{r}_{i}\right| \label{eq:d2dna}$$ where $\vec{r}_{k}$ is the position of a particle and $\bar\lambda_{k}$ is the macroscopic stretch tensor at $|\epsilon| = k\delta\epsilon$. The tails of $P(D^{2}_{dna})$ become longer with increasing stress and strain [@warren10b]. This effect is most pronounced for tightly entangled chains in the dramatic hardening regime (results for loosely entangled chains are similar to those found in Ref. [@warren10b] and are not shown). It arises because correlated bond tension at the scale $n \sim N_e$ increases the size of local plastic rearrangements, which in turn increases the energy they dissipate (panel b). All results in Fig. \[fig:btc\] are consistent with crossovers from unary to binary relaxation as chains stretch between entanglements, and from noncooperativity to cooperativity between deformation at the level of the entanglement mesh and local plastic rearrangements at the monomer or Kuhn scale. For the strains considered here, these crossovers are present in tightly entangled but not loosely entangled systems; all coincide with increasing stretching of chains over chemical distances $n\sim N_e$. Note that the crossovers in Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\](a-b) occur at different strains, while those in panels (c-d) are gradual. It seems likely that the unary-binary and noncooperative-cooperative crossovers are themselves coupled, though the strength of the coupling remains unclear. Understanding such behavior at a predictive level may be difficult, but presents an interesting challenge for the community. Single-chain-in-mean-field descriptions of strain hardening [@hoy10; @chen; @arruda93b] probably cannot quantitatively treat the “entanglement-stretching” unary-binary crossover, even if interchain correlations are integrated into the mean field. Similarly, theories assuming a single relaxation mechanism (e. g. segmental relxn.) cannot treat crossovers from noncooperative to cooperative relaxation which are driven by coupling to another relaxation mechanism of different character. Presently, the microscopic theory which most satisfactorily captures the elastic, yield, softening, flow, and hardening regimes is due to Chen and Schweizer [@chen]; it is based on a strain- and thermal-history-dependent dynamical free energy for segmental rearrangements in the glassy state. While it captures much of the physics of strain hardening (e. g. its coupling to plastic flow) by predicting how segmental relaxation is suppressed due to changes in interchain ordering in a macroscopic strain field, and even predicts variations in the character of activated segmental hops, it is questionable whether it can capture the crossovers shown in Fig. \[fig:btc\](b-c), and it does not treat fracture. An interesting feature of the unary vs. binary dichotomy is that unary relaxation processes “scale” linearly with the density $\rho$ of relaxing constituents, while binary processes scale quadratically with $\rho$. For example, the reason polymeric entanglement is traditionally regarded as a (nearly) binary process [@graessley81] is that entanglement density scales roughly as $\rho^{2}$, where $\rho$ is the density of uncrossable chain contours. Studies of bidisperse systems [@hoy09b] (with constituent densities ($\rho_1$, $\rho_2$) and relaxation processes which scale as $\rho_1 \rho_2$) should therefore be particularly useful in testing whether relaxation is unary or binary. Many such studies have been performed for melts well above $T_g$, in which the coupling between relaxation of short and long chains is now well understood [@ylitalo91], but similar studies in systems below $T_g$ are in their infancy. New experimental techniques such as scanning near field optical microscopy [@ube09] should be particularly useful for these purposes. A specific example of how such studies can elucidate causal relationships for polymer mechanics is as follows. Experiments performed on (essentially) monodisperse systems remain contradictory on such basic questions as to whether or not $G_R$ is proportional to entanglement density $\rho_e$ [@haward93; @vanMelick03; @govaert08]; if it is, it is clear that the constant of proportionality differs for chemically different polymers. In monodisperse (but not bidisperse) systems, both $G_R$ and entanglement density $\rho_e$ scale approximately as $l_K^{3}$ [@kramer05; @fetters99b]. This “macro-micro” ambiguity led to much controversy over whether $G_R$ scales fundamentally with entanglement density or Kuhn length. For systems exhibiting *Gaussian* hardening, an apparent resolution of these issues has been obtained via recent simulation and experimental studies of bidisperse systems [@hoy09b; @hoy10] that suggest structure at the Kuhn level is the more fundamental controlling factor. However, the ambiguity remains unresolved in the dramatic hardening regime, and the crossovers described above suggest that developing a theoretical description that captures the entire spectrum of behavior depicted in Fig. \[fig:GSHschematic\] will require a great deal more work. In this effort, many of the most fruitful ideas may come from glass *transition* physics [@ediger00], which I believe has been underutilized to date in theories of glassy polymer mechanics (at least those which treat large strains), except that of Ref. [@chen]. It may also be profitable to employ concepts developed in recent studies of other “soft” systems, such as colloidal and granular materials. One promising possibility is to determine whether and when the properties of polymers are more like attractive glasses or repulsive glasses [@foffi00; @footattrepg]. Other potentially useful concepts include jamming, soft modes, inherent structures and energy landscapes [@ohern03]. Much also may be gained by working to bridge microscopic theories with increasingly sophisticated new constitutive models; some especially promising models incorporate melt-like relaxation mechanisms [@varghese09]. I hope that this work will help spur further effort along these lines. The results presented in Fig. \[fig:btc\] are a new analysis of earlier simulations [@hoy08] done in collaboration with Mark O. Robbins. Stimulating discussions with Kenneth S. Schweizer, Leon Govaert, Mya Warren, and Mark Robbins, and support from NSF Award Nos. DMR-1006537 and DMR-0454947 are gratefully acknowledged. Appendix: Simulation Protocol ============================= All beads have mass $m$ and interact via the truncated and shifted Lennard-Jones potential $U_{LJ}(r) = 4u_{0}[(a/r)^{12} - (a/r)^{6} - (a/r_{c})^{12} + (a/r_c)^{6}]$, where $r_{c}=1.5a$ is the cutoff radius and $U_{LJ}(r) = 0$ for $r > r_{c}$. The unit of time is $\tau_{LJ} = \sqrt{ma^{2}/u_{0}}$. Each polymer chain contains $N$ beads. Covalent bonds are modeled using the finitely extensible nonlinear elastic (FENE) potential $U(r) = -(1/2)(kR_{0}^2) {\rm ln}(1 - (r/R_{0})^{2})$, with $R_{0} = 1.5a$ and $k = 30u_{0}/a^{2}$ [@kremer90], and have variable length $\ell$, with the equilibrium value $\ell_0 = 0.96a$. A bending potential $U_{bend}(\theta) = k_{bend}(1 - cos\theta)$, where $\theta$ is the angle between consecutive covalent bond vectors along a chain, imparts variable chain stiffness. Two values of $k_{bend}$ are employed: flexible chains with $k_{bend} = 0$ have an entanglement length $N_e \simeq 85$, and semiflexible chains with $k_{bend} = 2u_0$ have $N_e \simeq 22$ [@everaers04]. The systems are well entangled; $N=500$ for flexible and $350$ for semiflexible chains. Periodic boundaries are applied in all three directions, with cell dimensions $L_x$. $L_y$, and $L_z$ along the $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions. Well-equilibrated melts are rapidly quenched to $k_B T = 0.01u_0 \sim T_g/35$. Uniaxial compression is applied along the $z$-direction at constant strain rate $\dot\epsilon = \dot{L}_z/L_z$, and $L_x$ and $L_y$ are varied to maintain zero stress along the transverse directions. Simulation results were obtained using LAMMPS [@plimpton95]. Bond damage (Fig. \[fig:btc\](b)) corresponds to local plastic rearrangements, identified with changes in intermonomer neighbor distances greater than 20% over a strain interval $|\delta \epsilon|=.025$) [@hoy08]. Nonaffine jumps (Fig. \[fig:btc\](d) and Eq. \[eq:d2dna\]) are defined using the same $|\delta \epsilon|$. The energy dissipated per damaged bond is given in units of $u_0$, and bond tensions (Fig. \[fig:btc\](c)) have units $u_0/a$. [30]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , eds., ** (, ). , ** (, ). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (); , , , ****, (). , ****, (); , ****, (); , ****, (); , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (); , , , , ****, (); , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (); , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (); , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (); , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (); , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (); , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , , **** (). , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (); , , , ****, (); , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (); , ****, (). , , , , ****, (); , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (); , ****, (); , ****, (); , ****, (). , ****, (); , , , ****, (). , ****, (); http:// lammps.sandia.gov

--- abstract: 'Many modern and proposed future particle accelerators rely on superconducting radio frequency cavities made of bulk niobium as primary particle accelerating structures. Such cavities suffer from the anomalous field dependence of their quality factors $Q_0$. High field degradation - so-called ’high field Q-slope’ - is yet unexplained even though an empirical cure is known. Here we propose a mechanism based on the presence of proximity-coupled niobium hydrides, which can explain this effect. Furthermore, the same mechanism can be present in any surface-sensitive experiments or superconducting devices involving niobium.' address: 'Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510, USA' author: - 'A Romanenko, F Barkov, L D Cooley and A Grassellino' title: Proximity breakdown of hydrides in superconducting niobium cavities --- Superconducting niobium is an important technological material used for e.g. superconducting radio frequency (SRF) cavities and Josephson junctions. SRF cavities are primary particle accelerating structures in many modern accelerators (i.e. CEBAF, CESR, SNS) and the technology of choice for future ones (i.e. ILC, XFEL, FRIB, Project X). Bulk niobium is predominantly used to make such cavities due to its highest $T_c$ among pure elements and high enough critical fields. Quality factor Q$_0$ of SRF cavities is determined by the surface resistance via the formula: $$Q_0 = \frac{\omega U}{P_\mathrm{diss}} = \frac{\omega \mu_0 \int_V H^2 dV}{\int_A R_\mathrm{s}(H) H^2 dA}$$ where $\omega$ is the angular frequency, $U$ is stored energy calculated from the integral of the field over cavity volume, and $P_\mathrm{diss}$ is the power dissipated in cavity walls calculated as an integral of surface resistance over cavity walls. Extremely low surface resistance in superconducting state and hence very high quality factors $Q_0 > 10^{11}$ are achievable in such structures. Several decades of research demonstrated that the microwave surface resistance of niobium in superconducting state is very sensitive to heat and surface chemical treatments. Such surface resistance is completely determined by the nanostructure within the magnetic field penetration depth $\lesssim$ 100 nanometers where the screening currents flow. In addition to the intrinsic BCS-described component coming from thermally excited quasiparticles there is a number of extrinsic contributions to losses. Some of such contributions are understood (trapped magnetic flux, field emission, multipacting), while many are not. Among the unknown mechanisms are the ones leading to the so-called *low, medium, and high field Q-slopes*, which correspond to, respectively, a decrease of $R_\mathrm{s}$ in the field range of about 0-20 mT, mild increase in the range of 20-100 mT, and a drastic increase above about 100 mT (see [@Hasan_book2] for review). For reaching highest accelerating gradients (highest sustainable surface fields) and for highest quality factors (lowest surface resistance) medium and high field Q-slopes present a significant obstacle. An empirical recipe has been developed to achieve highest gradients, which allows to eliminate the high field Q-slope via a combination of electropolishing and 90-145$^\circ$C baking in vacuum frequently referred to as “mild baking”. No controlled way to mitigate the medium field Q-slope is known. Understanding the mechanisms behind these effects is of uttermost importance for further progress in the SRF field from both scientific and practical points of view. In this article we propose that the high field Q-slope (HFQS) can be explained by the breakdown of the proximity effect acting on niobium hydrides in the near-surface layer. Furthermore, Q-degradation phenomenon due to large niobium hydrides (*Q-disease*) [@Aune_Q_Disease_1990; @Bonin_SRF_91; @Antoine_SRF91_Hydrogen; @Halbritter_Q_Disease_SRF_1993; @Knobloch_Q_Disease_Overview] can be quantitatively described by the same model. Niobium is a material which exhibits high affinity for hydrogen. Hydrogen can enter niobium whenever the natural oxide layer of niobium pentoxide Nb$_2$O$_5$ is absent. In niobium cavities it happens during standard chemical treatments (buffered chemical polishing and electropolishing) and during the cooldown and air exposure following high temperature furnace treatments [@Faber_H_reabsorption]. Inside niobium the distribution of hydrogen is non-uniform and exhibits the near-surface segregation. High values of 1-20 at.% [@Antoine_SRF91_Hydrogen; @Tajima_SRF03_Hydrogen; @Romanenko_SUST_ERD_2011] were reported for the concentration of hydrogen in the first several tens of nanometers below the surface while bulk hydrogen content is typically in the $\lesssim$ 100 ppm range. Vacuum heat treatments at T$=$600-900$^\circ$C decrease the bulk concentration but the near-surface region is weakly affected and very high hydrogen concentration remains. In low RRR ($\lesssim 50$) niobium most of hydrogen (bulk and surface) is trapped by interstitial impurities such as e.g. oxygen as manifested in the absence of Q-disease in cavities made of such material. In the case of high RRR ($\sim$300) cavities it is not the case and hydrogen can move and precipitate. From NbH$_\mathrm{x}$ phase diagram [@NbH_phases] it follows that the near-surface hydrogen-rich layer should transition from solid solution into $\epsilon$-phase of niobium hydride upon cooldown below $\sim$100-150 K depending on the concentration. Two important conditions which facilitate this transition are long enough diffusion length of hydrogen during the cooldown time in the precipitation temperature range and the presence of nucleation centers. Typically, a “fast” cooldown is performed on cavities to avoid the Q-disease, and it was believed that it allows to avoid any hydride precipitation. Nevertheless, a simple estimate based on the typical cooldown between 150 and 2 K (FNAL data was used) and the diffusion constant of hydrogen leads to the diffusion length of $L_\mathrm{diff} \sim 30~\mu \mathrm{m} \gg 50$ nm. This means that all the H within the segregation layer near the surface can precipitate during fast cooldown. Such a scenario is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Cooldown\_schematic\](a). Such a precipitation would lead to what is called a Q-disease only if there is a significant bulk hydrogen concentration and longer cooldown allowing hydrides to grow large. ![\[fig:Cooldown\_schematic\]Schematic of the effect of the cooldown on: (a) unbaked; (b) baked at 120$^\circ$C niobium. Precipitation of niobium hydride around nucleation centers (possibly vacancies) leads to the *increase* of the electron m.f.p.](Figure1){width="\linewidth"} Niobium hydrides were demonstrated to be normal conducting at T$>$1.5 K [@NbH_Supercond_Prop_1965]. However, hydride precipitates will be subject to the superconducting proximity effect [@DeGennes_Proximity_1965] and will have a non-zero order parameter up to a certain breakdown field $H_\mathrm{b}$ at which Meissner effect disappears. For the proximity effect in the normal/superconducting sandwich an important length scale is set by the normal metal coherence length . For and assuming the same Fermi velocity $v_\mathrm{F}$ for hydrides as Nb ($1.4 \times 10^8$ cm/s) we get $\xi_\mathrm{N}\approx 800$ nm. Proximity effect does depend on temperature and two asymptotic cases $T \ll T_\mathrm{A}$ and $T \gg T_\mathrm{A}$ (where $T_A=\hbar v_\mathrm{F}/(2\pi d)$, $d$ is a normal metal thickness) were considered in the literature [@PRB_Fauchere_Proximity_1997]. Based on the observations of the surface relief [@Barkov_PRST_Hydrides_2012] the thickness $d$ of hydrides corresponding to the Q-disease is of order and the corresponding $T_\mathrm{A} \approx 166~\mathrm{K} \gg 2~\mathrm{K}$. Hydrides should be even smaller in size for the high field Q-slope and hence in both cases we are in the limit of $T \ll T_\mathrm{A}$ and the breakdown field is provided by: $$\label{eq:Hb} H_\mathrm{b} \approx \frac{1}{6}\frac{\Phi_0}{\lambda_\mathrm{N} d}$$ where $\Phi_0$ is the magnetic flux quantum, and . Here $n$ is the total electron density in the hydride, which may be different from that in niobium. A direct evidence for the proximity effect in superconducting niobium cavities is provided by “hydrogen Q-disease”. In this effect the microwave surface resistance does not change significantly up to peak surface magnetic fields of $\lesssim$10 mT followed by a sharp increase. Such a threshold may be interpreted as a breakdown field of surface hydrides of the corresponding size. Surface relief measurements [@Barkov_PRST_Hydrides_2012] of the hydrides formed under similar cooldown conditions to the ones leading to Q-disease show that the thickness of hydrides responsible for such Q-disease with $H_\mathrm{b}=10$ mT is $d \gtrsim 100$ nm. Then from Eq. \[eq:Hb\] it follows that the hydrides with average breakdown field of $\sim$100 mT corresponding to the HFQS onset should have smallest dimension of $d \gtrsim 10$ nm. The proximity effect will also result in the suppression of the superconducting gap of the host niobium. For example, such a suppression attributed to NbO$_\mathrm{x}$ inclusions as a subject to the proximity effect was reported in the literature [@Schwarz_Halbritter_JAP_1977; @Halbritter_SRF_2001]. If we assume that hydrides are formed with the normal distribution of characteristic sizes $d$ then it follows from Eq. \[eq:Hb\] that the distribution of the breakdown fields $H_\mathrm{b}$ is determined by the distribution of $1/d$ and has the c.d.f. $$F(H) = P\{H_\mathrm{b} < H\} = \frac{1}{2}\left[1-\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{\frac{1}{H}-\frac{1}{H_0}}{\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)\right]$$ where $H_0$ is the mean and $\sigma$ is the width of the breakdown field distribution. If we attribute the normal conducting surface resistance $R_n$ and surface density $\alpha_s$ to niobium hydrides then the total surface resistance can be written as: $$\label{eq:Rs} R_\mathrm{s}(H) \approx R_0 + \alpha_\mathrm{s} R_\mathrm{n} \cdot F(H)$$ Such surface resistance dependence on field provides an excellent fit to experimental data on cavities with the high field Q-slope and Q-disease available to us. Examples of fits using Eq. \[eq:Rs\] to the average surface resistance data are shown in Fig. \[fig:Q\_slope\_fit\] and Fig. \[fig:Q\_disease\_fit\] (average surface resistance is defined as $<R_\mathrm{s}>=G/Q_0$, where G is a constant determined by cavity geometry) . ![\[fig:Q\_slope\_fit\]Fit of the high field Q-slope by Eq. \[eq:Rs\]. Best fit parameters: adjusted , , , , .](Figure2){width="\linewidth"} ![\[fig:Q\_disease\_fit\]Fit of the Q-disease by Eq. \[eq:Rs\]. Best fit parameters: adjusted $r^2=0.997$, , , , .](Figure3){width="\linewidth"} As mentioned above, mild baking removes the high field Q-slope in all but fine grain BCP cavities. Based on the proposed mechanism of the high field Q-slope we suggest that the main effect of mild baking is the complete absence or significantly smaller in size hydrides. One of the effects of the mild baking on niobium is the drastic decrease in the electron m.f.p. within the penetration depth as deduced from fits to R$_s$(T) and directly measured lately with muon spin spectroscopy [@Grassellino_TFSRF_2012]. Unlike other suggested mechanisms our model can explain m.f.p. change without involving diffusion of other interstitials (such as O, C, N) by purely the effect of the precipitation of hydrides . Indeed, if segregated hydrogen stays dispersed in the lattice then m.f.p. is determined by the average H-H distance. If the dispersed H precipitates into hydrides then the m.f.p. is either the mean hydride-hydride distance or determined by other less-abundant impurities (O, C, N), which in both cases is much larger than H-H distance before precipitation. The schematic of the near-surface structure of baked/unbaked cavities within our model is shown in Fig. \[fig:Cooldown\_schematic\]. Now we describe a possible mechanism of mild baking on the material level in further detail. It was demonstrated [@Cizek_H_Defects_2005; @Cizek_PRB_2009_Vac_H] that in the presence of a significant amount of hydrogen the formation energy of vacancies in niobium becomes much lower. This can lead to the very high concentrations of complexes consisting of a monovacancy and several hydrogen atoms (Vac-H). This process - a so-called “superabundant vacancy” formation [@Fukai_PRL_1994_Pd_SAV] - was discovered in many metals including niobium. Here we propose that the near-surface layer enriched with hydrogen in SRF niobium cavities contains superabundant vacancies (SAV) after chemical (BCP or EP) or vacuum heat (600-800$^\circ$C) treatments. The concentration of SAVs can be estimated from [@Cizek_H_Defects_2005], which for hydrogen concentration gives $\sim 10^{-3}$ at. %. It was discovered by positron annihilation studies [@Alekseeva_PhysicaScripta_PAS_1979; @Hautojarvi_Vac_H_PRB_1985] that Vac-H complexes start dissociating at T$\approx$90$^\circ$C, which agrees remarkably with the lowest effective temperature of mild baking found empirically. Lately direct positron annihilation Doppler broadening studies [@Romanenko_TFSRF_2012] on cutout samples from baked and unbaked cavities showed a strong decrease in the vacancy concentration brought about by 120$^\circ$C bake. We suggest that Vac-H complexes dissociate during mild baking and the near-surface layer gets “cleaned” from vacancies by their diffusion to the surface and annihilation. Upon cooldown of SRF cavities to cryogenic temperatures, Vac-H complexes may serve as nucleation centers around which an $\epsilon$-phase of niobium hydride can form. In the case of the 120$^\circ$C baked niobium the nucleation centers are absent and hydrides do not form. Schematically such mechanism is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Cooldown\_schematic\]. The distribution of precipitate sizes is determined by the kinetics of hydrogen diffusion towards nucleation centers during cooldown. If for simplicity we assume that hydrides are spherical then we can estimate their diameters. Taking Vac-H complexes as nucleation centers with concentration $c_\mathrm{vac} \sim 10^{-3}$ at. % and $c_\mathrm{H} \sim 5$ at.% in the first 20 nm, assuming all H will precipitate from the layer determined by diffusion length over “fast” cooldown $L_\mathrm{diff} \sim 30~\mu \mathrm{m}$, and $c_H \sim 2$ ppm in the bulk we get $d \sim 6$ nm in a very good agreement with the estimates above based on the breakdown field if we assume that the breakdown field of spherical precipitates can be approximated by Eq. \[eq:Hb\] as well. We suggest that if no Vac-H complexes are present, the NbH$_\mathrm{x}$ solution can be quenched to 2 K without any significant hydride formation, and no high field Q-slope is observed. A number of testable predictions can be made based on our model. First, the $R_\mathrm{s}(H)$ dependence in Eq. \[eq:Rs\] predicts that $R_\mathrm{s}$ should change the character/saturate deep in the high field Q-slope when most of the hydrides become normal conducting. Such saturation is observed for hydrogen Q-disease and can be accessible at higher RF powers for the HFQS as well. It should be possible to check it with single cell cavities. We have observed hints of such saturation on two different cavities, but further testing at higher powers is required to confirm it. Second, if Vac-H mechanism for mild baking is correct then reintroduction of vacancies in the near-surface layer should lead to the reappearance of the high field Q-slope in the mild baked cavity. We are currently planning such an experiment with controlled introduction of vacancies by irradiation. Finally, nanoscale hydrides may be directly observable using techniques such as an in situ cold stage imaging with TEM/STEM. Such a search is currently underway. It should be noted further that if nanohydrides are present then the medium field Q-slope can be explained by the field dependence of the proximity effect below H$_b$. Hence it may open up a possibility for further significant improvement in niobium cavities. The problem may be approached by the combination of heat treatment and “sealing” the surface with the niobium pentoxide before reabsorption rebuilds the interstitial hydrogen content. Such experiments are currently underway at FNAL. In summary, we have put forward a novel model for the high field Q-slope based on the proximity effect acting upon niobium hydrides within the penetration depth. Our model can also explain quantitatively the hydrogen Q-disease, which we suggest has the same physical mechanism. We propose that the mild baking effect is due to the strong suppression of hydride precipitation, which may be caused by the change in concentration of Vac-H complexes. Authors would like to acknowledge useful discussions with H. Padamsee from Cornell. Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. De-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy. One of the authors (A. R.) acknowledges support under US DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Early Career Award for this work. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [10]{} url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} Padamsee H 2009 [*RF Superconductivity: Volume II: Science, Technology and Applications*]{} (Wiley-VCH) Aune B, Bonin B, Cavedon J M, Juillard M, Godin A, Henriot C, Leconte P, Safa H, Veyssiere A and Zylberajch C 1990 Degradation of niobium superconducting rf cavities during cooling times [*Proceedings of the 1990 LINAC Conference*]{} pp 253–255 Bonin B and Roth R W 1991 Q degradation of niobium cavities due to hydrogen contamination [*Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on RF Superconductivity*]{} pp 210–244 Antoine C Z, Aune B, Bonin B, Cavedon J, Juillard M, Godin A, Henriot C, Leconte P, Safa H, Veyssiere A, Chevarier A and Roux B 1991 The role of atomic hydrogen in [Q]{}-degradation of niobium superconducting rf cavities: analytical point of view [*Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on RF Superconductivity, DESY, Hamburg, Germany*]{} pp 616–634 Halbritter J, Kneisel P and Saito K 1993 [*[Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on RF Superconductivity]{}*]{} pp 617–627 Knobloch J 2003 [*AIP Conference Proceedings*]{} [**671**]{} 133–150 Faber K and Schultze H 1972 [*Scripta Metallurgica*]{} [**1**]{} 1065–1070 Tajima T, Edwards R L, Krawczyk F L, Liu J, Schrage D L, Shapiro A H, Tesmer J R, Wetteland C J and Geng R L 2003 [*Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on RF Superconductivity*]{} THP19 Romanenko A and Goncharova L V 2011 [*Supercond. Sci. Tech.*]{} [**24**]{} 105017 Manchester F D and Pitre J M 2000 [*Phase Diagrams of Binary Hydrogen Alloys*]{} (ASM International) Rauch G C, Rose R M and Wulff J 1965 [*J. Less. Comm. Metals*]{} [**8**]{} 99–113 Gennes P G D and Hurault J P 1965 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**17**]{} 181 Fauchere A and Blatter G 1997 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**56**]{} 14102 Barkov F, Romanenko A and Grassellino A 2012 [*Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams*]{} [**15**]{} 122001 Schwarz W and Halbritter J 1977 [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**48**]{} 4618–4626 Halbritter J 2001 Material science of [Nb]{} [RF]{} accelerator cavities: where do we stand 2001? [*Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on RF Superconductivity*]{} (Tsukuba, Japan) Grassellino A, Romanenko A, Barkov F and Suter A Near surface superconductivity of niobium cavity cutouts probed by low energy muon spin rotation, talk at [TFSRF’2012]{}, www.jlab.org/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=22 Cizek J, Prochazka I, Kuzel R, Becvar F, Cieslar M, Brauer G, Anwand W, Kirchheim R and Pundt A 2005 [*J. of Alloys and Compounds*]{} [ **404–406**]{} 580–583 Cizek J, Prochazka I, Danis S, Brauer G, Anwand W, Gemma R, Nikitin E, Kirchheim R, Pundt A and Islamgaliev R 2009 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**79**]{} 054108 Fukai Y and Okuma N 1994 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{} 1640–1643 Alekseeva O K, Bykov V N, Levdik V A, Miron N F and Shantarovich V P 1979 [ *Physica Scripta*]{} [**20**]{} 683–684 Hautojarvi P, Huomo H, Puska M and Vehanen A 1985 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**32**]{} 4326–4331 Romanenko A, Edwardson C and Coleman P Inner workings of the [120C]{} baking effect studied by positron annihilation, talk at [TFSRF’2012]{}, www.jlab.org/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=22

UCL-IPT-05-02 [Survival before annihilation in $\Psi'$ decays]{} 0.5cm *P. Artoisenet, J.-M. Gérard and J. Weyers* 0.4cm [ Institut de Physique Théorique]{}\ [Université catholique de Louvain]{}\ [B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium]{} **Abstract** [We extend the simple scenario for $\Psi'$ decays suggested a few years ago. The $c\bar c$ pair in the $\Psi'$ does not annihilate directly into three gluons but rather survives before annihilating. An interesting prediction is that a large fraction of all $\Psi'$ decays could originate from the $\Psi' \to \eta_{c} (3\pi)$ channel which we urge experimentalists to identify. Our model solves the problem of the apparent hadronic excess in $\Psi'$ decays as well as the $\rho\pi$ puzzle since, in our view, the two-body decays of the $\Psi'$ are naturally of electromagnetic origin. Further tests of this picture are proposed, e.g. $J/\Psi \to b_{1}\eta$.]{} 1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} =============== The wealth of recent data from BES and CLEO has led to a welcome revival of interest in charmonium physics. The data now provide an ideal testing ground for theoretical expectations on the decay mechanisms at work in the $c\bar c$ system. The conventional picture of a strong three-gluon annihilation of the $\Psi'$ runs into more and more difficulties. The so-called $\rho \pi$ puzzle and hadronic excess in $\Psi'$ decays pose indeed challenging problems [@Suz]. A few years ago, two of us [@GerWe] proposed a simple scheme for the decays of the $J/\Psi$ and the $\Psi'$. In particular, it was suggested that the $\Psi'$ does not significantly annihilate into three gluons. In this note, we update and sharpen the arguments which led to this somewhat unconventional point of view. In our scenario, all non-electromagnetic hadronic decays of the $\Psi'$ have a simple and general explanation: survival amplitudes. By this, we mean transition amplitudes from $\Psi'$ to lower-lying states which still contain a $c\bar c$ pair. One original point of this note is the proposal that the exclusive channel $\Psi' \to \eta_c + (3\pi)$ could account for a significant fraction (possibly more than $1\%$!) of all $\Psi'$ decays. We do urge our experimental colleagues to actively search for this forgotten decay mode. In Section 2 we briefly review and motivate our point of view on $c \bar c$ annihilation into gluons. For the $\Psi'$, [*survival precedes annihilation*]{}! More precisely, the $c\bar c$ pair survives by spitting out two or three non-perturbative (i.e. with energy much less than 1 Gev) gluons and the lower lying pair then annihilates into three or two perturbative (i.e. with energy $\gtrsim $ 1 Gev) gluons, depending on the quantum numbers. These 2+3 or 3+2 annihilation scenarii get rid of the so-called hadronic excess problem in $\Psi'$ decays. Many experimental tests of these ideas are possible. To lowest order, survival amplitudes are not expected to hadronize in two-body channels. It follows that these decays of the $\Psi'$ should result from a direct electromagnetic annihilation of the $c\bar c$ pair. Tests and predictions of this assertion will be discussed in Section 3. In particular, as already emphasized in our earlier paper, the $\rho \pi$ puzzle is then simply solved. To conclude this note we comment very briefly on some other issues in charmonium physics. 2. Strong $c\bar c$ annihilation {#strong-cbar-c-annihilation .unnumbered} ================================ It is well known that in the $J/\Psi$ $(1^{--})$ decays the $c\bar c$ pair mainly annihilates into three perturbative gluons $(3g)$ or into a photon. The least massive channel into which the $3g$ can materialize is $\rho \pi$ which is indeed the strongest observed hadronic two-body decay [@Eid] of the $J/\Psi$. However, there is also a significant $c\bar c$ survival amplitude namely $J/\Psi \to \eta_{c}\gamma$. Despite the cost of emitting a photon, this decay has the same branching ratio as the $\rho \pi$ channel. For the $\Psi'$ $(1^{--})$, the survival radiative decays $\Psi' \to \gamma + \chi_{c}$ or $\eta_{c}$ $(0^{++}, 1^{++}, 2^{++}$ or $0^{-+})$ are quite important. Similarly, the dominant strong decay channels have the structure $$\Psi' \to (2NPg) + (3g).$$ The physical picture is as simple as can be: the excited $c\bar c$ pair in the $\Psi'$ does not annihilate directly but rather in a two-step process. By spitting out two non-perturbative gluons $(2NPg)$, it first survives in a lower $c\bar c$ configuration ($1^{--}$ or $1^{+-}$) which then eventually annihilates into $3g$. The decays $$\Psi' \to (2\pi) J/\Psi \eqno{\mbox{(2a)}}$$ $$\Psi' \to \eta J/\Psi \ \ \ \ \eqno{\mbox{(2b)}}$$ clearly follow the pattern of Eq. (1). Particularly important from our point of view is the recently observed [@Skw] survival decay $$\Psi' \to \pi^0 h_{c}.$$ It is also of the type Eq. (1) where the $(2NPg)$, the $\eta_{0}$ in this case, mixes with the $\pi^0$. The observed rate implies that the effective $\Psi' h_{c} \eta_{0}$ coupling is of the same order as the coupling $\Psi' J/\Psi \eta_{0}$. At present [@Eid], the survival radiative decays together with the three on-shell channels (Eqs. (2) and (3)) account for more than 80% of all $\Psi'$ decays. The success of the Gell-Mann, Sharp, Wagner off-shell model [@Gel] for the decay $\omega \to 3\pi$, namely $\omega \to \pi + ``\rho"$, has led us [@GerWe] to suggest that decay modes, still of the type Eq. (1), $$\begin{array}{llllllll} & \hspace*{38mm} & \Psi' \to 2\pi (0^{++}) + ``h_{c}" (1^{+-}) & \hspace*{40mm} & \mbox{(4a)}\\ & \hspace*{38mm} & \Psi' \to \eta (0^{-+}) + ``h_{c}" (1^{+-}) & \hspace*{40mm} & \mbox{(4b)} \end{array}$$ might also be the source of sizeable light hadron decay modes of the $\Psi'$. The observed [@Eid] and large $5 \pi$ hadronic decay of the $\Psi'$ could already correspond to the pattern of Eq. (4a) where the $``h_{c}"$ is only slightly off-shell. It would be nice if, for this decay, experimentalists could identify a two-pion invariant mass with the quantum numbers $0^{++}$. There is of course another possibility for a two-step decay pattern $$\Psi' \to (3NPg) + (2g)$$ where the lower $c\bar c$ configuration ($0^{-+}$ or $0^{++}$) annihilates into $2g$. The only on-shell channel for this type of decays is $$\Psi' \to (3\pi) \eta_{c} \eqno{\mbox{(6a)}}$$ to which one may again add the least off-shell amplitude $$\Psi' \to 3\pi (1^{--}) + ``\chi_{c_{0}}" (0^{++}). \eqno{\mbox{(6b)}}$$ Eq. (6a) is an original ingredient of this note. It is a genuine survival amplitude corresponding to the process where the $c\bar c$ pair in the $\Psi'$ falls to a lower configuration ($\eta_{c}$) by radiating three non-perturbative gluons which hadronize in $3\pi$. It could easily correspond to $1\%$ or more of all $\Psi'$ decays. An effective calculation (i.e. at the hadronic level) of this decay amplitude requires some guesswork about couplings which leaves room for considerable uncertainty. Details of these calculations will be presented elsewhere. It is however quite interesting to point out that the dominant [@Eid] hadronic decay mode $\Psi' \to 7\pi$ naturally follows from Eq. (6a). We beg experimentalists to search for a $\eta_{c}$ peak in this multi-pion final state. In summary, Eqs. (1) and (5) are our explanation of the so-called hadronic excess in $\Psi'$ decays. If true, there appears to be no need whatsoever for an important contribution of direct $\Psi'$ annihilation into three gluons. Furthermore, the substitution of one photon for one gluon in Eqs. (1) and (5) allows $$\Psi' \to (2NPg) + 2g + \gamma.$$ This 2+2+1 pattern corresponds to on-shell radiative decays such as $$\Psi' \to (\pi^+ \pi^-) \eta_{c} \gamma \eqno{\mbox{(8a)}}$$ $$\Psi' \to \eta \eta_{c} \gamma \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \eqno{\mbox{(8b)}}$$ which could be larger than the observed $\Psi' \to \eta_{c} \gamma$ mode. 3. Electromagnetic $c\bar c$ annihilation {#electromagnetic-cbar-c-annihilation .unnumbered} ========================================= Whether the $\Psi'$ decays following the 2+3 (Eq. (1)) or 3+2 (Eq. (5)) pattern, it seems intuitively difficult to end up with a light hadronic two-body channel. This brings us to the suggestion that these channels are of electromagnetic origin, namely they follow from the direct hadronization of a virtual photon. If such is the case, the $e^+e^- \to \gamma^\ast \to$ hadrons continuum [@Wang] should be consistently substracted for [*all*]{} two-body branching ratios. In the $SU(3)$ limit for hadrons, a well-known consequence of photon hadronization is that the ratio of branching ratios into neutral and charged strange states is expected to be 4 (for $d$-coupling). The recent data on $\Psi' \to K^\ast \bar K$ agree very well with this expectation. Moreover, a striking difference between $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi'$ decay modes is observed [@Adam] in the $3\pi$ channel. For the $J/\Psi$, the $\rho$(770) almost saturates the two-pion invariant mass, while for the $\Psi'$ it is the $\rho$(2150) which seems to dominate. Such a strong suppression of the low-lying vector state contributions is not surprising in a high-energy electromagnetic process. These observations considerably strenghten the argument that $\Psi' \to VP$ is dominantly an electromagnetic process: the so-called $\rho\pi$ puzzle is solved. Physically, the $1^{+-} 0^{-+}$ channel $b_{1} \pi$ is even more interesting. For the moment [@Eid], it is the largest light hadronic two-body decay of the $\Psi'$ but still of the same order as $\Psi' \to 2(\pi^+\pi^-)$ which is obviously of electromagnetic nature. If the $b_{1} \pi$ channel comes from the hadronization of a photon, then both $\Psi' \to b_{1}$(1235)$\eta$ and $\Psi' \to h_{1}$(1170)$\pi^0$ should have branching ratios of the order of $10^{-3}$. These processes are certainly welcome to saturate the theoretically well-known $\Psi' \to \gamma^\ast \to$ light hadrons branching ratio $(\sim 1.6\%)$. Moreover, they lead to the surprising prediction that $$\mbox{Br} \ (J/\Psi \to h_{1} \pi^0) \thickapprox \ \mbox{Br} \ (J/\Psi \to b_{1} \eta) \approx 1\%$$ which are of the same order as the measured $J/\Psi \to \rho \pi$ branching ratio. 4. Comments and conclusion {#comments-and-conclusion .unnumbered} ========================== The main point of this note has been to reemphasize that there is no experimental necessity for a direct strong annihilation of the $\Psi'$ into $3g$. Why is this annihilation process suppressed? We can only repeat the argument given earlier [@GerWe]: the putative (or theoretical) $c \bar c$ states $(n^{2S+1} L_{J})$ are one thing, the physical states are quite another! With strong annihilation of the $1^{--}$ ground state and its first “radial excitation", mixing is expected. The QCD dynamics may be such that the physical states, presumably mixtures of the putative ones, are so built up that one of them strongly annihilates into three perturbative gluons while the other does not. Mixing of the 1 $^{3} S_{1}$ and 2 $^{3} S_{1}$ states via three perturbative gluons has little effect on the charmonium mass spectrum, but may be crucial for the decay pattern. If this explanation is correct, one may wonder about the decay patterns of the $0^{-+}$ states below the open charm threshold. For the $\eta'_{c}$, we do expect survival to be significantly more important than a direct two-gluon annihilation. Another comment concerns the 12% rule: we do not see any reason for this rule to be valid. Contrary to the electromagnetic annihilation of the $c\bar c$ into a photon which is a pointlike process, neither the $J/\Psi$ annihilation into $3g$ nor the 2+3 or 3+2 patterns for the $\Psi'$ are of the same nature except, possibly, in the $m_{c} \to \infty$ limit, but then sizeable corrections are to be expected. To conclude let us repeat that the main points of this short note have been: 1\. to revive and make more precise a very simple picture of [*all*]{} strong and radiative decay modes of the $\Psi'$; 2\. to infer that two-body decays of $\Psi'$ into light hadrons are of electromagnetic origin. These simultaneously solve the so-called hadronic excess and $\rho\pi$ puzzle, respectively. Elegant as this may seem, experimental confirmation is still required. The explicit identification of the decays $\Psi' \to \eta_{c} (3\pi), \eta_{c} (2\pi) \gamma$ and a measurement of the branching ratios for $J/\Psi \to h_{1} \pi^0, b_{1} \eta$ would be important steps in this direction. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This work was supported by the Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs through the Interuniversity Attraction Pole P5/27. [99]{} M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 054021; Y.F.Gu and X.H.Li, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114019, and references therein. J.-M. Gérard and J. Weyers, Phys. Lett. B462 (1999) 324. S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B592 (2004) 1. T. Skwarnicki (CLEO Collaboration), hep-ex/0505050 (2005). M. Gell-Mann, D. Sharp and W.G. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8 (1962) 261. P. Wang, C.Z. Yuan, X.H. Mo and D.H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B593 (2004) 89. N.E. Adam et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 012005; M. Ablikim et al. (BES Collaboration), hep-ex/0408047 (2004).

--- abstract: 'We report the first experimental observations of strong suppression of matter-wave superradiance using blue-detuned pump light and demonstrate a pump-laser detuning asymmetry in the collective atomic recoil motion. In contrast to all previous theoretical frameworks, which predict that the process should be symmetric with respect to the sign of the pump-laser detuning, we find that for condensates the symmetry is broken. With high condensate densities and red-detuned light, the familiar distinctive multi-order, matter-wave scattering pattern is clearly visible, whereas with blue-detuned light superradiance is strongly suppressed. In the limit of a dilute atomic gas, however, symmetry is restored.' author: - 'L. Deng' - 'E.W. Hagley' - Qiang Cao - Xiaorui Wang - Xinyu Luo - Ruquan Wang - 'M.G. Payne' - Fan Yang - Xiaoji Zhou - Xuzong Chen - Mingsheng Zhan title: 'Observation of a red-blue detuning asymmetry in matter-wave superradiance' --- Matter-wave superradiance is coherent, collective atomic recoil motion that was first reported [@inouye1] in a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) of $^{23}$Na atoms illuminated by a single, far red-detuned, long-duration laser pulse. Since its discovery, processes such as short-pulsed, bi-directional superradiance [@schneble1], Raman superradiance [@schneble2; @kuga1], and matter-wave amplification [@inouye2; @kozuma] have been observed. Also, many theoretical investigations [@moore; @li; @piovella; @han; @bonifacio; @fallani; @uys; @benedek; @robb; @ketterle] have studied this light/matter-wave interaction process that is of significant importance to the fields of cold atomic physics, cold molecular physics, nonlinear optics and quantum information science. The widely-accepted theory [@inouye1] of matter-wave superradiance is based on spontaneous Rayleigh scattering and the buildup of a matter-wave grating enhanced by subsequent stimulated Rayleigh scattering. This intuitive picture, which correctly models late-stage superradiant growth when red-detuned light is used, captures many important aspects of this intriguing matter-light interaction process. However, the simple grating viewpoint and most rate-equation-based theories neglect propagation dynamics of the internally-generated optical field. In fact, the initial study [@inouye1] explicitly assumed that the optical fields traveled at the speed of light in vacuum and therefore did not affect scattering at later times. To date, no report in the literature has contradicted that statement [@slowwavenote]. However, we have recently shown theoretically [@lu1; @noteref1] that the internally-generated field propagates ultra slowly and plays an important role in the genesis of superradiance with BECs. We also note that most previous theories effectively treated the BEC as a thermal gas by neglecting the extra factor of the mean-field potential seen by the scattered atoms due to the exchange term in the Hamiltonian. As we will show, this unique property of BECs profoundly impacts superradiant scattering and leads to the pump detuning asymmetry reported here. {width="3in"} In this Letter we present the first experimental observation of a red-blue detuning asymmetry in matter-wave superradiance. We demonstrate astonishingly efficient suppression of superradiance when the pump laser is blue detuned that cannot be explained by current theoretical frameworks. However, using our new theoretical framework [@lu1] we propose a possible explanation for the detuning asymmetry based on an induced optical-dipole potential that results from the ultra-slow propagation velocity and gain characteristics of the generated field. The experimental data reported here were obtained using two $^{87}$Rb BECs created with very different experimental systems at two independent institutions. In both systems we produced an elongated BEC using standard magneto-optical trapping techniques followed by radio-frequency evaporative cooling. After formation of the BEC a pump laser of selected frequency, polarization, and duration was applied along the BEC’s short axis (Fig. 1b). The magnetic trap was then switched off and absorption imaging was employed after a delay sufficient to allow spatial separation of the scattered components. For all data reported the relevant transition was $|5S_{1/2}\rangle-|5P_{3/2}\rangle$ ($|1\rangle-|2\rangle$), the ground electronic state was $F=2$, $m_F=+2$, and the detuning was measured with respect to the $F'=3$ state. We derived the pump laser from a cavity-stabilized diode laser with linear polarization perpendicular to the long axis of the BEC. The detuning asymmetry was investigated from 500 MHz $\leq |\delta|/2\pi \leq$ 4 GHz for both red and blue detunings. The blue-detuned data presented in this manuscript are entirely consistent with results obtained at other blue detunings and other pump-laser intensities. Over the range of detunings investigated, superradiance was always strongly suppressed (null result at background level) when a pure high-density BEC was illuminated with blue-detuned light. We note that the scattering efficiency for red detunings was already studied [@Hilliard], and our red-detuned data are consistent with that work as well as with previous studies [@inouye1; @schneble1; @schneble2; @bonifacio; @fallani]. {width="3.2in"} The left panel of Fig. 2 shows two Time-Of-Flight (TOF) absorption images of a BEC momentum distribution after application of a pump pulse. For Fig. 2a, which shows no superradiant scattering, the laser was blue detuned by $+3$ GHz, whereas for Fig. 2b the laser was red detuned by $-3$ GHz and first-order superradiance is clearly visible. The insert in Fig. 2, which is a map of the low-power scattering efficiency for red and blue detunings, clearly shows that superradiant scattering could not be initiated with a blue-detuned pump. The right panel of Fig. 2 displays two TOF images after application of a high-power pump pulse to an elongated BEC using a different experimental apparatus. These images show that growth of higher-order momentum states is subject to a condition similar to the one that leads to suppression of first-order scattering when blue-detuned light is used. We point out that this is consistent with a sequential scattering process where higher-order growth is predicated on the growth of first-order momentum components. The above observations demonstrate the stark contrast between red- and blue-detuned pump light in the generation of collective atomic recoil motion with BECs, and raise challenges to current theoretical frameworks [@inouye1; @schneble1; @moore; @li; @piovella; @han; @bonifacio; @fallani; @uys; @benedek; @robb; @ketterle] which predict the process should be symmetric with respect to detuning. When a pump laser interacts with a BEC it first generates photons by spontaneous Rayleigh scattering, regardless of the sign of the pump-laser detuning. However, even in this early stage the BEC’s structure factor [@sf] imposes additional constraints on the scattering process and slightly suppresses this two-photon channel to about 90$\%$ of its free-particle value. Never-the-less, these seed fields may then be amplified by coherent scattering of pump photons via the two-photon process treated in Ref. [@lu1]. Since the initial number of spontaneously-scattered photons per unit volume is proportional to the local density, at early times the intensity of these seed fields will directly reflect the local BEC density. However, the velocity of these growing seed fields will be inversely proportional to the local density and the field gain will be an exponential function of density. For sufficiently high spontaneous Rayleigh scattering rates the generated field will grow diabatically with respect to atomic motion, and will result in a non-negligible average optical-dipole potential $\bar{U}_{dipole}$. This induced $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ breaks the detuning symmetry of the original scattering process because for red (blue) detuned light $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ is attractive (repulsive). The important question to ask is how can $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ affect the scattering process? It has been shown interferometrically [@campbell] that the energy of an atom scattered out of a BEC has an additional mean-field contribution due to the exchange term in the Hamiltonian, $E/\hbar=4\omega_{R}+\omega_{MF}$. Here $\omega_{MF}=\bar{U}_{MF}/\hbar =16\pi\hbar an_0/(7M)$ is the average mean-field shift where $a$ is the scattering length, $M$ is the atomic mass, $n_0$ is the peak condensate density, $\omega_R$ is the single-photon recoil frequency, and we have neglected the optical index of the medium because of the large detunings in this study. Clearly, the scattering is not free-particle-like because of the additional energy $\hbar \omega_{MF}$. However, with red detunings the induced $\bar{U}_{dipole}$, which is seen by both condensed and scattered atoms, will grow and eventually reach the level of the mean-field potential ($\bar{U}_{dipole}\approx -\bar{U}_{MF}$). Under this condition the net energy available to an atom scattered out of the condensate relative to the unperturbed condensate is simply $E/\hbar=4\omega_{R}$, and the scattering becomes “free-particle-like" for all momentum transfers. The attractive $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ can therefore be thought of as a work function for removing atoms from the BEC that is overcome by the additional factor of $\bar{U}_{MF}$ given to the scattering process by the host BEC itself. Note that only scattered atoms would experience a “flat" potential, and that the host BEC would not be in equilibrium [@noteref6]. Satisfying this free-particle-like scattering condition implies that there is no extra energy left for quasi-particle excitations of the host condensate. This naturally brings us back to the structure factor [@sf] of a BEC (without $\bar{U}_{dipole}$), which goes to zero at low-momentum scatterings. If we postulate that the free-particle-scattering condition removes the constraint of the host BEC structure factor and allows low-momentum scatterings to occur, then the system would start to behave like an ultra-cold thermal gas. In this case both linear and non-linear [@nonlinear] processes would occur simultaneously, resulting in very efficient coherent growth of the generated field. We also point out that because $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ grows exponentially with density, it becomes more sharply peaked than the Thomas-Fermi density distribution and the resulting transverse optical-dipole force will lead to an increasing transverse velocity spread of the atoms [@noteref6]. We speculate that the sudden opening of efficient non-linear gain channels may facilitate triggering bosonic stimulation by creating a burst of highly monochromatic photons (atoms) scattered along (at 45$^{o}$ to) the long symmetry axis of the BEC where the transverse velocity is zero and the density is greatest. However, even without invoking non-linear gain channels the impact of the evolving structure factor on the two-photon channel may be sufficient to explain the asymmetry. With blue-detuned light the diabatically-generated field moves the system further away from free-particle-like scattering because the growing $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ adds to $\bar{U}_{MF}$ rather than canceling it. This would cause the effective structure factor to have an increasingly larger negative impact on the two-photon channel as the optical-dipole potential grows, and would lead to gain clamping. Therefore the two-photon gain channel becomes inefficient and non-linear gain channels remain closed. In addition, the repulsive optical-dipole potential will cause a radially outward-going momentum spread, and this explains the significant expansion seen in Fig. 2c. Although the growing 3D $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ is very difficult to model theoretically, we can estimate its importance [@noteref5]. Intuitively, photons emitted along the long axis of the BEC dominate coherent growth because of maximum propagation gain. From Ref. [@lu1], the generated field originating at one end and propagating an effective distance $\alpha$ along the long axis results in $$U(\alpha)_{dipole}\approx \hbar\left[\frac{3\lambda^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{\Gamma}{\delta}\left(\frac{N_i}{\tau_0A}\right)e^{2G\alpha}\right].\nonumber$$ Here $\lambda$ is the generated-field wavelength, $N_i$ is the number of initial seed photons, $\tau_0$ is the pulse length of the initial seed photon burst, and $A$ is the BEC cross-section. In addition, $G=4R\kappa_0n_0/(\gamma_B\Gamma)$ with $\kappa_0=(2\pi)^2|d|^2/(\hbar\lambda)$ where $|d|$ is the dipole transition matrix element, $R$ is the single-photon scattering rate, and $\gamma_B$ is the width of the two-photon Bragg resonance involving a pump and a generated photon. For the BEC in Ref. [@inouye1] when $N_i\approx 1$, $\bar{U}_{dipole}\approx-\bar{U}_{MF}$ occurs when $R\approx$ 100 Hz, in good agreement with the observed threshold scattering rate. In the limit of thermal vapors, where there is no mean-field exchange term and the density distribution is more uniform, the process should be detuning agnostic. The scattering efficiency will be reduced because of shorter coherence times and lower density, but wave-mixing channels (both linear and non-linear) will remain open because the scattering would already be free-particle-like in nature. To test this hypothesis we applied a pump laser pulse to a BEC after adiabatically relaxing the magnetic trapping potential to lower the density. In this case wave-mixing will occur with both the condensed fraction and the uncondensed fraction that results from the expansion not being completely adiabatic. For the condensed fraction the internal-field generation will be the same as before if $R$ is increased to compensate for the lower density. However, the BEC itself will begin to look more like an ultra-cold thermal gas since $\bar{U}_{MF}$ is correspondingly reduced, bringing the initial system closer to the free-particle-scattering limit. As the system is expanded to a greater degree, less efficient generation of collective atomic recoil modes from the underlying wave-mixing processes should occur with blue detunings for both the thermal fraction and the BEC itself, and this is consistent with what we observe experimentally. For the upper images in Fig. 3, where the magnetic field was lowered to 50% of its original value, the asymmetry is still pronounced. However for the lower images, where the magnetic field strength was lowered to 10% of its original value (40% uncondensed), symmetry is beginning to be restored, in agreement with our postulation. {width="3in"} In conclusion, we have demonstrated a red-blue detuning asymmetry in matter-wave superradiance and showed that symmetry is restored in the limit of dilute atomic vapors for which there is no additional factor of the mean-field potential to influence scattering dynamics. We also provided a plausible explanation for the symmetry breaking based on the mean-field potential of the BEC and an induced $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ to stimulate further studies. We believe that the asymmetry results from early-stage growth of a scattered optical field which causes the system to evolve toward (away from) the free-particle scattering limit with red (blue) detunings. With red detunings this results in enhanced coherent growth of an ultra-slow generated field. However with blue detunings, linear and non-linear gain channels are inhibited by the evolving structure factor, and this precludes the formation of a high contrast grating. At early times in the scattering process, where the genesis of the red-blue asymmetry occurs, the grating picture is invalid. However, at late times with red detunings, our model and previous theoretical models converge because the atomic polarization in Maxwell’s equation (see Eq. 3 of Ref. [@lu1]) can now be viewed as a grating. We therefore believe that the origin of matter-wave superradiance is fundamentally a multi-matter-optical, wave-mixing process. The suppression of superradiance with blue detunings reported here results from the unique properties of BECs, and will therefore not occur in fermionic or uncondensed bosonic systems. Since the wave-mixing process need not invoke bosonic stimulation, collective atomic recoil motion will occur with fermions [@fermion], but with a much lower efficiency. Finally we note that the widely-accepted theoretical model of matter-wave superradiance developed over the last decade is incapable of explaining our experimental results because it does not address early-stage growth of the scattering process. Since this theoretical framework provides the foundation for many important studies, its revision should be a scientific priority. Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with Dr. C.W. Clark, Prof. W. Ketterle, Dr. J. Bienfang, and Prof. K. Burnett. Ruquan Wang acknowledges financial support from the National Basic Research Program of China (973 project Grant No. 2006CB921206), the National High-Tech Research Program of China (863 project Grant No. 2006AA06Z104), and the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 10704086). [13]{} S. Inouye et al., Science [**285**]{}, 571 (1999). D. Schneble et al., Science [**300**]{}, 475 (2003). D. Schneble et al., Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 041601(R)(2004). Y. Yoshikawa et al., Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 041603(R)(2004). S. Inouye et al., Nature (London) [**402**]{}, 641 (1999). M. Kozuma et al., Science [**286**]{}, 2309 (1999). M.G. Moore and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 5202 (1999). $\ddot{\text{O}}$.E. M$\ddot{\text{u}}$stecaplioglu and L. You, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 063615 (2000). N. Piovella et al., Opt. Commun. [**187**]{}, 165 (2001). H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 150407 (2003). R. Bonifacio et al., Opt. Commun. [**233**]{}, 155 (2004). L. Fallani [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 033612 (2005). L. De Sarlo et al., Eur. Phys. J. D [**32**]{}, 167 (2005). H. Uys and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 033805 (2007). C. Benedek and M. G. Benedikt, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [**6**]{}, S111 (2004). G.R.M. Robb, N. Piovella, and R. Bonifacio, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [**7**]{}, 93 (2005). W. Ketterle and S. Inouye, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, t. 2, S$\acute{e}$r. IV, 339 (2001). Ultra-slow propagation of an externally-supplied probe laser in a pump-probe Bragg experiment \[S. Inouye et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4225 (2000)\] is not evidence of ultra-slow propagation in superradiance since these were considered to be two independent processes [@ketterle; @fallani]. L. Deng, M.G. Payne, and E.W. Hagley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 050402 (2010). The single-particle phase-matching condition derived in [@lu1] is not accurate because the photon recoil momentum in dispersive media [@campbell] was neglected. To first order, such static phase-matching should be satisfied for all detunings (W. Ketterle, private communications). G.K. Campbell et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 170403 (2005). A. Hilliard et al., Phys. Rev A [**78**]{}, 051403(R) (2008). J. Steinhauer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 120407 (2002); D.M. Stamper-Kurn et al., [*ibid.*]{} [**83**]{}, 2876 (1999). An alternative, but consistent, viewpoint is that red and blue detunings chirp the BEC phase in different ways, and modify the light-scattering properties of the superfluid that now finds itself under compression or tension. L. Deng and E.W. Hagley (submitted, see arXiv:1006.4619). The nonlinear process of interest is optically-degenerate four-wave mixing. This process may explain the origin of the sudden steep optical and matter wave gain increase observed in Ref. [@inouye1]. We believe that when the Gross-Pitasvskii and Maxwell equations are solved self-consistently, a generalized dynamic phase-matching relation including the polarization force/potential and the BEC structure factor will verify our postulation about the underlying mechanism. P. Wang et al. (PRL submitted, see arXiv:1006.3250).

Introduction ============ The Hubbard model is among the simplest Hamiltonians that describe the behavior of correlated electrons. Specially since the discovery of high temperature superconducting materials, considerable attention has been devoted to this model and significant progress was achieved in understanding its ground state properties, particularly at half-filling, although superconductivity is still elusive[@rev]. Static and dynamical spin correlations, the optical conductivity and other observables have been studied in detail.[@rev] However, not much attention has been devoted to its thermodynamical properties despite the large amount of experimental specific heat measurements available for the cuprates. The aim of this paper is to fill that void and to present a systematic study of the specific heat of the two dimensional (2D) Hubbard model for different couplings $U/t$, dopings and temperatures. To achieve that goal Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) techniques are used. The Hubbard Hamiltonian is given by $${ H=} -t{ \sum_{\langle {\bf{ij}} \rangle,\sigma}(c^{\dagger}_{{\bf{i}},\sigma} c_{{\bf{j}},\sigma}+h.c.)}$$ $$+U{ \sum_{{\bf{i}}}(n_{{\bf{i}} \uparrow}-1/2)( n_{{\bf{i}} \downarrow}-1/2)+\mu\sum_{{\bf{i}},\sigma}n_{{\bf{i}}\sigma} }, \eqno(1)$$ where ${ c^{\dagger}_{{\bf{i}},\sigma} }$ creates an electron at site ${ {\bf i } }$ with spin projection $\sigma$, ${ n_{{\bf{i}}\sigma} }$ is the number operator, the sum ${ \langle {\bf{ij}} \rangle }$ runs over pairs of nearest neighbor lattice sites, $U$ is the on-site Coulombic repulsion, ${t}$ the nearest neighbor hopping amplitude, and $\mu$ the chemical potential. In the following $t=1$ will be used as the unit of energy. The boundary conditions are periodic. Half-filling ============ The computational calculation of the specific heat $c$ is not simple. In principle, $c$ is given by the derivative of the energy $E$ (defined as $E = \langle H \rangle/N$, with $N$ being the number of sites) with respect to the temperature $T$ at constant density. However, note that in determinantal QMC simulations, which are set up in the grand canonical ensemble, the energy is a function of the chemical potential that has to be adjusted to keep the density $\langle n \rangle$ constant as the temperature changes. In other words, $\partial E/\partial T$ must be calculated along lines of constant $\langle n \rangle$ in the $T-\mu$ plane. In this framework the calculation of $c$ cannot proceed using $c \sim \langle H^2 \rangle - \langle H \rangle^2$, as when the number of particles is fixed. Another detail that is important is the finite discretization of the derivatives along the lines of constant density. Naively, the ratio $\Delta E/\Delta T$, with $\Delta T$ very small, should be calculated. However, us- ing such a procedure the small statistical error in $E$ introduces large errors in $c$. For that reason we have decided to calculate $E(T)$ (at fixed $\langle n \rangle$) numerically as accurately as possible, and then fit the Monte Carlo points with a polynomial that smears out the small fluctuations in $E$. $c$ is obtained by taking derivatives from this polynomial analytically. Motivated by the shape of the $E$ vs $T$ curve, different polynomials were used for the high and low temperature regimes. In Fig.1, the raw Monte Carlo data for $E$ as a function of temperature corresponding to $U=8$ at half-filling on a $6 \times 6$ cluster are presented. Each data point was obtained by performing around 10,000 measurement sweeps. The dashed line indicates the low temperature fit by a polynomial of order 6 in $T$, while the short-long dashed line indicates the high temperature fit, in this case to a polynomial of order 4. $T^*$ is the temp- erature where the two fits meet. Its value depends on the parameters $U$ and $\langle n \rangle $ and is typically of the order of 1. In order to make a smooth connection of the two fits we included points below (above) $T^*$ for the high (low) temperature fit within a window $\sim 0.2$ centered at $T^*$. The specific heat was obtained through the analytic derivative of the fitting polynomials, and it is also shown in Fig.1 with a continuous line. The inset of the figure shows with more detail the low energy data that generate the low temperature peak in $c$ (to be discussed later). An important issue in QMC simulations are finite size effects (FSE). Upon studying $4\times 4$, $6\times 6$ and $8\times 8$ clusters, it was observed that the FSE in $E$ vs $T$ are strong at very weak coupling but become negligible for $U=8$ or larger. In Fig.2, the energy of the different clusters for $U=0$, 4, 8 and 12 is shown. Since the FSE are small we decided that results on $6 \times 6$ clusters are representative of the physical behavior analyzed in this study and, thus, this is the lattice size that we have used in the remaining of the paper. In Fig.3, $c$ vs $T$ at half-filling for different values of $U$ is shown. There are two important features in these curves: 1) A low temperature peak that appears when the low lying spin states are excited, and 2) a higher temperature peak which appears when states in the upper Hubbard band are excited. In the weak coupling regime the low temperature peak moves to slightly higher temperature as $U$ increases, reaching a turning point at $U\approx 7$ where the peak is at $T=0.3$. For $U > 7$ the peak slowly moves to lower temperatures, as $U$ grows. This indicates the beginning of the strong coupling regime since it is well known that for large values of $U$ the Hubbard and the $t-J$ models have similar behaviors and the coupling constants are related through $J=4t^2/U$. Numerical studies on the $t-J$ model have indicated that at half-filling (Heisenberg limit) the peak in $c$ appears at $T\approx 2J/3$[@heis] which in terms of $U$ corresponds to $T\approx 8t^2/3U$. Thus, when this regime is reached we expect the peak to move to lower temperature with increasing $U$. The position of the peak as a function of $U/t$ is shown in Fig.4.a, where the dashed line indicates $T=2J/3$. The asymptotic behavior is reached for $U\geq 10$. The broad high temperature peak moves to higher temperature as $U$ increases as expected since its presence corresponds to the excitation of states across the gap that grows with $U$. In Fig.4.b the position of this peak is shown as a function of $U$. For $U\geq 7$ the dependence of the position of the peak with $U$ becomes approximately linear, and it is given by $0.24 U$. A spin-density-wave mean field calculation of the gap $\Delta$ as a function of $U$, at large $U$, gives the result $\Delta \sim 0.48 U$. Apparently, quantum fluctuations reduce the size of the gap. Note that in Fig. 3 it can be observed that the minimum in $c$ between the two peaks becomes deeper as $U$ increases and the charge peak increases its width. In previous work the specific heat for the half-filled Hubbard model in one dimension has been evaluated.[@schul; @usuki; @klumper] We found that the qualitative behavior in two and one dimensions is similar regarding the existence and coupling dependence of the two peaks. However, the following differences were observed: 1) According to Ref.[@schul] the two peaks can be resolved for $U>4$ while here we were able to identify the two peaks already at $U=2$. The fact that only one maximum is observed in Ref.[@schul] in the strong coupling regime is due to the small $T$ interval considered in their study; 2) According to Ref.[@usuki] the maximum in $c$ associated with the spin excitations moves to lower temperatures as $U$ increases in weak coupling while in our 2D study the opposite behavior was found. Another important feature observed here at half-filling is that at low temperatures the specific heat follows $c=\delta T^2$, i.e., the behavior predicted by spin-wave calculations.[@arov] In Fig.5.a we show the energy as a function of $T^3$ for different values of $U$ showing that linear behavior occurs for $T\leq 0.3$. The value of $\delta$ depends on $U$, and it decreases as the coupling increases. For large $U$ the limiting value $\delta\approx 1.1$ is obtained in good agreement with the reported value for the Heisenberg model.[@arov; @ted; @japan] A slave boson mean field theory (SBMFT) calculation provided a value of $\delta=1.3\pm 0.05$[@arov] while a numerical study obtained $\delta=1.1\pm 0.2$.[@japan] The behavior of $\delta$ vs $U$ is shown in Fig.5.b. In Fig.6, $c$ vs $T$ for several values of $U$ ranging from 2 to 12 are presented. These are the same curves that were shown in Fig.3 but now using common vertical units. It is interesting to observe that all the curves intersect at $T=1.6\pm 0.2$. If only small values of the coupling are considered, i.e. $U$ ranging from 2 to 5, the curves cross also at $T_1=0.6$ in addition to $T_2=1.6$. This behavior was predicted by Vollhardt[@vol] and was observed in the paramagnetic phase of the infinite dimensional Hubbard model for $0\leq U\leq 2.5$. Finite Hole Density =================== To compare our results with those of the superconducting cuprates it is important to study the specific heat as a function of hole doping. As remarked before, many experimental measurements of the specific heat for high temperature cuprates are available. In general it is very difficult to separate the electronic contribution to the specific heat in the normal state from the phononic part. Also many experiments have been performed in the superconducting phase, where the existence of an intrinsic linear contribution to the specific heat would indicate the absence of a gap and thus non-conventional behavior.[@stupp; @mori; @collo] Since the superconducting phase cannot be reached in QMC simulations, our results will be compared with experiments performed in the normal state. For $La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ it was observed in Ref.[@loram] that the linear term $\gamma$ of the specific heat in the normal phase increases with doping between $x=0.12$ and 0.25. However, studies of the same material performed later[@wada] showed that $\gamma$ increases with $x$ for $x>0.1$ reaching a maximum value at optimal doping $x\approx 0.15$ and then decreasing in the overdoped regime. This behavior is in agreement with the Van Hove scenario[@AFVH] where the density of states reaches a maximum at optimal doping. The behavior of $\gamma$ for a metal-insulator transition was also studied for $Sr_{1-x}La_xTiO_3$ in Ref.[@tokura]. They observed that $\gamma$ increases as the transition is approached from the metallic side. Through the relation $\gamma=m^* \gamma_0/m$, where $\gamma_0$ and $m$ are the linear coefficient and the mass for free electrons, it was found that the effective mass of the quasiparticles $m^*$ increases as the transition is approached. Loram et al.[@loram2] studied $\gamma$ as a function of doping at $T=280K$ in $YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}$. $\gamma$ appears to increase with doping reaching a plateau for $x \approx 0.45$. The first step to study numerically the specific heat at finite density is to analyze the finite size effects. They are stronger than at half-filling, but still moderate as can be seen in Fig.7 where $E$ vs $T$ for $U=0$, 4, 8 and 12 at $\langle n \rangle =0.75$ on $4 \times 4$ and $6 \times 6$ clusters is shown. Away from half-filling it was very difficult to obtain accurate results on $8 \times 8$ clusters at low temperature due to the well-known sign problem. However, since FSE are stronger in weak coupling and we have observed that for $U=0$, where results can be obtained exactly, there is only a small difference between the $6 \times 6$ and $8 \times 8$ results, then as before, $6 \times 6$ lattices were used in our studies away from half-filling. In Fig.8.a the specific heat as a function of $T$ at ${\langle n \rangle }=0.75$ for different values of $U$ is presented. It can be observed that the spin peak is substantially reduced compared with the results at half-filling, but it is still present in strong coupling for $U=8$ and 12 indicating the existence of short range antiferromagnetic correlations. In weak coupling, i.e. for $U=4$, the spin feature has disappeared, and the curve is similar to the non-interacting one. The specific heat increases in the region where the minimum between the two peaks existed at half-filling. At quarter filling (Fig.8.b), $c$ has a behavior that resembles free electrons independently of the value of $U$. Thus, here the electrons are approximately weakly interacting at all couplings. Let us consider in more detail the special case of $U$=8. This value of the coupling was selected since according to calculations of the optical conductivity it is suitable to reproduce some normal state experimental results[@rev]. In Fig.9 the specific heat as a function of temperature is presented for different values of the density $\langle n \rangle$. The continuous line indicates the results for $U=8$ on a $6 \times 6$ cluster while the dashed line denotes the non-interacting $U=0$ results on a $200 \times 200$ lattice. Such a large cluster in the non-interacting case was used to avoid finite size effects which are strong in this limit at the low temperatures where the linear behavior occurs. Again it should be remarked that this problem occurs in weak coupling at very low $T$ and, thus, our $U=8$ results are not expected to be contaminated by size effects. In Fig.9 it can be seen that for $U=8$ the intensity of the spin peak decreases smoothly with doping. At 10% hole doping (i.e. $\langle n \rangle = 0.90$) its intensity diminishes by 40%, a result in agreement with Ref.[@heis] where the $t-J$ model was studied. Note that for $\langle n \rangle \sim 0.8$ the specific heat is almost flat in a broad range of temperatures. Here it is difficult to resolve the spin and charge peaks from the data. We expect that at this density or lower the spin correlations are no longer important, even those of short-range, in agreement with previous spectral function studies performed in the Hubbard model.[@dyn] Reducing further the density from $\langle n \rangle =$0.75 to 0.5 a single peak structure that resembles the non-interacting specific heat curve becomes dominant. An important issue in this context is the calculation of couplings and densities where the system changes from insulator to metal. Metallic behavior is characterized in the specific heat by the existence of a linear coefficient $\gamma$. In two dimensions it was found that[@bedell] $$c\approx \gamma T+\Gamma_{2D}T^2+..., \eqno(2)$$ with $\Gamma_{2D}$ positive in strong coupling. The experimentalists often present plots of $c/T$ vs $T^2$ when addressing $\gamma$. Analogously, in Fig.10 the continuous line denotes $c/T$ vs $T$ for $U=8$ at different densities, while the dashed line indicates the non-interacting case. The lowest temperature that was confidently reached in this study away from half-filling is $T=0.3$. It is clear that this temperature is too high to observe the linear behavior in $c/T$ since, according to Eq.(2), the slope of the curve has to be positive at very low temperature. Clearly, if the system behaves as a Fermi liquid a maximum has to appear in the curve at a lower temperature than reached in this study. The non-interacting results show indeed the linear behavior at very low temperatures. However, note that the value of $\gamma$ for non-interacting electrons is not much different from the value of $c/T$ at the maximum in Fig.10 at all densities. Thus by extrapolating the $U=8$ curves to zero we expect to obtain a good approximation to the value of $\gamma$. However, since we cannot reach lower temperatures the existence of anomalous non-Fermi liquid behavior can certainly not be ruled out as remarked in Ref.[@heis]. In Fig.11, $c/T$ as a function of doping is presented at different temperatures. Notice that the lowest temperature $T=0.5$ shown in Fig.11 corresponds to $\sim 2000K$, if $t=0.4eV$ is used. This is much higher than $T=280K$ which is the highest temperature used in experiments. However, for $T=0.5$ it was here observed that $c/T$ increases with doping for $\langle n \rangle \leq 0.8$ in agreement with some experimental results[@loram2], and the same behavior is observed at $T=1$. For higher $T$ the ratio $c/T$ increases for increasing density $\langle n \rangle$. Summary ======= The specific heat of the two dimensional Hubbard model has been calculated for different couplings and electronic densities as a function of temperature. At half-filling and as the coupling $U$ increases a low temperature peak associated with the spin degrees of freedom moves to lower temperatures, while a high temperature feature associated with the charge degrees of freedom moves to higher temperatures. At very low temperatures $c \approx \delta T^2$ as predicted by spin-wave theory and $\delta$ tends to the Heisenberg value ($\delta \approx 1.1$) for large coupling $U$. Away from half-filling we observed that the spin feature weakens with doping, and it disappears for $\langle n \rangle \leq 0.75$ working at $U=8$. This suggests the absence of important antiferromagnetic correlations below that density. We were not able to reach temperatures low enough to decide whether the system is metallic or has anomalous behavior away from half-filling. However, by evaluating $c/T$ we were able to make comparisons with experimental results. At the lowest temperatures that we could reach we found that $c/T$ increases with hole doping for $\langle n \rangle < 0.9$. This behavior is similar to experimental results for $YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}$.[@loram2] Acknowledgements ================ We thank E. Miranda, K. Bedell, S. von Molnar and E. Dagotto for useful conversations. A.M. is supported by NSF under grant DMR-95-20776. Additional support is provided by the Office of Naval Research under grant N00014-93-0495, the National High Magnetic Field Lab and MARTECH. We thank ONR for providing access to their Cray-YMP and CM5 supercomputers. E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 763 (1994). J. Jaklic and P. Prelovsek, preprint. J. Schulte and M. Böhm, 53, 15385 (1996). T. Usuki, N. Kawakami and A. Okiji, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 59, 1357 (1990). A. Klümper and R.Z. Bariev, Nucl. Phys. B458 \[FS\], 623 (1996). A. Auerbach and D. Arovas, 61, 617 (1988). T. Barnes, J. Mod. Phys. C2, 659 (1991). Y. Okabe, M. Kikuchi and A.D.S. Nagi, 61, 2971 (1988). D. Vollhardt, preprint. S.E. Stupp and D.M. Ginsberg, Physica C158, 299 (1989). K. Mori et al., Physica B165&166, 1201 (1990). S.J. Collocott et al., Physica B165&166, 1329 (1990). J.W. Loram et al., Physica C162-164, 498 (1989). N. Wada et al., Physica B165&166, 1341 (1990). R.S. Markiewicz, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2, 6223 (1990); D.M. Newns, P.C. Pattnaik and C.C. Tsuei, 43, 3075 (1991); E. Dagotto, A. Nazarenko and A. Moreo, 74, 310 (1995). Y. Tokura et al., 70, 2126 (1993); K. Kumagai et al., 48, 7636 (1993). J.W. Loram et al., 71, 1740 (1993). S. Haas, A. Moreo and E. Dagotto, 74, 4281 (1995); A. Moreo et al. 51, 12045 (1995). D. Coffey and K. Bedell, 71, 1043 (1993).

--- abstract: 'The *nullity* of a minimal submanifold $M\subset S^{n}$ is the dimension of the nullspace of the second variation of the area functional. That space contains as a subspace the effect of the group of rigid motions $SO(n+1)$ of the ambient space, modulo those motions which preserve $M$, whose dimension is the *Killing nullity* $kn(M)$ of $M$. In the case of 2-dimensional tori $M$ in $S^{3}$, there is an additional naturally-defined 2-dimensional subspace; the dimension of the sum of the action of the rigid motions and this space is the *natural nullity* $nnt(M)$. In this paper we will study minimal tori in $S^{3}$ with natural nullity less than 8. We construct minimal immersions of the plane ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ in $S^{3}$ that contain all possible examples of tori with $nnt(M)<8$. We prove that the examples of Lawson and Hsiang with $kn(M)=5$ also have $nnt(M)=5$, and we prove that if the $nnt(M)\le6$ then the group of isometries of $M$ is not trivial.' author: - 'David L. Johnson, Oscar Perdomo' title: Minimal tori with low nullity --- Introduction ============ Let $\tilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$ be a minimal immersion of an oriented compact surface without boundary $M$ in the unit three dimensional sphere $S^{3}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$. When there is no confusion, we will identify $m\in M$ with $\tilde{\rho}(m)$ and the vectors in $T_{m}M$ with those in $d\tilde{\rho}_{m}(T_{m}M)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$. Let $N:M\to S^{3}$ be a Gauss map, i.e. $N(m)\perp T_{m}M$ and $\<N(m),{m}\>=0$. For any $m\in M$, $a(m)$ will denote the nonnegative principal curvature of $M$ at $m$ and $W_{1}(m)$ and $W_{2}(m)$ will denote two unit tangent vectors such that $dN_{m}(W_{1}(m))=-a(m)W_{1}(m)$ and $dN_{m}(W_{2}(m))=a(m)W_{2}(m)$. Notice that $a(m)$ is uniquely determined but the vectors $W_{1}(m)$ and $W_{2}(m)$ are not. When $M$ is a torus, it is known that for every $m$, $a(m)$ is positive [@L], therefore in this case we can choose $W_{1}(m)$ and $W_{2}(m)$ so that they define smooth vector field in $M$. In the following, if $M$ is a torus, $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ will denote such unit tangent vector fields and $a:M\to{\bf {\mathbb{R}}}$ will be the smooth function given by the positive principal curvature. Since we are identifying vectors in $T_{m}M$ with those in $d\tilde{\rho}_{m}(T_{m}M)$ using the homomorphisms $d\tilde{\rho}_{m}$, the tangent vector fields on $M$ are given by functions $X:M\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ such that $\<X(m),\tilde{\rho}(m)\>=0$ and $\<X(m),N(m)\>=0$ for all $m\in M$. Given a fixed, skew-symmetric $4\times4$ matrix $B$, define $f_{B}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $f_{B}=\<B\tilde{\rho}(m),N(m)\>.$ Since $M$ is minimal, $M$ is a critical point of the area functional. The second variation of the area function at this critical point is given by the stability operator$$J:C^{\infty}(M)\to C^{\infty}(M)\quad\com{given\, by}\quad J(f):=-\Delta f-2a^{2}f-2f.$$ It is clear that $f_{B}$ satisfies the elliptic equation $J(f_{B})=0$ because, when we move the immersion $M$ by the group of isometries $\e^{Bt}:S^{3}\to S^{3}$ we induce a family that leaves the area and second fundamental form constant; $f_{B}$ is the function associated with this family. The *nullity* of a minimal surface is defined as the dimension of the kernel of the operator $J$ and will be denoted by $n(M)$. In [@LH], Lawson and Hsiang classify all the minimal surfaces that are invariant under under a 1-parametric group of isometries in $S^{3}$. As they point out at the end of their paper, one way to see this classification is the following: Define $$KS=\{f_{B}:B\in so(4)\};\quad\com{Killing\, nullity=dim}(KS)=kn(M).$$ We have that $kn(M)\le n(M)$ and in general the Killing nullity is expected to be $6$ since the dimension of $so(4)$ is $6$. Then, they classify all the examples of surfaces with $kn(M)<6$. These examples turn out to be the totally geodesic spheres with Killing nullity $3$, the Clifford tori with Killing nullity $4$ and a collection of tori with Killing nullity $5$. It is known that when $M$ is a torus, for any angle $\theta$, the function $h_{\theta}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ given by $$h_{\theta}=\cos(\theta)a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)+\sin(\theta)a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{2}(a)$$ satisfies that $J(h_{\theta})=0$. Actually, this equation was the starting point in the classification of all constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ and all minimal tori in $S^{3}$ given by Pinkall and Sterling in [@PS]. The study of the nullity of minimal tori will be helpful in understanding their examples. When $M$ is a torus, we can define the following space and the following integer $$NS=\{f_{B}+\lambda h_{\theta}:B\in so(4),\ \lambda,\theta\in{\mathbb{R}},\},\quad\com{Natural\, nullity\, for\, tori:=dim}(NS):=nnt(M).$$ Clearly $NS$ is a subset of the kernel of $J$ and therefore $nnt(M)\le n(M)$. The natural nullity is expected to be $8$ because of the $6$ parameters of $so(4)$ and the two parameters $\lambda$ and $\theta$ in the definition of the space $NS$. In this paper we study minimal tori with natural nullity for tori less than 8. We construct, in Theorem (\[thm:solutions-of-system\]), minimal immersions of the plane ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ in $S^{3}$ that contain *all* possible examples of tori with $nnt(M)<8$, which is shown in Theorem (\[thm:nnt&lt;8\]). We prove (Corollary (\[cor:nnt=00003D5-iff-HL\])) that the examples of Lawson and Hsiang with $kn(M)=5$ are the only immersed tori satisfying $nnt(M)=5$, although the question of the (total) nullity of these examples is not resolved. Finally, we show in Theorem (\[thm:nnt&lt;6-isometries\]) that if $nnt(M)\le6$ then the group of isometries is not trivial. Preliminaries ============= In this section we will review some known results that will be used later on. The first result has already been used in the introduction in order to define the unit tangent smooth vector fields $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ in an immersed minimal torus of $S^{3}$. ***[\[]{}Lawson, [@L]\]*** If $M\subset S^{3}$ is a closed minimal surface and $a:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ denotes the nonnegative principal curvature function, then $a$ is positive everywhere if and only if $\chi(M)=0$. The next theorem also was used in the introduction in order to defined define the natural nullity for tori. Even though it is a known result, for completeness sake we will provide a proof at the end of this section. \[natural-solutions\]If $M\subset S^{3}$ is a minimal immersed torus, and $W_{1}:M\to S^{3}$ and $W_{2}:M\to S^{3}$ are unit vector field that define the principal directions, then the functions$$h_{0},h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}\ \hbox{given\, by}\ h_{0}(m)=a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)\ \com{and}\ h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}=a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{2}(a)$$ satisfy$$J(h_{0})=-\Delta h_{0}-2h_{0}-2a^{2}h_{0}=0=J(h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}).$$ The following theorem will be used in section 4 to prove that one subfamily of the family of examples of minimal immersion of the plane in $S^{3}$ we have constructed corresponds to the Lawson-Hsiang examples. ***\[thm:Ramanaham\][\[]{}Ramanaham [@R]\]*** Let $\tilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$ be a minimal immersion from an oriented compact surface. Suppose that $M$ admits a one parameter group of isometries $\phi_{t}:M\to M$ with respect to the induced metric. Then, there exists a one-parameter family of orientation preserving isometries $\Phi_{t}$ of $S^{3}$ such that $\tilde{\rho}\circ\phi_{t}=\Phi_{t}\circ\tilde{\rho}$ for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. The next theorem is a consequence of the uniformization theorem applied to a minimal torus in $S^{3}$. \[uniformization\]For every minimal immersion of a torus $\tilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$, there exists a covering map $\tau:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to M$, a doubly periodic conformal immersion $\rho:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, a Gauss map $\nu:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, and a fixed angle $\alpha$, so that$$\rho(u,v)=\tilde{\rho}(\tau(u,v)),\quad\nu(u,v)\perp\rho_{*}(T_{(u,v)}{\mathbb{R}}^{2}),\quad\nu(u,v)\perp\rho(u,v),$$ and$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial u^{2}} & = & -\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}+\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}+\cos(2\alpha)\nu-\e^{-2r}\rho\\ \frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial v^{2}} & = & \frac{\partial r}{\partial u}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}-\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}-\cos(2\alpha)\nu-\e^{-2r}\rho\\ \frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial u\partial v} & = & -\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}-\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}-\sin(2\alpha)\nu\\ \frac{\partial\nu}{\partial u} & = & \e^{2r}(-\cos(2\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}+\sin(2\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v})\\ \frac{\partial\nu}{\partial v} & = & \e^{2r}(\sin(2\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}+\cos(2\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v})\end{aligned}$$ where $\e^{-2r}=\<\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u},\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}\>=\<\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v},\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}\>$. Moreover, $\Delta r+2\sinh(2r)=0$. The idea of the proof is the following: the existence of the conformal map $\rho$ and the covering $\tau$ follows from the uniformization theorem, the existence of the constant $\alpha$ follows from the fact that$$f(z)=f(u+iv)=\<\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial u^{2}},\nu\>-i\ \<\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial u\partial v},\nu\>$$ is an analytic, doubly periodic function in the whole plane, and therefore it is constant. Clearly this constant function $f$ is not identically zero otherwise $M$ would be totally geodesic. By scaling the coordinates $u$ and $v$ by a constant, we can make $f(u+iv)=\cos(2\alpha)+i\sin(2\alpha)$ for some constant angle $\alpha$. To complete the proof, the equations for the second derivatives of $\rho$ are just the standard computation of the Christoffel symbols and the elliptic equation of $r$ follows from computing the Gauss curvature using the Christoffel symbols and making it equal to $1-\e^{4r}$, i.e, this elliptic equation follows from the Gauss equation. \[cor:prin-dirs\]Using the same notation as in the previous theorem, the principal directions of the minimal immersion are given by$$V_{1}=\e^{r}(\cos(\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}-\sin(\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v})\quad\com{and}\quad V_{2}=\e^{r}(\sin(\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}+\cos(\alpha)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}).$$ More precisely, $$d\nu(\{d\rho_{(u,v)}\}^{-1}(W_{1}\circ\tau))=-\e^{2r}V_{1}\quad\com{and}\quad d\nu(\{d\rho_{(u,v)}\}^{-1}(W_{2}\circ\tau))=\e^{2r}V_{2}.$$ Moreover, it follows from the last expression that the principal curvatures are $\pm a$ where the function $a:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfies $a(\tau(u,v))=\e^{2r(u,v)}$. \[rem:rotatecoord\]A direct computation shows that if make a rotation of the variable $u$ and $v$, i.e. if we consider the variables $\bar{u}$ and $\bar{v}$ where$$u=\cos(\beta)\bar{u}+\sin(\beta)\bar{v}\quad\com{and}\quad v=-\sin(\beta)\bar{u}+\cos(\beta)\bar{v},$$ then, the angle $\alpha$ in the theorem above changes from $\alpha$ to $\alpha-\beta$. \[cor:a\]If $M\subset S^{3}$ is a minimal immersed torus, $N:M\to S^{3}$ its Gauss map, and $W_{1}:M\to S^{3}$ and $W_{2}:M\to S^{3}$ are unit vector field that define the principal directions with $dN_{m}(W_{1})=-aW_{1}$ and $dN_{m}(W_{2})=aW_{2}$, where $a:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is the positive principal curvature function, then$$\begin{aligned} \bar{\nabla}_{W_{1}}W_{1} & = & \frac{W_{2}(a)}{2a}W_{2}+aN-m\\ \bar{\nabla}_{W_{1}}W_{2} & = & -\frac{W_{2}(a)}{2a}W_{1}=\nabla_{W_{1}}W_{2}\\ \bar{\nabla}_{W_{2}}W_{1} & = & -\frac{W_{1}(a)}{2a}W_{2}=\nabla_{W_{2}}W_{1}\\ \bar{\nabla}_{W_{2}}W_{2} & = & \frac{W_{1}(a)}{2a}W_{1}-aN-m\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\nabla}$ is the Levi-Civita Connection in ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ and $\nabla$ is the connection in the surface $M$. This follows from Theorem (\[uniformization\]) and Corollary (\[cor:prin-dirs\]) by noticing that $$W_{1}(\tau(u,v))=V_{1}(u,v),\quad W_{2}(\tau(u,v))=V_{2}(u,v)\quad\hbox{and}\quad N(\tau(u,v))=\nu(u,v).$$ Theorem (\[natural-solutions\]) can be proved using Theorem (\[uniformization\]) in the following way: Take maps $\rho,V_{1},V_{2},\nu:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, $\tau:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to M$ and $r:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that they satisfy the condition of Theorem (\[uniformization\]) with $\alpha=0$, i.e., with $V_{1}(u,v)=W_{1}(\tau(u,v))=\e^{r(u,v)}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}(u,v)$ and $V_{2}(u,v)=W_{2}(\tau(u,v))=\e^{r(u,v)}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}(u,v)$. Since $\Delta_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}r+2\sinh{(2r)}=0$ we obtain that $$\Delta_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}+4\cosh{(2r)}\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}=0.$$ Since $\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}(u,v)=\e^{-r}V_{1}(u,v)=\e^{-r}W_{1}(\tau(u,v))$ and $a(\tau(u,v))=\e^{2r(u,v)}$, we have $$\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}=a^{-\frac{1}{2}}W_{1}(\frac{1}{2}\ln(a))=\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a).$$ Denote by $\Delta_{M}$ the Laplacian in the surface. Since the metric induced by $\rho$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ is given by $ds^{2}=\e^{-2r}(du^{2}+dv^{2})$, we obtain that, $$\Delta_{M}(\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a))=a\Delta_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}(\frac{\partial r}{\partial u})=-a(2(a+a^{-1})(\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)))$$ Therefore the function $h_{0}=a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)$ satisfies $J(h_{0})=0$. We prove that $J(h_{\frac{\pi}{2}})=0$ similarly. Integrable systems and solutions of the sinh-Gordon Equation ============================================================ In this section we will study an integrable system that produces solutions of the sinh-Gordon equations, the construction made here is similar to that of [@Ab] and [@PS]. The integrable system lives in $${\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}=\{(p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu,r,s):p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu\in{\mathbb{R}}^{4},\quad\hbox{and}\quad r,s\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$$ and is given by the vector fields $Z,W:{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ given by$$\begin{aligned} Z & = & \big{(}\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2}),sV_{2}+\cos(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu-\e^{-r}p),\\ & & -sV_{1}-\sin(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p),\e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2}),\\ & & \langle Bp,\nu\rangle,\cos(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>\big{)}\\ & = & (Z_{1},Z_{2},Z_{3},Z_{4},Z_{5},Z_{6})\\ \\W & = & \big{(}\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{2}-\sin(\theta)V_{1}),-\<Bp,\nu\>V_{2}+\sin(\theta)(-\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p),\\ & & \<Bp,\nu\>V_{1}-\cos(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p),\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)V_{1}+\cos(\theta)V_{2}),s,\\ & & \e^{-2r}-\e^{2r}-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\cos(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>\big{)}\\ & = & (W_{1},W_{2},W_{3},W_{4},W_{5},W_{6}),\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is a skew-symmetric $4\times4$ matrix, i.e. $B\in so(4)$, and $\theta$ is any real number. In the notation above, $W_{i}$ and $Z_{i}$ have values in ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ for $i=1,2,3,4$, and in ${\mathbb{R}}$ for $i=5,6$. We can write the system induced by these vector fields as$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial p}{\partial u} & = & \e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\\ \frac{\partial V_{1}}{\partial u} & = & sV_{2}+\cos(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu-\e^{-r}p)\\ \frac{\partial V_{2}}{\partial u} & = & -sV_{1}-\sin(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p)\\ \frac{\partial\nu}{\partial u} & = & \e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\\ \frac{\partial r}{\partial u} & = & \langle Bp,\nu\rangle\\ \frac{\partial s}{\partial u} & = & \cos(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial p}{\partial v} & = & \e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{2}-\sin(\theta)V_{1})\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial V_{1}}{\partial v} & = & -\<Bp,\nu\>V_{2}+\sin(\theta)(-\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p)\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial V_{2}}{\partial v} & = & \<Bp,\nu\>V_{1}-\cos(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p)\label{eq:1}\\ \frac{\partial\nu}{\partial v} & = & \e^{r}(\sin(\theta)V_{1}+\cos(\theta)V_{2})\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial r}{\partial v} & = & s\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial s}{\partial v} & = & \e^{-2r}-e^{2r}-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\cos(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We will refer to the previous system as the *integrable system* (\[eq:1\]). The following theorem provides a family a solutions of the sinh-Gordon equation. The vector fields $Z$ and $W$ commute, and if$$\Theta_{Z}:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\quad\hbox{and}\quad\Theta_{W}:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$$ are the flows of the vector fields $Z$ and $W$ respectively, and for any ${\bf x_{0}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$, we define the map $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ by$$\phi(u,v)=\Theta_{Z}(u,\Theta_{W}(v,{\bf x^{0}}))=(\phi_{1}(u,v),\dots,\phi_{18}(u,v)),$$ then, the function $r(u,v)=\phi_{17}(u,v)$ solves the equation$$\Delta r+2\sinh(2r)=0.$$ We will denote by $DW$ and $DZ$ the $18\times18$ matrices of the first derivatives of $W$ and $Z$ respectively. We will also denote by $V(f)$ the directional derivative of the function $f$ in the direction of $V$, the function $f$ may be a vector value function. For example$$Z_{5}(f)=\<Bp,\nu\>\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(f)\ \com{and}\ W_{1}(f)=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{2}^{i}-\sin(\theta)V_{2}^{i})\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{i}}(f)$$ Notice that$$Z_{1}(p)=Z_{1},\ Z_{1}(V_{i})=0,\ Z_{1}(\nu)=0,\ Z_{1}(\e^{\pm r})=0,\ Z_{1}(s)=0$$ We get similar equations for $Z_{i}(p)$, $Z_{i}(V_{j})$, $Z_{i}(\nu)$, $Z_{i}(\e^{\pm r})$, $Z_{i}(s)$, $W_{i}(p)$, $W_{i}(V_{j})$, $W_{i}(\nu)$, $W_{i}(\e^{\pm r})$, and $W_{i}(s)$. Now,$$\begin{aligned} [Z,W] & = & (DW)Z-(DZ)W=ZW-WZ\\ & = & (Z(W_{1}),Z(W_{2}),Z(W_{3}),Z(W_{4}),Z(W_{5}),Z(W_{6}))-\\ & & (W(Z_{1}),W(Z_{2}),W(Z_{3}),W(Z_{4}),W(Z_{5}),W(Z_{6}))\end{aligned}$$ The first four components of the vector above are given by$$\begin{aligned} Z(W_{1})-W(Z_{1}) & = & \e^{-r}\cos(\theta)Z_{3}-\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)Z_{2}-\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{2}-\sin(\theta)V_{1})Z_{5}\\ & & -(\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)W_{2}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)W_{3}-\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})W_{5})\\ & = & \e^{-r}\{\cos(\theta)(-sV_{1}-\sin(\theta)(\e^{r}\nu+\e^{-r}p))-\sin(\theta)(sV_{2}\\ & & +\cos(\theta)(-\e^{-r}p+\e^{r}\nu))\}-\<Bp,\nu\>\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{2}-\sin(\theta)V_{1})\\ & & -\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)(-\<Bp,\nu\>V_{2}+\sin(\theta)(\e^{-r}p-\e^{r}\nu))+\sin(\theta)(\<Bp,\nu\>V_{1}\\ & & -\cos(\theta)(\e^{-r}p+\e^{r}\nu)))+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})s\\ & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Direct computations, some of them longer, some others shorter than the above, show that the other components of $[Z,W]$ are also zero. We now show that $r(u,v)=\phi_{17}(u,v)$ is a solution of the sinh-Gordon equation. We have that$$\begin{aligned} \Delta r & = & \frac{\partial^{2}r}{\partial u^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}r}{\partial v^{2}}=\frac{\partial\ \<Bp,\nu\>}{\partial u}+\frac{\partial s}{\partial v}\\ & = & \<B(\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})),\nu\>+\<Bp,\e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\>\\ & & -2\sinh(2r)-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\cos(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>\\ & = & -2\sinh(2r).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the last step we have used the fact that $\<Bp,V_{2}\>=-\<BV_{2},p\>$, i.e. we have used the fact that $B^{T}=-B$. The previous theorem shows that for any choice of $B\in so(4)$, $\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and ${\bf x}_{0}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ we have a solution of the sinh-Gordon equation. One may think that a similar integrable system in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{4n+2}}={\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ can be defined so that it produces a bigger space of solutions for the sinh-Gordon equation. Indeed the system (\[eq:1\]) can be generalized to an integrable system in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{4n+2}}$ for any given $B\in so(n)$ and $\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}$, but the solutions of the sinh-Gordon will reduce to solutions in the case $n=1$, as the following proposition explains. If we think about the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) as being defined in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{4n+2}}$ by taking the vectors $p,V_{1},V_{2}$ and $\nu$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ instead of vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}$, and by taking a skew symmetry matrix $B\in so(n)$ instead of a matrix in $so(4)$, then 1. The new system is integrable. 2. If $\phi:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{4n+2}}$ is the solution of the new system with initial condition $x_{0}=(p^{0},V_{1}^{0},V_{2}^{0},\nu^{0},(r^{0},s^{0}))\in{\mathbb{R}}^{{4n+2}}$, then $$\begin{aligned} \phi(u,v) & = & \ (\tilde{\phi}_{1}\tilde{e}_{1}+\tilde{\phi}_{2}\tilde{e}_{2}+\tilde{\phi}_{3}\tilde{e}_{3}+\tilde{\phi}_{4}\tilde{e}_{4},\ \tilde{\phi}_{5}\tilde{e}_{1}+\tilde{\phi}_{6}\tilde{e}_{2}+\tilde{\phi}_{7}\tilde{e}_{3}+\tilde{\phi}_{8}\tilde{e}_{4},\ \tilde{\phi}_{9}\tilde{e}_{1}+\tilde{\phi}_{10}\tilde{e}_{2}+\\ & & \tilde{\phi}_{11}\tilde{e}_{3}+\tilde{\phi}_{12}\tilde{e}_{4},\ \tilde{\phi}_{13}\tilde{e}_{1}+\tilde{\phi}_{14}\tilde{e}_{2}+\tilde{\phi}_{15}\tilde{e}_{3}+\tilde{\phi}_{16}\tilde{e}_{4},(\tilde{\phi}_{17},\tilde{\phi}_{18}))\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{e}_{2},\tilde{e}_{3},\tilde{e}_{4}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of any 4 dimensional subspace $S$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ that contains the vectors $p^{0},V_{1}^{0},V_{2}^{0}$ and $\nu^{0}$, and $\tilde{\phi}:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ is the solution of the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) with initial condition $(\tilde{p}^{0},\tilde{V}_{1}^{0},\tilde{V}_{2}^{0},\tilde{\nu}^{0},(r^{0},s^{0}))$, where $\tilde{p}^{0},\tilde{V}_{1}^{0},\tilde{V}_{2}^{0},\tilde{\nu}^{0}$ are the coordinates of the vectors $p^{0},V_{1}^{0},V_{2}^{0},\nu^{0}$ in $S$ with respect to the basis $\{\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{e}_{2},\tilde{e}_{3},\tilde{e}_{4}\}$, and matrix $\tilde{B}\in so(4)$ given by $\tilde{b}_{ij}=\<\tilde{B}\tilde{e}_{i},\tilde{e}_{j}\>$. The proof of part (a) follows the same lines as the first part in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Part (b) follows form the fact that, if for any $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ we define $\hat{y}=y_{1}\tilde{e}_{1}+y_{2}\tilde{e}_{2}+y_{3}\tilde{e}_{3}+y_{4}\tilde{e}_{4}$, then $\<B\hat{y},\hat{z}\>=\<\tilde{B}y,z\>$ and $\widehat{F^{\prime}(u)}=\hat{F}^{\prime}(u)$ for any differentiable map $F:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$. In order to study the system (\[eq:1\]) we will define this second integrable system, \[thm:system-2\]Let $p,\nu,V_{1},V_{2}:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ and $r,s:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a solution of the integrable system (\[eq:1\]). If $\tilde{B}$ is another skew symmetric matrix, and if we define the functions$$\begin{aligned} \xi_{1} & = & \<Bp,\nu\>,\ \xi_{2}=\<BV_{1},p\>,\ \xi_{3}=\<BV_{2},p\>,\ \xi_{4}=\<BV_{1},V_{2}\>,\ \xi_{5}=\<BV_{1},\nu\>,\ \xi_{6}=\<BV_{2},\nu\>\\ \tilde{\xi}_{1} & = & \<\tilde{B}p,\nu\>,\ \tilde{\xi}_{2}=\<\tilde{B}V_{1},p\>,\ \tilde{\xi}_{3}=\<\tilde{B}V_{2},p\>,\ \tilde{\xi}_{4}=\<\tilde{B}V_{1},V_{2}\>,\ \tilde{\xi}_{5}=\<\tilde{B}V_{1},\nu\>,\ \tilde{\xi}_{6}=\<\tilde{B}V_{2},\nu\>,\end{aligned}$$ then$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial u} & = & \ \e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{5}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{6})\\ \frac{\partial\xi_{2}}{\partial u} & = & \ s\xi_{3}-\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}\\ \frac{\partial\xi_{3}}{\partial u} & = & \ -s\xi_{2}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}\\ \frac{\partial\xi_{4}}{\partial u} & = & \ \e^{r}(-\sin(\theta)\xi_{5}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{6})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{2})\\ \frac{\partial\xi_{5}}{\partial u} & = & \ s\xi_{6}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}\\ \frac{\partial\xi_{6}}{\partial u} & = & \ -s\xi_{5}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}\\ \frac{\partial r}{\partial u} & = & \ \xi_{1}\\ \frac{\partial s}{\partial u} & = & \ \e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{2})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{6}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{5})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{1}}{\partial u} & = & \ \e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{2}-\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{3})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{5}+\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{6})\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{2}}{\partial u} & = & \ s\tilde{\xi}_{3}-\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{3}}{\partial u} & = & \ -s\tilde{\xi}_{2}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{4}}{\partial u} & = & \ \e^{r}(-\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{5}-\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{6})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{3}-\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{2})\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{5}}{\partial u} & = & \ s\tilde{\xi}_{6}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{6}}{\partial u} & = & \ -s\tilde{\xi}_{5}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}-\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}\end{aligned}$$ and,$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial v} & = & \ -\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{2})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{6}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{5})\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial\xi_{2}}{\partial v} & = & \ -\xi_{1}\xi_{3}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial\xi_{3}}{\partial v} & = & \ \xi_{1}\xi_{2}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial\xi_{4}}{\partial v} & = & \ \e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{6}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{5})+\e^{-r}(-\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial\xi_{5}}{\partial v} & = & \ -\xi_{1}\xi_{6}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial\xi_{6}}{\partial v} & = & \ \xi_{1}\xi_{5}-\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial r}{\partial v} & = & \ s\label{eq:2}\\ \frac{\partial s}{\partial v} & = & \ -2\sinh(2r)+\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{3}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{2})+\e^{-r}(-\sin(\theta)\xi_{6}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{5})\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{1}}{\partial v} & = & \ -\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{3}+\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{2})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{6}-\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{5})\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{2}}{\partial v} & = & \ -\xi_{1}\tilde{\xi}_{3}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}+\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{3}}{\partial v} & = & \ \xi_{1}\tilde{\xi}_{2}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{4}}{\partial v} & = & \ \e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{6}-\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{5})+\e^{-r}(-\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{2}-\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{3})\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{5}}{\partial v} & = & \ -\xi_{1}\tilde{\xi}_{6}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\ \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{6}}{\partial v} & = & \ \xi_{1}\tilde{\xi}_{5}-\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\tilde{\xi}_{1}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, The system given by the equations (\[eq:2\]) is integrable. This is long direct computation. First integrals and existence of global solutions ------------------------------------------------- In this subsection we will prove that the solutions of the sinh-Gordon equations given by the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) are defined in the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. In order to prove this, we first establish some lemmas. \[lem:M\]For a given solution of the system (\[eq:1\]), the functions $\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{6}$ defined in Theorem (\[thm:system-2\]) satisfy$$M=\frac{1}{2}\{\xi_{1}^{2}+\cdots+\xi_{6}^{2}\}$$ is a constant. A direct computation using Theorem (\[thm:system-2\]) gives us that$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial M}{\partial u} & = & \xi_{1}\frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial u}+\cdots+\xi_{6}\frac{\partial\xi_{6}}{\partial u}\\ & = & \xi_{1}(\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{5}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{6}))\\ & & +\xi_{2}(s\xi_{3}-\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4})\\ & & +\xi_{3}(-s\xi_{2}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4})\\ & & +\xi_{4}(\e^{r}(-\sin(\theta)\xi_{5}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{6})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{2}))\\ & & +\xi_{5}(s\xi_{6}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1})\\ & & +\xi_{6}(-s\xi_{5}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1})\\ & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial M}{\partial v} & = & \xi_{1}\frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial v}+\cdots+\xi_{6}\frac{\partial\xi_{6}}{\partial v}\\ & = & \xi_{1}(-\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{2})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{6}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{5}))\\ & & +\xi_{2}(-\xi_{1}\xi_{3}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4})\\ & & +\xi_{3}(\xi_{1}\xi_{2}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4})\\ & & +\xi_{4}(\e^{-r}(-\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3}))\\ & & +\xi_{5}(-\xi_{1}\xi_{6}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1})\\ & & +\xi_{6}(\xi_{1}\xi_{5}-\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1})\\ & = & 0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $M$ is a constant. \[lem:E\]For a given solution of the system (\[eq:1\]), the functions $p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu$ satisfy$$E=\frac{1}{2}\{\<p,p\>+\<V_{1},V_{1}\>+\<V_{2},V_{2}\>+\<\nu,\nu\>\}$$ is a constant. As in the proof of the previous lemma, a direct computation shows that $\frac{\partial E}{\partial u}=\frac{\partial E}{\partial v}=0$. \[lem:A\]For a given solution of the system (\[eq:1\]), the functions $\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{6}$ defined in Theorem (\[thm:system-2\]) satisfy$$A=\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})-\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{5}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{6})+\frac{1}{2}s^{2}+\cosh(2r)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi_{1}\right)^{2}$$ is a constant. Similarly to the previous two lemmas, we prove that $\frac{\partial A}{\partial u}=\frac{\partial A}{\partial v}=0$. Denote by $$\begin{aligned} B & = & \e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})-\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{5}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{6})\ \com{and}\\ C & = & \frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial u}=\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{5}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{6}).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $B+\frac{1}{2}s^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\xi_{1}^{2}+\cosh(2r)=A$. A direct computation shows that $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial B}{\partial u} & = & \xi_{1}C+\e^{r}\{\cos(\theta)(s\xi_{3}-\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4})\\ & & -\sin(\theta)(-s\xi_{2}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4})\}\\ & & -\e^{-r}\{\cos(\theta)(s\xi_{6}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1})\\ & & +\sin(\theta)(-s\xi_{5}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1})\}\\ & = & \xi_{1}\frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial u}+s(\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{2}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{6}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{5})\\ & & +\xi_{4}(\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)+\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)-\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)-\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta))\\ & & +\xi_{1}(-\e^{2r}\cos^{2}(\theta)\xi_{3}-\e^{2r}\sin^{2}(\theta)\xi_{2}+\e^{-2r}\cos^{2}(\theta)+\e^{-2r}\sin^{2}(\theta))\\ & = & \xi_{1}\frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial u}-s\frac{\partial s}{\partial u}-2\xi_{1}\sinh(2r)\\ & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial\xi_{1}^{2}}{\partial u}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial s^{2}}{\partial u}-\frac{\partial\cosh(2r)}{\partial u}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\frac{\partial A}{\partial u}=0$. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial B}{\partial v} & = & sC+\e^{r}\{\cos(\theta)(-\xi_{1}\xi_{3}+\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4})\\ & & -\sin(\theta)(-\xi_{1}\xi_{2}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4})\}\\ & & -\e^{-r}\{\cos(\theta)(-\xi_{1}\xi_{6}+\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{4}+\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{1})\\ & & +\sin(\theta)(\xi_{1}\xi_{5}-\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{4}-\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{1})\}\\ & = & s(-2\sinh(2r)-\frac{\partial s}{\partial v})+\xi_{1}(-\e^{r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{3}+\e^{2r}\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)\\ & & -\e^{2r}\sin(\theta)\cos(\theta)-\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{2})\\ & & +\e^{-r}\cos(\theta)\xi_{6}-\e^{-2r}\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)-\e^{-r}\sin(\theta)\xi_{5}+\e^{-2r}\sin(\theta)\cos(\theta)\\ & & +\xi_{4}(\cos^{2}(\theta)-\sin^{2}(\theta)+\cos^{2}(\theta)+\sin^{2}(\theta))\\ & = & -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial s^{2}}{\partial v}-\frac{\partial\cosh(2r)}{\partial v}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial\xi_{1}^{2}}{\partial v}.\end{aligned}$$ \[cor:R\]Given a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]). If $M$ and $A$ are the constants given by Lemmas (\[lem:M\]) and (\[lem:A\]), respectively, if $(u_{0},v_{0})$ is any point in the domain of the solution, and if $R$ is a real number such that$$\cosh(2R)>A+4M\cosh(R)+\frac{M^{2}}{2}\quad\com{and}\quad R>|r(u_{0},v_{0})|$$ Then, $|r(u,v)|<R$ and$$\frac{1}{2}s^{2}(u,v)+\cosh(2r(u,v))\le A+\frac{M^{2}}{2}+\cosh(2R)$$ for any $(u,v)$ in the domain of the solution. We have that$$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2}s^{2}(u,v)+\cosh(2r(u,v)) & = & A+\frac{1}{2}\xi_{1}^{2}+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{5}+\sin(\theta)\xi_{6})-\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{2}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{3})\\ & \le & A+\frac{M^{2}}{2}+4M\cosh(r).\end{aligned}$$ This inequality above shows that the result will follow once we prove that $|r(u,v)|\le R$. We prove that $|r(u,v)|<R$ by contradiction. If, for some $(u,v)$, $|r(u,v)|=R$, then, the inequality above implies that at that $(u,v)$,$$\cosh(2R)\le A+\frac{M^{2}}{2}+4M\cosh(R).$$ This is a contradiction with the choice of $R$ given in the hypotheses. Therefore the Corollary follows. \[thm:globally-defined\]Any solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) is defined on the entirety of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. By Lemma (\[lem:M\]), Lemma (\[lem:E\]), and Corollary (\[cor:R\]), the solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) remains bounded in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ for all $(u,v)$, guaranteeing the existence of the solution for all $(u,v)$. The integrable system and minimal immersion of the plane. --------------------------------------------------------- In this section we prove that if we choose ${\bf x_{0}}$ properly, a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) produces an example of a minimal immersion of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ into $S^{3}$. We start by showing that the vector fields $Z$ and $W$ that define the system (\[eq:1\]) define vector fields in the manifold $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. To see this, consider the set $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ as the following subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$:$$SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}=\{(V_{0},V_{1},V_{2},V_{3},(r,s))\in\left({\mathbb{R}}^{4}\right)^{4}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}:\<V_{i},V_{j}\>=\delta_{ij},\, det\left[V_{0}|\cdots|V_{3}\right]=1\}.$$ With this in mind, it is not difficult to verify the following lemma. \[lem:Y\]If a vector field $Y:{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ can be written as$$\begin{aligned} Y(x) & = & \ (c_{12}(x)V_{1}+c_{13}(x)V_{2}+c_{14}(x)V_{3},-c_{12}(x)V_{0}+c_{23}(x)V_{2}+c_{24}(x)V_{4},\nonumber \\ & & \ -c_{13}(x)V_{0}-c_{23}(x)V_{1}+c_{34}(x)V_{3},-c_{14}(x)V_{0}-c_{24}(x)V_{1}-c_{34}(x)V_{2},\nonumber \\ & & \ f(x),\ g(x))\ \label{eq:Y}\\ & = & (C(x)[V_{0}^{T},V_{1}^{T},V_{2}^{T},V_{3}^{T}]\ ,f(x),g(x)),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $x=(V_{0},V_{1},V_{2},V_{3},(r,s))$ denotes a point in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$, and $C:{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to so(4)$, $f:{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ and $g:{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ are smooth functions, then the restriction of $Y$ to $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ defines a vector field tangent to $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. As a consequence of this lemma we have: The vector fields $Z$ and $W$ that define the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) define tangent vector fields in $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. Notice that the notation used in Lemma (\[lem:Y\]) and the notation used in the system (\[eq:1\]) are the same after identifying $p=V_{0}$ and $\nu=V_{3}$. The lemma follows because the vector field $Z$ can be written in the form of Lemma (\[lem:Y\]) with$$C_{1}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & e^{-r}\cos(\theta) & \e^{-r}\sin(\theta) & 0\\ -\e^{-r}\cos(\theta) & 0 & s & \e^{r}\cos(\theta)\\ -\e^{-r}\sin(\theta) & -s & 0 & -\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\\ 0 & -\e^{r}\cos(\theta) & \e^{r}\sin(\theta) & 0\end{array}\right)$$ and$$\begin{aligned} f_{1}(p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu,(r,s)) & = & \<Bp,\nu\>\quad\quad\quad\com{and}\\ g_{1}(p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu,(r,s)) & = & \cos(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>.\end{aligned}$$ Also, the vector field $W$ can be written in the form of the lemma (\[lem:Y\]) with$$C_{2}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & -\e^{-r}\sin(\theta) & \e^{-r}\cos(\theta) & 0\\ \e^{-r}\sin(\theta) & 0 & -\<Bp,\nu\> & -\e^{r}\sin(\theta)\\ -\e^{-r}\cos(\theta) & \<Bp,\nu\> & 0 & \e^{r}\cos(\theta)\cr0\\ 0 & \e^{r}\sin(\theta) & \e^{r}\cos(\theta) & 0\end{array}\right)$$ and$$\begin{aligned} f_{2}(p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu,(r,s)) & = & s\quad\quad\quad\com{and}\\ g_{2}(p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu,(r,s)) & = & -2\sinh(2r)-\sin(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\cos(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>.\end{aligned}$$ Lemma (\[lem:Y\]) then implies that $Z$ and $W$ are tangent to $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. \[thm:solutions-of-system\]Let, $Z$ and $W$ be the vector fields that defined the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) and let ${\bf x^{0}}=(p^{0},V_{1}^{0},V_{1}^{0},\nu^{0},r^{0},s^{0})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ be such that $\{p^{0},V_{1}^{0},V_{1}^{0},\nu^{0}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ and let$$\Theta_{Z}:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\quad\hbox{and}\quad\Theta_{W}:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$$ be the flows of the vector fields $Z$ and $W$ respectively. If $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ is given by$$\phi(u,v)=\Theta_{Z}(u,\Theta_{W}(v,{\bf x^{0}}))=(\phi_{1}(u,v),\dots,\phi_{18}(u,v))$$ then the map$$\rho:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}\ \hbox{given\, by}\ \rho(u,v)=(\phi_{1}(u,v),\dots,\phi_{4}(u,v))$$ satisfies $M=\rho({\mathbb{R}}^{2})\subset S^{3}$, $\rho$ is a minimal immersion of $S^{3}$ with principal curvature at $\rho(u,v)$ given by $\pm\e^{2\phi_{17}(u,v)}$. More precisely, the map$$\nu:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}\ \hbox{given\, by}\ \nu(u,v)=(\phi_{13}(u,v),\phi_{14}(u,v),\phi_{15}(u,v),\phi_{16}(u,v))$$ is the Gauss map of the immersion $\rho$, and$$(\phi_{5}(u,v),\phi_{6}(u,v),\phi_{7}(u,v),\phi_{8}(u,v))\ \hbox{and}\ (\phi_{9}(u,v),\phi_{10}(u,v),\phi_{11}(u,v),\phi_{12}(u,v))$$ are the principal directions of the immersion $\rho$. Denote this solution by $\phi=(p,V_{1},V_{2},\nu,r,s)$, where $p=\rho,V_{1},V_{2},\nu:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ and $r,s:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}$. By the previous lemma, $|p|=|\rho|=1$, because the initial conditions belong to $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ and therefore the whole solution stays in $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. By the form of the vector field $Z$ and $W$ or, equivalently, by the fact that $\phi$ is a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]), $$\frac{\partial p}{\partial u}=\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\quad\com{and}\quad\frac{\partial p}{\partial v}=\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)V_{2}-\sin(\theta)V_{1}).$$ Again by the fact that the solution remains in $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$, the first fundamental form of the parameterized surface $\rho=p:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$ is given by$$E=\<\frac{\partial p}{\partial u},\frac{\partial p}{\partial u}\>=\e^{-2r},\ F=\<\frac{\partial p}{\partial u},\frac{\partial p}{\partial v}\>=0,\ \com{and}\ G=\<\frac{\partial p}{\partial u},\frac{\partial p}{\partial v}\>=\e^{-2r}.$$ Therefore the immersion $\rho$ is a conformal immersion and for every $(u,v)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$, the vectors $\left\{ V_{1}(u,v),V_{2}(u,v)\right\} $ form a basis of the tangent space $T_{\rho(u,v)}M$. More precisely, $$V_{1}=\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial u}-\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial v})\quad\com{and}\quad V_{2}=\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial u}+\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial v}).$$ Once again from the fact that the solution remains in $SO(4)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$, the map $\nu:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$ defines the Gauss map of the immersion $\rho$. Since $\phi$ is a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]),$$\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial u}=d\nu(\frac{\partial p}{\partial u})=\e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\quad\com{and}\quad\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial v}=d\nu(\frac{\partial p}{\partial v})=\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)V_{1}+\cos(\theta)V_{2}).$$ In the previous equalities we identify the Gauss map defined in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ with the Gauss map defined in $M=\rho({\mathbb{R}}^{2})\subset S^{3}$. The previous equation implies that$$\begin{aligned} d\nu(V_{1}) & = & d\nu(\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial u}-\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial v}))\\ & = & \e^{r}\{\cos(\theta)(\e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2}))-\sin(\theta)(\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)V_{1}+\cos(\theta)V_{2}))\}\\ & = & -\e^{2r}V_{1}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned} d\nu(V_{2}) & = & d\nu(\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial u}+\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial p}{\partial v}))\\ & = & \e^{r}\{\sin(\theta)(\e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2}))+\cos(\theta)(\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)V_{1}+\cos(\theta)V_{2}))\}\\ & = & e^{2r}V_{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The previous two equalities show that the vectors $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ define principal directions and that the principal curvatures of the immersion at the point $\rho(u,v)$ are $\pm e^{2r(u,v)}$. This completes the proof of the Theorem. We also have that certain minimal immersions of tori induce solutions of the system (1). The following theorem shows exactly which minimal tori in $S^{3}$ are characterize by the integrable system (1). \[thm:nnt&lt;8\]Let $\tilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$ be a minimal immersed torus in $S^{3}$. Using the notation given in the introduction, if for some angle $\theta$ and some matrix $B\in so(4)$, $h_{\theta}=2f_{B}$, then, it is possible to choose a covering map $\tau:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to M$, maps $\rho:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, $\nu:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, $V_{1},V_{2}:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, and a function $r:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ using Theorem (\[uniformization\]) and its corollaries, such that$$\phi(u,v)=(\rho(u,v),V_{1}(u,v),V_{2}(u,v),\nu(u,v),r(u,v),\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}(u,v))$$ is a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) with matrix $B$ and angle $\theta$. Using Remark (\[rem:rotatecoord\]), we can rotate coordinates so that the maps $\rho$, $\nu$, $V_{1}$, and $V_{2}$ in Theorem (\[uniformization\]) and Corollaries (\[cor:prin-dirs\]) and (\[cor:a\]) satisfy$$V_{1}(u,v)=W_{1}(\tau(u,v)),\quad V_{2}(u,v)=W_{2}(\tau(u,v)),\quad\nu(u,v)=N(\tau(u,v))\quad\com{and}\quad\alpha=\theta,$$ with $a(\tau(u,v))=\e^{2r}$. Since $\alpha=\theta$, $$V_{1}=\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}-\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v})\quad\com{and}\quad V_{2}=\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}+\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}),$$ if $2f_{B}=h_{\theta}$, then$$\begin{aligned} 2\<B\rho,\nu\> & = & \cos(\theta)\e^{-3r}(\e^{r}(\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}-\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}))(\e^{2r})\\ & & +\sin(\theta)\e^{-3r}(\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}+\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}))(\e^{2r})\\ & = & 2\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}\end{aligned}$$ so that$$2\<B\rho,\nu\>=2\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}=h_{\theta}\label{eq:dr/du=h-theta}$$ and, similarly,$$2\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}=2s=h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}.\label{eq:dr/dv=h-theta+2pi}$$ From the formulas for $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ in Corollary (\[cor:prin-dirs\]), we have that$$\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u}=\e^{-r}(V_{1}\cos(\theta)+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\quad\com{and}\quad\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v}=\e^{-r}(-V_{1}\sin(\theta)+\sin(\theta)V_{2}),$$ which verify the equations in the integrable system (\[eq:1\]). Also, using the equation above and the formula for $\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial u}$ and $\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial v}$ in Theorem (\[uniformization\]), we get that$$\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial u}=\e^{r}(-\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})\quad\com{and}\quad\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial v}=\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)V_{1}+\cos(\theta)V_{2})$$ Which verify the equations in the integrable system (\[eq:1\]). In the same way a direct computation shows that derivatives of $\frac{\partial V_{i}}{\partial u}$ satisfy the equations of the the system (\[eq:1\]). In order to complete the proof of this lemma, let us check the equation for $\frac{\partial s}{\partial v}$. We have that$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial s}{\partial v} & = & \frac{\partial^{2}r}{\partial v^{2}}=-2\sinh(2r)-\frac{\partial^{2}r}{\partial u^{2}}\\ & = & \ -2\sinh(2r)-\frac{\partial}{\partial u}\<B\rho,\nu\>\\ & = & \ -2\sinh(2r)-\<B\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u},\nu\>-\<B\rho,\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial u}\>\\ & = & \ -\sin(\theta)\<BV_{2},\e^{-r}\nu-\e^{r}p\>-\cos(\theta)\<BV_{1},\e^{-r}\nu+\e^{r}p\>,\end{aligned}$$ which verifies the equation in the integrable system (\[eq:1\]). The equation for $\frac{\partial s}{\partial u}$ is similar. \[rem:h\]Arguing in the same way we did in the proof of the previous theorem we have that if $$\phi(u,v)=(\rho(u,v),V_{1}(u,v),V_{2}(u,v),\nu(u,v),r(u,v),s(u,v))$$ is a doubly-periodic solution of the integral system (1) and $M$ is the torus $\frac{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}{\sim}$, then, $$h_{\theta}([(u,v)])=2\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}(u,v)\quad\com{and}\quad h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}([(u,v)])=2\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}(u,v)=2s.$$ Moreover, for any $4\times4$ skew-symmetric matrix $\tilde{B}$, $f_{\tilde{B}}([(u,v)])=\<\tilde{B}\rho(u,v),\nu(u,v)\>$. Also, since $\phi$ satisfies the integrable system (1), then $h_{\theta}=2f_{B}$. The Lawson-Hsiang examples ========================== The Lawson-Hsiang tori examples are characterized as those immersed minimal tori in $S^{3}$ that are preserved by a 1-parameter group of ambient isometries [@LH]. This section will show that these examples can be seen, first, as those immersed minimal tori for which there exists a nonzero matrix $B\in so(4)$ such that the function $f_{B}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is identically zero. Then we show that all these examples are included in our new construction. We show that these examples define solutions of the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) with data matrix $B\in so(4)$ identically zero. Then, we will prove that if a solution of the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) with $B={\bf 0}$ defines a minimal torus, then this torus must be one of the examples of Lawson and Hsiang. \[pro:f\_B-vanish\]If $\widetilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$ is an immersed closed minimal surface, such that $f_{B}:M\to{\bf R}$ vanishes for some $B\ne{\bf 0}$, then $\tilde{\rho}(M)$ is invariant under the group $\{\e^{tB}:t\in{\bf R}\}$, so that $M$ is one of the examples of Hsiang-Lawson. Let $X:S^{3}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ be the tangent vector field on $S^{3}$ given by $X(p)=Bp$. Since $0=f_{B}(m)=\<B\tilde{\rho}(m),N(m)\>$, then $X$ induces a unit tangent vector field on $M$. Therefore the integrals curves of the vector field $X$ that start in $\tilde{\rho}(M)$ remains in $\tilde{\rho}(M)$, i.e. if $\tilde{\rho}(m)\in\tilde{\rho}(M)$ then $\e^{tB}\tilde{\rho}(m)\in\tilde{\rho}(M)$. \[pro:theta\]Let $\tilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$ be minimal immersion of a torus. If $f_{B}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ vanishes, then, for some angle $\theta$, $h_{\theta}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ vanishes, and $\tilde{\rho}$ corresponds to a solution of system (1) with $nnt(M)\leq6$. As in the previous proposition, the vector field $X(m)=B\tilde{\rho}(m)$ defines a tangent vector field on $M$. Since the function $a$ is invariant under isometries and $X$ is a Killing vector field, then the function $X(a)$ is identically zero. We will prove the proposition by showing that for some fixed angle $\theta$ and some fixed real number $\lambda$, $X=\lambda a^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\cos(\theta)W_{1}+\sin(\theta)W_{2})$. Choose maps $\rho,\nu,V_{1},V_{2}:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to S^{3}$, a covering $\tau:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to M$ and a function $r:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ using Theorem (\[uniformization\]), and its corollaries, such that$$W_{1}(\tau(u,v))=V_{1}(u,v),\quad W_{2}(\tau(u,v))=V_{2}(u,v)\quad\hbox{and}\quad N(\tau(u,v))=\nu(u,v).$$ With this special parameterization of this torus and having in mind that $a(\tau(u,v))=\e^{2r(u,v)}$, we have that $\alpha=0$ and $$V_{1}=\e^{r}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial u},\quad V_{2}=\e^{r}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial v},\quad W_{1}(a)(\tau(u,v))=2\e^{3r(u,v)}\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}(u,v)\quad\com{and}\quad W_{2}(a)(\tau(u,v))=2\e^{3r(u,v)}\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}(u,v).$$ Since $X$ is a tangent vector field, $X(\tau(u,v))=f(u,v)V_{1}(u,v)+g(u,v)V_{2}(u,v)$ for two doubly periodic smooth functions $f,g:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\bf {\mathbb{R}}}$. Since, moreover, $X$ is a Killing vector field,$$\<\nabla_{W_{1}}X,W_{1}\>(\tau(u,v))=V_{1}(f)(u,v)-\frac{W_{2}(a)}{2a}(\tau(u,v))g(u,v)=\e^{r}(\frac{\partial f}{\partial u}-g\frac{\partial r}{\partial v})=0,$$ $$\<\nabla_{W_{2}}X,W_{2}\>(\tau(u,v))=V_{2}(g)(u,v)-\frac{W_{1}(a)}{2a}(\tau(u,v))f(u,v)=\e^{r}(\frac{\partial g}{\partial v}-f\frac{\partial r}{\partial u})=0,\mbox{ and}$$ $$\begin{aligned} (\<\nabla_{W_{1}}X,W_{2}\>+\<\nabla_{W_{2}}X,W_{1}\>)(\tau(u,v)) & = & V_{1}(g)(u,v)+\frac{W_{2}(a)}{2a}(\tau(u,v))f(u,v)+\\ & & V_{2}(f)(u,v)+\frac{W_{1}(a)}{2a}(\tau(u,v))g(u,v)\\ & = & \e^{r}(\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}+f\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}+g\frac{\partial r}{\partial u})\\ & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ A direct verification gives that the three equations above imply that the function $h(u+iv)=(\e^{r}f)(u,v)+i(\e^{r}g)(u,v)$ is an analytic function. Since $h$ is doubly periodic in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$, and in particular it is bounded, then we get that the function $h$ is constant. We can write this constant as $\lambda\cos(\theta)+i\lambda\sin(\theta)$ with $\lambda\ne0$. The rest of the proposition follows from Theorem (\[thm:nnt&lt;8\]), since in this case $nnt(M)\leq6$. The previous proposition shows that all the examples discussed in [@LH] are included in the family given by the system (\[eq:1\]). More precisely, each one of them is included in one system with $B={\bf 0}$. The following proposition shows that if $B={\bf 0}$, then every torus in the system (\[eq:1\]) is one of the examples in [@LH]. Recall that our examples characterize those minimal immersions such that $h_{\theta}=f_{B}$, therefore, the condition $B={\bf 0}$ implies that $h_{\theta}$ vanishes for some angle $\theta$. \[pro:a-1-variable\]Let $\tilde{\rho}:M\to S^{3}$ be a minimal immersion of a torus. If for some $\theta$, $h_{\theta}:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ vanishes, then $f_{B}$ vanishes for some nonzero skew-symmetric matrix $B$. Define the vector field $X$ by $X=a^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cos(\theta)W_{1}+a^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sin(\theta)W_{2}$. The following identities show that $X$ is a Killing vector field on $M$.$$\begin{aligned} \<\nabla_{W_{1}}X,W_{1}\> & = & -\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)\cos(\theta)-a^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2a}W_{2}(a)\sin(\theta)=-\frac{1}{2a}h_{\theta}=0\\ \<\nabla_{W_{2}}X,W_{2}\> & = & -\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{2}(a)\sin(\theta)-a^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2a}W_{1}(a)\cos(\theta)=-\frac{1}{2a}h_{\theta}=0\\ \<\nabla_{W_{1}}X,W_{2}\> & = & -\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)\sin(\theta)+a^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2a}W_{2}(a)\cos(\theta)\\ \<\nabla_{W_{2}}X,W_{1}\> & = & -\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{2}(a)\cos(\theta)+a^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2a}W_{1}(a)\sin(\theta)=-\<\nabla_{W_{1}}X,W_{2}\>.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the map $\Theta_{X}(t,\ \cdot):M\to M$ defines a 1-parameter group of isometries in $M$. By Theorem (\[thm:Ramanaham\]), $M$ is invariant under a 1-parameter group of isometries of $S^{3}$, and therefore $f_{B}$ vanishes for some nonzero $B\in so(4)$. Minimal surfaces with natural nullity less than 8 ================================================= The examples of minimal tori found in [@LH] that are not Clifford tori can be divided into three categories $F_{1},F_{2}$ and $F_{3}$. The first one, $F_{1}$, consists of the immersions given by $$\tilde{\rho}(u,v)=(\cos(mx)\cos(y),\sin(mx)\cos(y),\cos(kx)\sin(y),\sin(kx)\sin(y))$$ Where $m$ and $k$ are two relatively-prime positive integers. These examples can be characterized by the property that the principal curvature function $a:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is constant along a direction that makes a constant angle of $\frac{\pi}{4}$ with respect to one of the principal directions. The second category, $F_{2}$, are the examples found initially by Otsuki [@O], and are characterized by the property that the function $a$ is constant along one of the principal directions. The third category, $F_{3}$, are the new examples found in the paper [@LH] that complete the classification of minimal immersions of tori that are invariant under a group of isometries of $S^{3}$. Since there is an explicit parameterization $\tilde{\rho}$, these examples explicitly give solutions for the system (\[eq:1\]). \[pro:HL-are-sols\] Assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ are related to the variables $u$ and $v$ by the following equations:$$u=\int_{0}^{y}\sqrt{\frac{mk}{m^{2}\cos^{2}(t)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(t)}}dt\quad\com{and}\quad v=\sqrt{mk}x.$$ For any pair of positive real numbers $m$ and $k$, the map$$\phi(u,v)=(\rho(u,v),V_{1}(u,v),V_{2}(u,v),\nu(u,v),r(u,v),s(u,v))$$ given by$$\begin{aligned} \rho(u,v) & = & (\cos(mx)\cos(y),\sin(mx)\cos(y),\cos(kx)\sin(y),\sin(kx)\sin(y))\\ V_{1}(u,v) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-\cos(mx)\sin(y),-\sin(mx)\sin(y),\cos(kx)\cos(y),\sin(kx)\cos(y))\\ & & +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y))}}(-m\sin(mx)\cos(y),m\cos(mx)\cos(y),\\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-k\sin(kx)\sin(y),k\cos(kx)\sin(y))\\ V_{2}(u,v) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\cos(mx)\sin(y),\sin(mx)\sin(y),-\cos(kx)\cos(y),-\sin(kx)\cos(y))\\ & & +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y))}}(-m\sin(mx)\cos(y),m\cos(mx)\cos(y),\\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-k\sin(kx)\sin(y),k\cos(kx)\sin(y))\\ \nu(u,v) & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y)}}(k\sin(mx)\sin(y),-k\cos(mx)\sin(y),\\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-m\sin(kx)\cos(y),m\cos(kx)\cos(y))\end{aligned}$$ and$$r(u,v)=\frac{1}{2}\ln{\big{(}\frac{mk}{m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y)}\big{)}},\quad s(u,v)=0$$ is a solution of the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) with $\theta=-\frac{\pi}{4}$ and$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & \frac{m^{2}-k^{2}}{k\sqrt{mk}} & 0 & 0\\ -\frac{m^{2}-k^{2}}{k\sqrt{mk}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right).$$ Similarly, Assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ are related to the variables $u$ and $v$ by the following equations:$$v=\int_{0}^{y}\sqrt{\frac{mk}{m^{2}\cos^{2}(t)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(t)}}dt\quad\com{and}\quad u=\sqrt{mk}x$$ For any pair of positive real numbers $m$ and $k$, the map$$\phi(u,v)=(\rho(u,v),V_{1}(u,v),V_{2}(u,v),\nu(u,v),r(u,v),s(u,v))$$ given by$$\begin{aligned} \rho(u,v) & = & (\cos(mx)\cos(y),\sin(mx)\cos(y),\cos(kx)\sin(y),\sin(kx)\sin(y))\\ V_{1}(u,v) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-\cos(mx)\sin(y),-\sin(mx)\sin(y),\cos(kx)\cos(y),\sin(kx)\cos(y))\\ & & +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y))}}(-m\sin(mx)\cos(y),m\cos(mx)\cos(y),\\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-k\sin(kx)\sin(y),k\cos(kx)\sin(y))\\ V_{2}(u,v) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\cos(mx)\sin(y),\sin(mx)\sin(y),-\cos(kx)\cos(y),-\sin(kx)\cos(y))\\ & & +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y))}}(-m\sin(mx)\cos(y),m\cos(mx)\cos(y),\\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-k\sin(kx)\sin(y),k\cos(kx)\sin(y))\\ \nu(u,v) & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y)}}(k\sin(mx)\sin(y),-k\cos(mx)\sin(y),\\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-m\sin(kx)\cos(y),m\cos(kx)\cos(y))\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned} r(u,v) & = & \frac{1}{2}\ln{\big{(}\frac{mk}{m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y)}\big{)}},\\ s(u,v) & = & \frac{m^{2}-k^{2}}{\sqrt{mk(m^{2}\cos^{2}(y)+k^{2}\sin^{2}(y)})}\sin(y)\cos(y),\end{aligned}$$ is a solution of the integrable system (\[eq:1\]) with $\theta=-\frac{\pi}{4}$ and matrix $B={\bf 0}$. \[rem:KS\]From remark (\[rem:h\]), for the examples we are studying, those that come from solutions of the integrable system (1), $h_{\theta}=2f_{B}$, therefore $h_{\theta}\in KS$. Since for any $\theta$, $\hbox{span}\{h_{0},h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}\}=\hbox{span}\{h_{\theta},h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}\}$, then, if $h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}=2f_{\tilde{B}}$ for some $4\times4$ skew-symmetric matrix $\tilde{B}$, we have that $\hbox{span}\{h_{0},h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}\}\subset KS$. Notice that, again by remark (\[rem:h\]), $h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}=2\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}(u,v)=s(u,v)$, therefore, in these examples, showing that $\hbox{span}\{h_{0},h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}\}\subset KS$ is equivalent to showing that $s=\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}=f_{\tilde{B}}$ for some $4\times4$ skew-symmetric matrix $\tilde{B}$. From Proposition (\[pro:HL-are-sols\]) we can deduce that the natural nullity of the family $F_{1}$ is 5, since both of the functions $h_{0}$ and $h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}$ are contained in the space $\{f_{B}:B\in so(4)\}$. Notice that by Proposition (\[pro:theta\]), if $M$ is in one of the families $F_{1}$, $F_{2}$, or $F_{3}$, then for some $\theta$ the function $h_{\theta}$ vanishes. The question that we will address now is whether the function $h_{(\theta+\frac{\pi}{2})}$, in general, is contained in the set $\{f_{B}:B\in so(4)\}$, as it is for tori in $F_{1}$. Notice that the question is equivalent to whether the natural nullity of the Lawson-Hsiang examples that are not Clifford tori is equal to 5. The following two theorems resolve the question. \[thm:s-vanishes\]Let $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ be a solution of integrable system (\[eq:1\]), and let $r(u,v)=\phi_{17}(u,v)$ and $s(u,v)=\phi_{18}(u,v)$. Assume that $\phi(0,0)=x^{0}=(e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},r_{0},0)$ and $\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}(0,0)=0$. If $$B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & b_{1} & b_{2} & b_{3}\\ -b_{1} & 0 & b_{4} & b_{5}\\ -b_{2} & -b_{4} & 0 & b_{6}\\ -b_{3} & -b_{5} & -b_{6} & 0\end{array}\right),$$ then, $s$ vanishes if and only if $b_{3}=b_{4}=0$ and 1. $-\e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta)b_{1}+\e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta)b_{2}+\e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta)b_{5}+\e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta)b_{6}=\ 2\sinh(2r_{0})$, 2. $-\e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta)b_{1}-\e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta)b_{2}+\e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta)b_{5}-\e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta)b_{6}=0$, and 3. $-\e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta)b_{1}-\e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta)b_{2}+\e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta)b_{5}-\e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta)b_{6}=0$. We will use the integrable system (\[eq:2\]) with $\tilde{B}={\bf 0}$. Notice that$$b_{3}=-\xi_{1}(0,0),\ b_{4}=-\xi_{4}(0,0),\ b_{1}=\xi_{2}(0,0),\ b_{2}=\xi_{3}(0,0),\ b_{5}=-\xi_{5}(0,0),\ b_{6}=-\xi_{6}(0,0).$$ Assume that $s(u,v)=0$ for every $(u,v)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. The equation $b_{3}=0$ follows because we are assuming that $\frac{\partial r}{\partial u}(0,0)=\xi_{1}(0,0)=0$. Equation (a) in the statement of the theorem follows from the equation $\frac{\partial s}{\partial v}(0,0)=0$. Equation (b) follows from the equation $\frac{\partial s}{\partial u}(0,0)=0$. We now prove that $s\equiv0$ also implies that $b_{4}=0$ and equation (c) in the statement of the theorem. A direct computation shows the following two equations,$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial^{2}s}{\partial v\partial u} & = & \xi_{1}\big{(}-2\cosh(2r)+\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{3}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{2})+\e^{-r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{6}+\cos(\theta)\xi_{5})\big{)}\\ & & +s\big{(}-\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{2}+\cos(\theta)\xi_{3})+\e^{-r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{5}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{6})\big{)}-2\sin(2\theta)\xi_{4}\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial^{2}s}{\partial v^{2}} & = & s\big{(}-4\cosh(2r)+\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{3}-\cos(\theta)\xi_{2})+\e^{-r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{6}+\cos(\theta)\xi_{5})\big{)}\\ & & +\xi_{1}\big{(}\e^{r}(\sin(\theta)\xi_{2}+\cos(\theta)\xi_{3})+\e^{-r}(\cos(\theta)\xi_{6}-\sin(\theta)\xi_{5})\big{)}-2\cos(2\theta)\xi_{4}.\end{aligned}$$ From the previous equations we get that $\xi_{4}(0,0)=-b_{4}=0$ and that $\frac{\partial\xi_{4}}{\partial v}(0,0)=0\mbox{ because }\xi_{1}(0,0)=0$, and$$\frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial v}(0,0)=\frac{\partial s}{\partial u}(0,0)=0.$$ A direct computation shows that the equation (c) in the statement of the theorem is equivalent to the equation $\frac{\partial\xi_{4}}{\partial v}(0,0)=0$. So we have shown one implication in the theorem. We now show the other implication. Assume that we have the equations (a), (b) and (c) on the statement of the theorem, and also $b_{4}=b_{3}=0$. These 5 conditions are equivalent to the conditions$$\xi_{1}(0,0)=0,\ \xi_{4}(0,0)=0,\ \frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial v}(0,0)=\frac{\partial s}{\partial u}(0,0)=0,\frac{\partial s}{\partial v}(0,0)=0,\ \com{and}\ \frac{\partial\xi_{4}}{\partial v}(0,0)=0.$$ Notice also that by assumption we have that $s(0,0)=0$. Using the integrable system (\[eq:2\]) we can see that the initial conditions above imply that$$\frac{\partial\xi_{i}}{\partial u}(0,0)=\frac{\partial\xi_{i}}{\partial v}(0,0)=0,\ \com{for}\, i=2,3,5,6,\label{eq:partials-of-xi}$$ and, also, we can prove by induction that given $n\ge1$, $k$ and $l$ non-negative integers such that $k+l=n$, there exists a polynomial $P=P(t_{1},\dots,t_{9})$ such that$$\frac{\partial^{n}r}{\partial u^{l}\partial v^{k}}=P(\e^{r},\e^{-r},s,\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{6}).$$ Along with the equations in (\[eq:partials-of-xi\]), these equations imply that$$\frac{\partial^{n}s}{\partial u^{l}\partial v^{k+1}}(0,0)=\frac{\partial(\frac{\partial^{n}r}{\partial u^{l}\partial v^{k}})}{\partial v}(0,0)=\frac{\partial P(\e^{r},\e^{-r},s,\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{6})}{\partial v}(0,0)=0.$$ In the last equation we have also used the hypothesis that $\frac{\partial\xi_{1}}{\partial v}(0,0)=\frac{\partial\xi_{4}}{\partial v}(0,0)=0$. We should point out that we have used the fact that the function $r$ is real analytic, which follows from the fact that $\Delta r+2\sinh(2r)=0$. \[rem:B\^1,B\^2\]If $r_{0}=0$, then for any angle $\theta$, the matrices $B$ that satisfy the conditions of the previous theorem form a 2-dimensional subspace of $so(4)$. They have the following form:$$B_{b_{1},b_{2}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & b_{1} & b_{2} & 0\\ -b_{1} & 0 & 0 & b_{1}\\ -b_{2} & 0 & 0 & -b_{2}\\ 0 & -b_{1} & b_{2} & 0\end{array}\right).$$ The reason for the existence of this two-dimensional subspace of $so(4)$ is that every Clifford torus $M$ that contains the point $p_{0}=(1,0,0,0)$ with tangent space containing the vectors $(0,1,0,0)$ and $(0,0,1,0)$, i.e., with $N(p_{0})=(0,0,0,\pm1)$, have the property that $\e^{tB_{b_{1},b_{2}}}M=M$. If $r_{0}\ne0$, then, given $\theta$, the matrices $B$ that satisfy the conditions of the previous theorem form a 1-dimensional affine space and are of the form $$\begin{aligned} B=B_{\theta}^{1}+\lambda B_{\theta}^{2} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & -\e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta) & \e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta) & 0\\ \e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta) & 0 & 0 & -\e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta)\\ -\e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta) & 0 & 0 & -\e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta)\\ 0 & \e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta) & \e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta) & 0\end{array}\right)\\ & & +\lambda\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & \e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta) & -\e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta) & 0\\ -\e^{-r_{0}}\sin(\theta) & 0 & 0 & \e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta)\\ \e^{-r_{0}}\cos(\theta) & 0 & 0 & \e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta)\\ 0 & -\e^{r_{0}}\sin(\theta) & -\e^{r_{0}}\cos(\theta) & 0\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ \[thm:nullity5\]If $M\subset S^{3}$ is an immersed torus invariant under a 1-parametric group of isometries of $S^{3}$, then $nnt(M)=kn(M)$ and therefore the natural nullity $nnt(M)\leq5$. By Proposition (\[pro:a-1-variable\]) we know that for some angle $\theta$, $(\cos(\theta)V_{1}+\sin(\theta)V_{2})(a)=0$ where $a:M\to{\bf R}$ is a positive function such that the principal curvatures of $M$ at $p$ are $\pm a(p)$. Without loss of generality, we will assume that$$e_{1}\in M,\ V_{1}(e_{1})=e_{2},\ V_{2}(e_{1})=e_{3},\nu(e_{1})=e_{2},\ \ln{a}(e_{1})=2r_{0},\ \com{and}\ \ \nabla a(e_{1})={\bf 0}.$$ Therefore, $M$ defines a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) associated with the matrix $B={\bf 0}$ and $\theta$. Call this solution $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\phi(0,0)=(e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},r_{0},0)$. Define $\tilde{\phi}$ to be the solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) associated with a matrix $B=\{b_{ij}\}$ that satisfies the conditions in the previous lemma and $\tilde{\theta}=\theta-\frac{\pi}{2}$. Moreover we will take the initial solution that satisfies$$\tilde{\phi}(0,0)=(e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},r_{0},0).$$ Now consider the map $\hat{\phi}:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{{18}}$ given by $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\phi}(u,v) & = & (\hat{\rho}(u,v),\hat{V_{1}}(u,v),\hat{V_{2}}(u,v),\hat{\nu}(u,v),\hat{r}(u,v),\hat{s}(u,v))\\ & = & (\tilde{\rho}(-v,u),\tilde{V_{1}}(-v,u),\tilde{V_{2}}(-v,u),\tilde{\nu}(-v,u),\tilde{r}(-v,u),-\<B\tilde{\rho},\tilde{\nu}\>),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde{\phi}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})=(\tilde{\rho}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}),\tilde{V_{1}}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}),\tilde{V_{2}}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}),\tilde{\nu}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}),\tilde{r}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}),\tilde{s}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})).$$ It is clear that $\hat{\phi}(0,0)=(e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},r_{0},0)$. Notice that, by the way $B$ was chosen, we have that $\tilde{s}=0$ for every $(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. Also, a direct computation shows that $\hat{\phi}$ is a solution of the system (\[eq:1\]) with $B={\bf 0}$ and the angle $\theta$, therefore, $\hat{\phi}(u,v)=\phi(u,v)$, and so$$\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}=-\frac{\partial\tilde{r}}{\partial\tilde{u}}=-\<B\rho,\nu\>.$$ This equality is equivalent to the fact that $\sin(\theta)u_{1}-\cos(\theta)u_{2}=f_{B}$, where the functions $u_{1}=h_{0},\: u_{2}=h_{\pi/2}$, and $f_{B}$ are defined in the first section. This last equation implies that $h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}=-f_{B}$, therefore, $h_{\theta}$, which is identically zero, and $h_{\theta+\frac{\pi}{2}}$ are functions in $\{f_{C}:C\in so(4)\}$. Then, both functions $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ are also generated by the functions in the set $\{f_{C}:C\in so(4)\}$, *i.e.*, the natural nullity is $5$. Recall that the space $\{u_{C}:C\in so(4)\}$ is $5$-dimensional for any torus invariant under a 1-parameter group of isometries in $S^{3}$. \[cor:nnt=00003D5-implies-ambient-isom\]Let $M$ be torus with natural nullity $5$, and let $\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $B\in so(4)$ be such that $h_{\theta}=0$ and $h_{(\theta-\frac{\pi}{4})}=f_{B}$. If $B_{\theta}^{1}$ and $B_{\theta}^{2}$ are defined as in the Remark (\[rem:B\^1,B\^2\]), then $$B=B_{\theta}^{1}+\lambda_{0}B_{\theta}^{2}\quad\com{for\: some}\quad\lambda_{0}\quad\com{and}\quad\e^{\lambda B_{\theta}^{2}}M=M\quad\com{for\: every}\ \lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ If $nnt(M)=5$, then certainly there is a nonzero $B\in so(4)$ so that $f_{B}=0$. Proposition (\[pro:theta\]) then implies the existence of a $\theta$ for which $h_{\theta}=0$. $B=B_{\theta}^{1}+\lambda_{0}B_{\theta}^{2}$ follows from the previous theorem and the Remark (\[rem:B\^1,B\^2\]). The second part of the corollary follows from the fact that in the argument used to prove Theorem (\[thm:nullity5\]), we can choose any $B$ that satisfies the conditions of Theorem (\[thm:s-vanishes\]), in particular if we can also choose $B=B_{\theta}^{1}+(\lambda_{0}+1)B_{\theta}^{2}$ we will get that$$\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}=\<(B_{\theta}^{1}+\lambda_{0}B_{\theta}^{2})p,\nu\>=\<(B_{\theta}^{1}+(\lambda_{0}+1)B_{\theta}^{2})p,\nu\>.$$ This equation implies that $f_{B_{\theta}^{2}}=0$. The corollary follows by the Proposition (\[pro:f\_B-vanish\]). \[cor:nnt=00003D5-iff-HL\]If $M$ is a minimal immersed torus in $S^{3}$, then $nnt(M)\leq5$ if and only if $M$ is one of the examples of Hsiang and Lawson. If $M$ has $nnt(M)\leq5$, then $kn(M)\leq5$. Therefore, for some nonzero skew-symmetric matrix $B$, $f_{B}$ vanishes. By Proposition(\[pro:f\_B-vanish\]), $M$ will be invariant under a 1-parameter subgroup of the rigid motions of $S^{3}$, which, following [@LH], implies that $M$ is one of Hsiang and Lawson’s examples. On the other hand, since any of the Hsiang-Lawson examples are preserved by a one-parameter subgroup of $SO(4)$, there is a $B\in so(4)$ for which $f_{B}=0$. Then Theorem (\[thm:nullity5\]) implies $nnt(M)\leq5$. Theorem (\[thm:nullity5\]) and Corollary (\[cor:nnt=00003D5-implies-ambient-isom\]) address the question of the injectivity of the function that sends any pair $(\theta,B,r_{0})$ to the minimal immersion of the plane with initial conditions $(e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},r_{0},0)$. The following result is in the same direction. If for some $\theta_{2}\ne\theta_{1}+n\pi$ for any integer $n$, $h_{\theta_{1}}=f_{B_{1}}$ and $h_{\theta_{2}}=f_{B_{2}}$, then the natural nullity of $M$ is less than 7. The equations in the Proposition implies that the space $\{\lambda h_{\theta}:\ \lambda,\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$ is a subset of the space $\{f_{B}:B\in so(4)\}$ which has dimension at most $6$. The proposition then follows. If a solution of (1) satisfies $r(0,0)=r_{0}$, $\xi_{1}(0,0)=s(0,0)=\xi_{4}(0,0)=0$, then $r(u,v)=r(-u,-v)$. A direct computation using the system (\[eq:2\]) shows that the conditions $\xi_{1}(0,0)=s(0,0)=\xi_{4}(0,0)=0$ give$$\frac{\partial\xi_{i}}{\partial u}(0,0)=\frac{\partial\xi_{i}}{\partial v}(0,0)=0\quad\com{for}\quad i=2,3,5,6.$$ Let $C^{\omega}({\mathbb{R}}^{2})$ be the set of analytic functions on ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ and let $P_{0}$ be the ideal of $C^{\omega}({\mathbb{R}}^{2})$ generated by the functions $\{\e^{r},\e^{-r},\xi_{2},\xi_{3},\xi_{5},\xi_{6}\}$. Given a nonnegative integer $k$, define $P_{k}$ as the set of functions in $C^{\omega}({\mathbb{R}}^{2})$ that can be written as a homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ in the variables $s,\:\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{4}$ with coefficients in $P_{0}$. A direct computation using the system (\[eq:2\]) give us that if $f\in P_{0}$, then $\frac{\partial f}{\partial u}$ and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}$ are in $P_{1}$. In the same way, if $f\in P_{k}$ then $\frac{\partial f}{\partial u}$ and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}$ are in $P_{k+1}+P_{k-1}$. Now with these observations in mind, we proceed to show that the function $r$ satisfies $r(u,v)=r(-u,-v)$, by showing that all the partial derivatives of odd order of the function $r$ vanish at $(0,0)$. To achieve this we first notice that the first derivatives of $r$, the functions $\xi_{1}$ and $s$ vanish at $(0,0)$. Then, notice that the second derivatives of $r$, i.e. the first derivatives of $s$ and $\xi_{1}$, are functions in $P_{0}$. The last statement implies that the third derivatives of $r$ are in $P_{1}$ and therefore they vanish at $(0,0)$. Once we know that the third derivatives of $r$ are in $P_{1}$ we get that the fourth derivatives or $r$ are in $P_{0}+P_{2}$. If we continue with this process we notice that if $k$ is a positive even integer, then the $k$-th derivatives of $r$ are functions in $P_{0}+P_{2}+\cdots+P_{k-2}$, and in the case that $k$ is a odd integer greater that $1$, then, the $k$-th derivatives of $r$ are in $P_{1}+P_{3}+\cdots+P_{k-2}$. Now, since $\xi_{1}(0,0)=s(0,0)=\xi_{4}(0,0)=0$, the odd derivatives of the function $r$ vanish at $(0,0)$. \[thm:nnt&lt;6-isometries\]Let $M$ be a minimal torus immersed in $S^{3}$. If $nnt(M)\leq6$, then the group of isometries of $M$ is not trivial. Unless there is some nonzero $B\in so(4)$ for which $f_{B}=0$, in which case Proposition (\[pro:f\_B-vanish\]) implies the existence of a one-parameter group of isometries of $S^{3}$ which restrict to isometries of $M$, then $nnt(M)\leq6$ implies that the span of $\{u_{1},u_{2}\}$, $u_{1}:=a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{1}(a)=h_{0}$ and $u_{2}:=a^{-\frac{3}{2}}W_{2}(a)=h_{\frac{\pi}{2}}$, will be contained in the span of $\{f_{B}|B\in so(4)\}$. Since then $u_{1}=2f_{B}$ for some $B\in so(4)$, then $M$ defines a solution $\phi$ of the system (\[eq:1\]) associated with the matrix $B$ and with $\theta=0$. The condition $u_{2}=2f_{\tilde{B}}$ implies by Remark(\[rem:h\]) that $s=\tilde{\xi_{1}}$, for the system (\[eq:2\]) associated with the matrices $B,\,\tilde{B}$ and $\theta=0$. As before, we will assume that $\xi_{1}(0,0)=s(0,0)=0$ and $r(0,0)=r_{0}$. Define the function $f=s-\tilde{\xi}_{1}$. The hypothesis in the theorem is equivalent to the condition that $f$ is identically zero, in particular, $\tilde{\xi}_{1}(0,0)=0$, since $f(0,0)=0$. The theorem is a consequence of the previous lemma and will follow by showing that $\xi_{4}(0,0)=0$. A direct computation shows that$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial u}=\e^{-r}\xi_{6}-\e^{r}\xi_{3}-\e^{-r}\tilde{\xi_{5}}-\e^{r}\tilde{\xi_{2}}$$ and$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial u^{2}} & = & \xi_{1}(-\e^{-r}\xi_{6}-\e^{r}\xi_{3}+\e^{-r}\tilde{\xi}_{5}-\e^{r}\tilde{\xi}_{2})\\ & & +\e^{-r}(-s\xi_{5}+\e^{r}\xi_{4})-\e^{r}(-s\xi_{2}-\e^{-r}\xi_{4})\\ & & -e^{-r}(-s\xi_{5}+\e^{r}\xi_{4})-\e^{r}(-s\xi_{2}-\e^{-r}\xi_{4})\\ & & -\e^{r}(s\tilde{\xi_{6}}-\e^{-r}\xi_{1})-\e^{r}(s\tilde{\xi}_{3}-\e^{r}\tilde{\xi}_{1})\\ & = & \xi_{1}(-\e^{-r}\xi_{6}-\e^{r}\xi_{3}-\e^{-r}\tilde{\xi}_{5}-\e^{r}\tilde{\xi}_{2})\\ & & +s(-\e^{-r}\xi_{5}+\e^{r}\xi_{2}-\e^{-r}\tilde{\xi}_{6}-\e^{r}\tilde{\xi}_{3})\\ & & +2\xi_{4}+2\cosh(2r)\tilde{\xi_{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ From the last equation, using the fact that $s(0,0)=\xi_{1}(0,0)=\tilde{\xi_{1}}(0,0)$ and $\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial u^{2}}=0$, we conclude that $\xi_{4}(0,0)=0$, which implies, by the previous lemma, that $r(u,v)=r(-u,-v)$. To finish the proof of the theorem, we notice that the function $A(u,v)=-(u,v)$ preserves the lattice in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ given by the double-periodicity of the function $\phi$ and therefore induces a function in the torus $\tau({\mathbb{R}}^{2})=M$, since the first fundamental form of $M$ in the coordinates $u$ and $v$ is $c\e^{-2r}(du^{2}+dv^{2})$ where $c$ is a positive constant, then, this function from $M$ to $M$ induced by $A$ is an isometry. [1]{} Abresch, U, *Old and New Doubly Periodic Solution of the sinh-Gordon Equation,* in *New results in nonlinear partial differential equations,* Semin. Bonn/FRG 1984, Aspects. Math. E10, (1987) 37-73. Lawson, H. B., Jr., *Complete minimal surfaces in $S^{3}$*, Ann. of Math. (2) **92** (1970), 335374. Hsiang, W-Y, and Lawson, H. B., *Minimal submanifolds of low cohomogeneity*, J. Differential Geom. **5**, (1971) 1-38. T. Otsuki, Minimal hypersurfaces in a Riemannian manifold of constant curvature, Amer. J. Math. 92 (1970), 145-173. Pinkall, U. & Sterling, *On the Classification of Constant Mean Curvature Tori*, Annals of Math., **130** (1989) 407-451. J. Ramanaham, *Rigidity of minimal surfaces in $S^{3}$*, Manuscripta Math. **60** (1988), 417-422.

--- abstract: 'There are growing amount of very high-resolution polarized scattered light images of circumstellar disks. Naturally, the question arises whether the circumplanetary disk forming around nascent planets can be detected with the same technique. Here we created scattered light mock observations at 1.2 and 1.6 microns for instruments like SPHERE and GPI, for various planetary masses and disk inclinations. We found that the detection of a circumplanetary disk is significantly favored if the planet is massive ($\geq 5 \rm{M_{Jup}}$) and the system is nearly face-on ($\leq 30^\circ$). Its detection is hindered by the neighboring circumstellar disk that also provides a strong polarized flux. However, the comparison between the $PI$ and the $Q_\phi$ maps, as well as the contrasts between the J and H bands are viable tools to pinpoint the presence of the circumplanetary disk within the circumstellar disk, as the two disks are behaving differently on those images.' author: - | \ $^{1}$ Center for Theoretical Astrophysics and Cosmology, Institute for Computational Science, University of Zürich,\ Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland\ $^{2}$ INAF, Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo Enrico Fermi 5, I-50125 Firenze, Italy.\ date: 'Accepted XX. Received XX; in original form 2019 May 17' title: 'Observability of Forming Planets and their Circumplanetary Disks III. – Polarized Scattered Light' --- \[firstpage\] planets and satellites: detection – hydrodynamics – radiative transfer – techniques: polarimetric Introduction ============ Young, forming giant planets are surrounded with their circumplanetary disks, where their satellites will form eventually. Regardless whether the planet formed via core accretion or disk instability scenario, the circumplanetary disk forms in the last phase of the formation. While the circumplanetary disk properties will somewhat differ in the two cases [@Szulagyi17GI], it is possible to detect them at various wavelengths. The planet is deeply embedded within this disk, therefore to detect forming planets is in fact detecting their circumplanetary disk. Unlike circumplanetary disks, circumstellar disks have been thoroughly characterized from observations during the last decade thanks to optical/near-IR instruments like VLT/SPHERE and GPI [e.g., @Garufi2017b; @Rapson2015] and to the (sub-)mm interferometer ALMA [e.g., @Andrews2018]. Among the near-IR observations, the most successful technique to directly image circumstellar disks is currently the polarized differential imaging [PDI, @Kuhn2001; @Apai2004]. This technique allows a very good removal of the strong stellar flux by separating the polarized light (mostly scattered light from the disk) from the unpolarized light (mainly stellar light). Therefore, most of the available high-resolution near-IR maps of circumstellar disks trace the polarized scattered light from the disk surface. In principle, these observations also open the way to detect the circumplanetary disk the same way although this is yet to be proven observationally. On the other hand, increasing observational evidence of circumplanetary disks comes from the spectral characterization or hydrogen line detection of planet candidates still embedded in the natal circumplanetary disks, like e.g., around PDS70 and LkCa15 [e.g. @Muller18; @Keppler18; @Wagner18; @Valentin19; @KI12; @Sallum15]. Mock observations are useful tools to plan and interpret real observations. Planet-disk interactions, such as gaps has been studied on synthetic images [@Dipierro15; @Szulagyi17alma; @DSHARP]. Circumplanetary disks had been predicted to be seen with ALMA and VLA [@Szulagyi17alma; @IsellaTurner18]. Mock images of polarized light about circumstellar disks helped us understanding what polarized light observations can reveal about the disk characteristics [@Dong12]. Synthetic observations of scattered light shed light on how planet-disk interactions – especially spirals – are expected to look like [@Dong15; @Dong15b; @FD15; @Dong16]. It has also been suggested, that polarized light from the circumplanetary disk dust could be detected in favorable circumstances [@Stolker]. In this paper we combine temperature-included (i.e. radiative) 3D gas hydrodynamic simulations, with Monte-Carlo radiative transfer to create mock observations about detecting the circumplanetary disk in scattered light with and without polarization. In the first paper of this series, we looked at the circumplanetary disk observability at sub-mm/radio wavelength [@Szulagyi17alma]. In the second paper, we reviewed the case for near-infrared and spectral energy distributions [@Szulagyi19]. In the next study we make predictions of hydrogen recombination line fluxes with extinction. Methods {#sec:numerical} ======= We had a three step process for creating the mock images presented in this work. First, we run 3D radiative hydrodynamic simulations of the circumstellar disk with a forming planet embedded within (Sect. \[sec:hydro\]). Then we used the RADMC-3D radiative transfer tool to create wavelength-dependent images of the systems on 1.6 and 1.2 microns with polarization (Sect. \[sec:radmc3d\]). Finally, we convolved the images with a diffraction limited PSF for the VLT/SPHERE instruments and created polarization maps (Sect. \[sec:convol\]). Hydrodynamic Simulations {#sec:hydro} ------------------------ The hydrodynamic simulations in this study are the same as in our previous paper [@Szulagyi19] of the series. In brief, we had a circumstellar disk with a mass of $\sim 10^{-2} \mathrm{M_{Sun}}$ between 20 and 120 AU around a solar-mass star, where a planet is forming at 50 AU. In four different simulations, the planet masses were Saturn-mass, 1 Jupiter-mass, 5 Jupiter-masses and 10 Jupiter-masses (i.e. only one planet present in each hydrodynamic run). We used the JUPITER code to carry our the hydrodynamic calculations, that was developed by F. Masset and J. Szulágyi [@Szulagyi14; @Szulagyi16a; @Borro06] that not only solves Euler equations but also radiative transfer in the flux-limited diffusion approximation with the two-temperature approach [e.g. @Commercon11]. This way the temperature of the gas is realistically calculated. The heating processes include adiabatic compression, viscous heating and stellar irradiation, while the cooling processes were adiabatic expansion and radiative diffusion. The main source of heating in the circumplanetary disk is the accretion process [@Szulagyi16a], as the gas tries to fall onto the planet, leading to adiabatic compression in this region, as well as the shock front on the circumplanetary disk surface [@SzM17]. Given that we were particularly interested in the circumplanetary region, where high-resolution is necessary to get the disk characteristics (density, temperature, velocities) right, we used mesh refinement in this region. This means that while the circumstellar disk has been simulated with a lower resolution (680 cells azimuthally over $2\pi$, 215 cells radially between 20 and 120 AU and 20 cells in the co-latitude direction over 7.4 degrees opening angle from the midplane), the Hill-sphere of the planet were well resolved with four levels of refinement. Each level doubles the resolution in each spatial direction, hence the final resolution in the planet vicinity was 0.029 AU. While the dust is not explicitly treated in the simulation, its effect on the temperature of the disk is taken into account through the dust opacities (with the limit of assuming a constant dust-to-gas ratio of 1%). The opacity table was equivalent to what was used in @Szulagyi19, and included both gas and dust opacities. The viscosity was a constant kinematic viscosity of $10^{-5} \mathrm{a_{p}}^2\Omega_p$, where $ \mathrm{a_{p}}$ is the semi-major axis and $\Omega_p$ denotes the orbital frequency of the planet. RADMC-3D post-processing {#sec:radmc3d} ------------------------ RADMC-3D [@Dullemond12][^1] radiative transfer tool was used to create wavelength-dependent intensity images from the hydrodynamic simulations. We used $10^7$ photons for these Monte-Carlo runs and verified that this value was enough to reach convergence. The dust-density files were created from the gas density (which is a good assumption, since the dust grains are micron-size and thus are strongly coupled to the gas), by multiplying the gas density in each cell with the dust-to-gas ratio of 1%. We assumed thermal equilibrium, hence we used the dust temperature to be equal to the gas temperature, except that the dust evaporation above 1500 K was taken into account. So in the cells where the temperature rose above this limit, the dust density was set to zero. The hydrodynamic simulations cannot handle well optically thin, low-density regions of the circumstellar disk, such as the disk atmosphere. In the hydro simulations the disk opening angle was only 7.4 degrees, but real circumstellar disks have a larger opening angle. For realistic mock images, therefore we had to extend the disk in the vertical direction by extrapolation for the RADMC-3D calculations. In the vertical direction, we fitted Gaussians to the density field in each cell column separately, so that the vertical extent of the disk was 2.5 times larger than the original hydro simulation’s. In this disk atmosphere region, we kept the temperature as in the last (optically thin) co-latitude cells. This means that the temperature in this region was constant with co-latitude and of course higher than the temperature in the bulk of the disk due to stellar irradiation. {width="18cm"} The dust opacities were identical to what had been used in @Pohl17. It was assumed to be a mixture made of silicates (@draine2003b), carbon (@zubko1996), and water ice (@warren2008) with fractional abundances of 7%, 21%, and 42%, consistent with @ricci2010. The remaining 30% was vacuum. The opacity of the mixture was determined by means of the Bruggeman mixing formula. The absorption and scattering opacities, $\kappa_{\mathrm{scat}}$ and $\kappa_{\mathrm{abs}}$, as well as the scattering matrix elements $Z_{ij}$ were calculated for spherical, compact dust grains with Mie theory considering the BHMIE code of @bohren1983. The grain sizes were between 0.01 micron and 150 micron, with a power-law index of -3.5. The RADMC-3D image resolution was set to 1000 $\times$ 1000 pixels in each case to avoid resolution problems. The distance of the circumstellar disk was assumed to be 100 parsec for the calculations. Polarization maps {#sec:convol} ----------------- To compare our simulations to the available observations, we first convolved the images with a Gaussian-like Point-Spread-Function, with a Full-width-half-maximum to be $1.22\cdot\lambda/D$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength and $D$ is the mirror-size of 8.2 meters (equivalent of VLT mirror diameter). The RADMC-3D provides the set of Stokes parameters $I, Q, U, V$. The polarized intensity map $PI$ was obtained through: $$PI = \sqrt{Q^2+U^2} \label{eq:stokespi}$$ An alternative treatment of the Stokes parameters is commonly used in observational work, that is the creation of the tangential (sometimes called radial or polar) parameters $Q_{\phi}$ and $U_{\phi}$ [@schmid2006]. These are defined as: $$\begin{split} Q_{\phi} &= +Q \cos\,2\phi + U \sin\,2\phi \,, \\ U_{\phi} &= -Q \sin\,2\phi + U \cos\,2\phi \, \label{eq:stokesphi} \end{split}$$ with $\phi$ being the angle with respect to the stellar position (x$_{0}$,y$_{0}$) calculated as: $$\phi = \mathrm{arctan} \frac{x-x_0}{y-y_0}\, \label{eq:azimuth}$$ By construction, $Q_{\phi}$ corresponds to $PI$ in the scenario of perfectly centro-symmetric scattering, whereas $U_{\phi}$ is ideally expected to only contain noise. Results ======= The obtained $I,\ PI,\ Q_{\phi}$ and $U_{\phi}$ maps of the benchmark case in the J band with $i=0^\circ$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:scat12\_incl0\]. It includes the simulations for the four planetary masses considered: 0.3 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$, 1 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$, 5 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$, 10 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$. On the images, the planet (and circumplanetary disk) always lies to the East at 50 au from the central star. From these images, the main CSD is always very bright in $PI$ and its morphology resembles that of the $I$ images. The circumplanetary disk is visible in the first two cases only, that is with a planet of 10 and 5 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$. Similar considerations apply to the $Q_{\phi}$ images and these maps look very similar to the $PI$. On the other hand, the circumplanetary disk from the $Q_{\phi}$ images looks appreciably different than from the $PI$ (see Sect.\[sec:contrast\]). On the other hand, the $U_{\phi}$ images do not show any significant signal except around the circumplanetary disk in the first case. {width="17cm"} What said above for the benchmark case also applies to the other images created (see Appendix \[All\_maps\]). The only obvious differences are that the circumplanetary disk becomes decreasingly evident with increasing inclination, and that some signal is recovered from the $U_{\phi}$ image when the inclination is high, in agreement with the theoretical prediction by @Canovas2015. Polarized contrast {#sec:contrast} ------------------ In this section, we provide a more quantitative analysis of the maps in Fig.\[fig:scat12\_incl0\], as well as of those shown in Appendix \[All\_maps\]. Measuring the amount of scattered light from real observations is a challenging task because of the difficulties in flux-calibrating the images and because the disk flux is directly dependent on the stellar flux. Some authors quantified the polarized light from the disk in relation to the stellar flux, thus as to alleviate the dependence on the stellar brightness. In particular, a way to do it is by dividing the observed polarized flux at a certain disk location, $F_{\rm pol}(r)$, by the stellar flux incident on that disk region, $F_*/4\pi r^2$. This number contains information on both the intrinsic albedo of particles (see e.g., @Mulders13) and on the fraction of photons scattered toward the observer (see e.g., @Stolker16) and is thus sometimes referred to as (polarized) geometric albedo or contrast. This measurement is available for a relatively large number of real disks [see @Garufi17; @Garufi18]. From our simulations, we obtained the aforementioned contrast along a radial cut oriented toward the planet. This profile is obtained from the $PI,\ Q_{\phi}$ and $U_{\phi}$ images and is shown in Fig.\[fig:profile\] for some illustrative cases. We also extracted the specific contrast from the circumstellar and from the circumplanetary disk by averaging the contribution from their respective regions. The values thus obtained for the circumstellar disk from the different simulations are comprised in a narrow interval of values (from 1.5% to 3.2%). Compared to real disks, these numbers are realistically high since the brightest disks ever observed in PDI have it up to $\sim2\%$ (see @Garufi17). On the other hand, the contrast obtained around the circumplanetary disk span enormously (from 800% to $\lesssim0.1\%$). From the $PI$ image, the contrast of the 10 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ case is always larger than 1 (i.e., more photons than those incident from the star are detected) indicating a strong additional source of photons to be scattered (the planet and the hot inner circumplanetary disk). This observational scenario would be by itself a natural, robust evidence of circumplanetary disk. However, for all the other cases that we studied the detection of the circumplanetary disk in polarized light is less straightforward. Observationally, we can define a formal threshold of 0.1% below which the signal is mostly noise [@Garufi17]. According to this criterion, 15 of the remaining 18 cases (3 planet masses, 3 inclinations, 2 wavebands) should still be regarded as detection. We must nonetheless consider the effect of the circumstellar disk itself that may still be present at the planet location (in particular for the 0.3 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ case where the disk gap is more shallow than for more massive planets) and leaves the same imprint on the scattered-light images. In this regard, we noticed that the contrast around the planet decreases toward smaller masses but then increases again for the lowest-mass case. Circumstellar versus circumplanetary disk signal {#sec:CSDvsCPD} ------------------------------------------------ Our simulations show that it is formally possible to distinguish between the scattered light from the circumstellar and from the circumplanetary disk by comparing the contrast from the $PI$ and $Q_{\phi}$ images. In fact, for the two largest-mass planet scenarios the polarized contrast around the planet calculated from these two maps differ significantly (an average $\sim60\%$) whereas in the 1.0 and 0.3 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ cases it is nearly identical (within $10\%$). Conversely, for all our simulations the circumstellar disk signal from the $PI$ and $Q_{\phi}$ images is very similar (always within $10\%$). This behaviour can be appreciated from Fig.\[fig:ratios\]. Strong discrepancies between $PI$ and $Q_{\phi}$ are expected when the scattered light deviates from a centro-symmetric pattern, which is the assumption under which $Q_{\phi}$ is constructed. In the presence of a circumplanetary disk, photons are not expected to be scattered in such a pattern since the star is no longer the only source of photons. Therefore, the comparison of the polarized contrast from the $PI$ and $Q_{\phi}$ images is a simple but potentially powerful manner to discriminate the presence of a circumplanetary disk. The comparison of two wavebands may also help discriminate between the two origins. In fact, we found that the polarized contrast from the J and H band is relatively similar for both the 1.0 and 0.3 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ cases (spanning from a J/H ratio of 1.12 to 0.83). This means that the disk flux is either marginally blue or red with respect to the star [an aspect that depends primarily on the dust grain composition, e.g., @Murakawa2010]. On the other hand, the J/H ratio from the 10 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ and 5 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ cases spans from 1.60 to 0.14 (see Fig.\[fig:ratios\]b). Such large values are likely explained by the wavelength-dependent nature of a thermal emission within the region into question that severely changes the scattered photon budget from a wavelength to another. Discussion ========== Our models only covers part of the parameter space. We assumed a fixed dust-to-gas ratio of 0.01 even in the circumplanetary disk [@DSz18], however real disks can have smaller and larger values than this [e.g. @YG05; @Marel13; @DD14; @Birnstiel12; @WB14; @Ansdell16], which might affect the results. Our results also depend on the optical depth. In this work we took care of dust evaporation above silicate evaporation temperature (1500 K), which meant that the dust density were put to zero near the planet, where the temperatures were rising above this temperature limit. For the Monte-Carlo radiative transfer runs this meant that the photons could escape easily in this otherwise optically thick area. We made a test run for the 10 Jupiter-mass planet case, where we left the dust-density as it was originally, even in this region above 1500 K, which resulted in a much fainter circumplanetary disk. This shows that if the planet vicinity is optically thick, the photons cannot escape that much in the hot planet vicinity, reducing the circumplanetary disk brightness. However, if there is a gap between the planet and the circumplanetary disk, in this optically thin regions we could see the contribution of the hot, inner part of the circumplanetary disk in the scattered light mock images. {width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"} In this work we have considered the planets to be 50 AU from the star, but the circumplanetary disk-circumstellar disk contrast can be very different if the circumplanetary disk at another distance. Circumplanetary disks closer to the star tend to be more optically thick, yet, hotter than the more distant ones. For the circumstellar disk mass we considered an average value of 0.01 $\rm{M_{Sun}}$, and the radial extent was between 20-120 AU, similar to a transitional disk with an inner cavity. While the circumplanetary disk mass linearly scales with the CSD mass [@Szulagyi17gap], the changes in mass will also result in different optical depth, which can affect the results described here. The hydrodynamic simulations did not include magnetic fields, e.g. the fields of the disks, which might affect the dust density distribution. Conclusions =========== In this work we investigated polarized scattered light detectability of the circumplanetary disk formed around young planets. We ran hydrodynamic simulations with mesh refinement and with thermal effects to resolve well the circumplanetary disk and estimate the gas temperatures realistically. Then, we post-processed the simulations with RADMC-3D Monte-Carlo radiative transfer software to create polarized light images in J, and H bands. We added convolution with a PSF-size at the diffraction limit, assuming 8.2 meter mirror. We considered different planetary mass cases: Saturn, 1, 5, 10 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$ and different disk inclinations of 0, 30, 60 degrees. The planets were embedded in a 0.01 $\rm{M_{Sun}}$ circumstellar disk, 50 AU away from their star, which was assumed to be a Sun-equivalent. Our $I,\ PI,\ Q_{\phi}$ and $U_{\phi}$ images revealed that the circumplanetary disk detection is only possible in the case of very massive planets (5 and 10 $\rm{M_{Jup}}$), although it is highly dependent on how optically thick is the circumplanetary disk (i.e. how much dust it contains, and what is the temperature there). The circumplanetary disk detection is challenging in polarized light, not only because of sensitivity but also due to the contrast with the circumstellar disk. However, we showed that, ideally speaking, it is possible to distinguish between the two disk’s contributions by comparing the total polarized light (from the $PI$ image) and the centro-symmetric polarized light (from the $Q_\phi$ image), as well as by finding stronger polarized colors in the circumplanetary disk than in the neighboring circumstellar disk. In conclusion, while circumplanetary disk detection might be challenging in polarized light, the $PI$/$Q_\phi$ images, as well as multi-waveband image contrasts can be possible tools to detect the circumplanetary disk within the circumstellar disk. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We thank for Adriana Pohl providing the opacity table, including the polarization matrix. This work has been in part carried out within the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Ambizione grant PZ00P2\_174115. Computations have been done on the “Mönch“ machine hosted at the Swiss National Computational Centre. We also acknowledge support from the project PRIN-INAF 2016 The Cradle of Life - GENESIS-SKA (General Conditions in Early Planetary Systems for the rise of life with SKA) and from INAF/Frontiera (Fostering high ResolutiON Technology and Innovation for Exoplanets and Research in Astrophysics) through the ”Progetti Premiali" funding scheme of the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research. [99]{} Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., P[é]{}rez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L41. Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46 Apai, D., Pascucci, I., Brandner, W., et al. 2004, A&A, 415, 671 Birnstiel, T., Klahr, H., & Ercolano, B. 2012, A&A, 539, A148 Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1984, Nature, 307, 575 Canovas, H., M[é]{}nard, F., de Boer, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, L7. Commer[ç]{}on, B., Teyssier, R., Audit, E., Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2011, A&A, 529, A35 Christiaens, V., Casassus, S., Absil, O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, de Val-Borro, M., Edgar, R. G., Artymowicz, P., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 529 Dipierro G., Pinilla P., Lodato G., Testi L., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 974 Dong, R., Rafikov, R., Zhu, Z., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 161 Dong R., Zhu Z., Rafikov R. R., Stone J. M., 2015, ApJ, 809, L5 Dong R., Hall C., Rice K., Chiang E., 2015, ApJ, 812, L32 Dong R., Fung J., Chiang E., 2016, ApJ, 826, 75 Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1026 Dr[a]{}[ż]{}kowska J. & Szul[á]{}gyi J., 2018, ApJ, 866, 142 Dr[a]{}[ż]{}kowska, J., & Dullemond, C. P. 2014, A&A, 572, A78 Dullemond, C. P. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1202.015 Fung J., Dong R., 2015, ApJ, 815, L21 Garufi A., et al., 2017, A&A, 603, A21 Garufi, A., Benisty, M., Stolker, T., et al. 2017, The Messenger, 169, 32. Garufi A., et al., 2018, A&A, 620, A94 Isella A., Turner N. J., 2018, ApJ, 860, 27 Keppler M., et al., 2018, A&A, 617, A44 Kley W., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 696 Kraus, A. L., & Ireland, M. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 5 Kuhn, J. R., Potter, D., & Parise, B. 2001, ApJ, 553, L189. Mulders G. D., Min M., Dominik C., Debes J. H., Schneider G., 2013, A&A, 549, A112 M[ü]{}ller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, L2 Murakawa, K. 2010, A&A, 518, A63. Pohl A., et al., 2017, A&A, 605, A34 Rapson, V. A., Kastner, J. H., Millar-Blanchaer, M. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, L26. Ricci L., Testi L., Natta A., Neri R., Cabrit S., Herczeg G. J., 2010, A&A, 512, A15 Sallum, S., Follette, K. B., Eisner, J. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 527, 342 Schmid H. M., Joos F., Tschan D., 2006, A&A, 452, 657 Stolker T., Min M., Stam D. M., Molli[è]{}re P., Dominik C., Waters L. B. F. M., 2017, A&A, 607, A42 Stolker T., Dominik C., Min M., Garufi A., Mulders G. D., Avenhaus H., 2016, A&A, 596, A70 Szul[á]{}gyi, J., Morbidelli, A., Crida, A., & Masset, F. 2014, ApJ, 782, 65 Szul[á]{}gyi, J., Masset, F., Lega, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2853 Szul[á]{}gyi, J. 2017, ApJ, 842, 103 Szul[á]{}gyi, J., Mayer, L., & Quinn, T. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3158 Szul[á]{}gyi, J., Plas, G. v. d., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3573 Szul[á]{}gyi J., Dullemond C. P., Pohl A., Quanz S. P., 2019, MNRAS, 1269 Szul[á]{}gyi, J. & Mordasini, C.,  2017, MNRAS, 465, L64 van der Marel, N., van Dishoeck, E. F., Bruderer, S., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 1199 Wagner, K., Follete, K. B., Close, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L8 Warren, S. G., & Brandt, R. E. 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D14220 Williams, J. P., & Best, W. M. J. 2014, ApJ, 788, 59 Youdin, A. N., & Goodman, J. 2005, ApJ, 620, 459 Zhang S., et al., 2018, ApJ, 869, L47 Zubko, V. G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., & Bussoletti, E. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1321 Maps {#All_maps} ==== Similarly to Fig.\[fig:scat12\_incl0\], Figs.\[fig:scat12\_incl30\], \[fig:scat12\_incl60\], \[fig:scat16\_incl0\], \[fig:scat16\_incl30\], and \[fig:scat16\_incl60\] shows the $I,\ PI,\ Q_{\phi}$ and $U_{\phi}$ maps for the four planetary masses explored. In particular, Figs.\[fig:scat12\_incl30\] and \[fig:scat12\_incl60\] are the higher inclination case in J band while Figs.\[fig:scat16\_incl0\], \[fig:scat16\_incl30\], and \[fig:scat16\_incl60\] are the images produced in the H band. {width="18cm"} {width="18cm"} {width="18cm"} {width="18cm"} {width="18cm"} \[lastpage\] [^1]: <http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~dullemond/software/radmc-3d/>

--- abstract: | We study the online graph coloring problem restricted to the intersection graphs of intervals with lengths in $[1,\sigma]$. For $\sigma=1$ it is the class of unit interval graphs, and for $\sigma=\infty$ the class of all interval graphs. Our focus is on intermediary classes. We present a $(1+\sigma)$-competitive algorithm, which beats the state of the art for $1 < \sigma < 2$. For $\sigma = 1$ our algorithm matches the performance of FirstFit, which is $2$-competitive for unit interval graphs. For $\sigma=2$ our algorithm matches the Kierstead-Trotter algorithm, which is $3$-competitive for all interval graphs. On the lower bound side, we prove that no algorithm is better than $5/3$-competitive for any $\sigma>1$, nor better than $7/4$-competitive for any $\sigma>2$, and that no algorithm beats the $5/2$ asymptotic competitive ratio for all, arbitrarily large, values of $\sigma$. address: - ' Theoretical Computer Science Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland ' - ' Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland ' author: - 'Joanna Chybowska-Sokół' - Grzegorz Gutowski - 'Konstanty Junosza-Szaniawski' - Patryk Mikos - Adam Polak bibliography: - 'paper.bib' title: Online Coloring of Short Intervals --- [^1] Introduction ============ In the *online graph coloring* problem the input graph is presented to the algorithm vertex by vertex, along with all the edges adjacent to the already presented vertices. Each vertex must be assigned a color, different than any of its neighbors, immediately and irrevocably at the moment it is presented, without any knowledge of the remaining part of the graph. The objective is to minimize the number of used colors. The problem and its variants attract much attention, both for theoretical properties and practical applications in network multiplexing, resource allocation, and job scheduling. The standard performance measure, used to analyze online algorithms, is the *competitive ratio*, i.e., the worst-case guarantee on the ratio of the solution given by an online algorithm to the optimal offline solution (see Section \[sec:results\] for a formal definition). In the general case, of online coloring of arbitrary graphs there is no hope for any algorithm with a constant competitive ratio. The best known algorithm [@Halldorsson97] uses ${O{{\left(\chi\cdot n/\log n\right)}}}$ colors for $n$-vertex $\chi$-colorable graphs, i.e. it is ${O{{\left(n/\log n\right)}}}$-competitive, and there is a lower bound [@HalldorssonS94] showing that no online graph coloring algorithm can be ${o{{\left(n/\log^2 n\right)}}}$-competitive. It is thus common to study the problem restricted to particular graph classes. Having in mind the applications in scheduling, one of the important special cases is the class of *interval graphs*, i.e. intersection graphs of intervals on the real line. The classic result is by Kierstead and Trotter [@KiersteadT81], who designed a $3$-competitive algorithm and proved a matching lower bound. However, in the special case of *unit interval graphs*, i.e. intersection graphs of intervals of a fixed (unit, w.l.o.g.) length, already the simple greedy FirstFit algorithm is $2$-competitive [@EpsteinL05]. A natural question arises, what happens in between the interval and unit interval graph classes. In particular, we ask about the optimal competitive ratio of online coloring algorithms for intersection graphs of intervals of length restricted to a fixed range. Formally, let us introduce the $\sigma$-interval coloring problem. For $\sigma \ge 1$, the *$\sigma$-interval coloring* problem asks: Given a sequence of closed intervals $[l_1, r_1], [l_2, r_2], \ldots, [l_n, r_n]$, such that $1 \le (r_i - l_i) \le \sigma$ for every $i \in [n]$, find a sequence of *colors*, $c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n$, such that $$\forall_{i \neq j}\ \big([l_i, r_i] \cap [l_j, r_j] \neq \emptyset\big) \implies {{\left(c_i \neq c_j\right)}}\text{,}$$ minimizing the number of distinct colors $\big|\{c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n\}\big|$. We study the problem in the online setting, i.e., intervals are presented one by one, in an arbitrary order, and each interval has to be colored immediately and irrevocably after it is presented. Note that we choose to include the interval representation in the input, instead of presenting the mere graph. It seems a plausible modelling choice given the scheduling applications. Moreover, it lets algorithms exploit geometric properties of the input, and not only structural graph properties. Naturally, any lower bound obtained for this variant of the problem transfers to the harder variant with no interval representation in the input. Our Results {#sec:results} ----------- Before we state our results, let us give a formal definition of the competitive ratio. In this paper we focus on the *asymptotic* competitive ratio. Let $A$ be an online graph coloring algorithm, and let $A(\chi)$ denote the maximum number of colors $A$ uses to color any graph which can be colored offline using $\chi$-colors (i.e. its chromatic number is at most $\chi$). We say that $A$ has the asymptotic competitive ratio $\alpha$ (or that $A$ is $\alpha$-competitive, for short), if $\limsup_{\chi\to\infty} \frac{A(\chi)}{\chi} \le \alpha$. Another popular performance measure for online algorithms is the *absolute* competitive ratio, which requires that $\frac{A(\chi)}{\chi} \le \alpha$ holds for *all* $\chi$ (and not only in the limit). The choice of the asymptotic, instead of absolute, competitive ratio for our analysis makes things easier for the algorithm and harder for the lower bounds. In our algorithm, sadly, we do not know how to get rid of a constant additive overhead, which vanishes only with growing $\chi$. The good side is, our lower bounds for the asymptotic competitive ratio imply the identical lower bounds for the absolute competitive ratio. ### Algorithm. Our positive result is the existence of a $(1+\sigma)$-competitive algorithm. \[thm:algo\] For every $\sigma \in {\mathbb{Q}}$, $\sigma \geq 1$, there is an algorithm for online $\sigma$-interval coloring with $1+\sigma$ asymptotic competitive ratio. Note that for $\sigma' > \sigma$ every $\sigma'$-interval coloring algorithm is also a correct $\sigma$-interval coloring algorithm, with the same upper bound on its competitive ratio. Therefore, for $\sigma \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\mathbb{Q}}$ Theorem \[thm:algo\] yields an online $\sigma$-interval coloring algorithm with a competitive ratio arbitrarily close to $1+\sigma$. This distinction between rational and irrational values of $\sigma$ becomes somewhat less peculiar in the light of the results of Fishburn and Graham [@Fishburn85], who proved, among other things, that the classes of graphs with interval representation with lengths in $[1, \sigma]$ are right-continuous exactly at irrational $\sigma$. Until now, the state-of-the art was the $2$-competitive FirstFit algorithm [@EpsteinL05] for $\sigma=1$ and the $3$-competitive Kierstead-Trotter algorithm [@KiersteadT81] for $\sigma>1$. Thus, our algorithm matches the performance of FirstFit for $\sigma=1$, and beats the Kierstead-Trotter algorithm up until $\sigma=2$. ### Lower Bounds. In order to prove lower bounds for online problems, it is often convenient to look at the problem as a combinatorial game between two players, Algorithm and Presenter. In our case, in each round Presenter reveals an interval, and Algorithm immediately and irrevocably assigns it a color. While Algorithm tries to minimize the number of different colors it assigns, the Presenter’s goal is to force Algorithm to use as many colors as possible. A strategy for Presenter implies a lower bound on the competitive ratio of any algorithm solving the problem. Our negative results include a series of strategies for Presenter with the following consequences. \[thm:53\] For every $\sigma > 1$ there is no online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio less than $5/3$. \[thm:74\] For every $\sigma > 2$ there is no online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio less than $7/4$. \[thm:52\] For every $\epsi > 0$ there is $\sigma \geq 1$ such that there is no online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio $5/2 - \epsi$. The following, more illustrative, statement is a direct corollary of Theorem \[thm:52\]. There is no online algorithm that works for all $\sigma \geq 1$ and uses at most $2.499\cdot\omega + f(\sigma)$ colors for $\omega$-colorable graphs (for any function $f$). Methods ------- Our algorithm is inspired by the recent result for online coloring of unit disk intersection graphs [@UnitDisk]. We cover the real line with overlapping blocks, grouped into a constant number of classes. Each class gets a private set of available colors. When an interval is presented, the algorithm chooses a block in a round-robin fashion, and greedily assigns a color from its class. All our lower bounds can be considered as generalizations of the $3/2$ lower bound for online coloring of unit interval graphs by Epstein and Levy [@EpsteinL05]. In particular, we heavily use their *separation strategy*, which also appears in [@Azar06]. The novel technique is the recursive composition of strategies, materialized in Lemmas \[lem:lower\_32\], \[lem:lower\_53\], \[lem:lower\_74\], and \[lem:lower\_52\]. Our $5/2$ lower bound borrows also from the work of Kierstead and Trotter [@KiersteadT81]. However, in order to control the length of intervals independently of the number of colors, we cannot simply use the pigeonhole principle, as they did. Instead, we develop Lemmas \[lem:4sets\] and \[lem:4split\], which let us overcome this issue, at a cost of a worse bound for the competitive ratio, i.e. $5/2$ instead of $3$. Related Work ------------ Interval graphs have been intensively studied since the sixties [@Benzer59; @Lekkeikerker62], and, in particular, they are known to be *perfect*, i.e. the chromatic number $\chi$ of an interval graph always equals the size of the largest clique $\omega$ (see, e.g., [@Golumbic04]). To construct an optimal coloring offline it is sufficient to color the graph greedily in a nondecreasing order of the left ends of the intervals. For the most basic approach for online coloring, that is the FirstFit algorithm, the competitive ratio for interval graphs is unknown. After a series of papers, the most recent results state that FirstFit is at least $5$- and at most $8$-competitive [@Kierstead16; @Narayanaswamy08]. Kierstead and Trotter [@KiersteadT81] designed a more involved online coloring algorithm, which uses at most $3\omega-2$ colors for $\omega$-colorable interval graphs, and proved that there exists a strategy that forces any online coloring algorithm to use exactly that number of colors. The same lower and upper bounds were obtained independently by Chrobak and Ślusarek [@Chrobak88; @Slusarek89]. For intersection graphs of intervals of unit length any online coloring algorithm uses at least $\frac{3}{2}\omega$ colors, and FirstFit uses at most $2\omega-1$ colors [@EpsteinL05]. It seems a natural question to ask if it is possible to improve the bound of $3\omega-2$ by assuming that interval lengths belong to a fixed range. The study of interval graphs with bounded length representations was initiated by Fishburn and Graham [@Fishburn85]. However, it focused mainly on the combinatorial structure, and not its algorithmic applications. Kierstead and Trotter [@KiersteadT81] give, for every $\omega\in{{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$, a strategy for Presenter to construct an $\omega$-colorable set of intervals while forcing Algorithm to use at least $3\omega-2$ colors. However, the lengths of presented intervals increase with the increasing $\omega$. For this reason, with the interval length restricted to ${{\left[1,\sigma\right]}}$, their lower bound is only for the absolute competitive ratio and does not exclude, say, an algorithm that always uses at most $2\omega+\sigma^{10}$ colors. On the contrary, in Theorem \[thm:52\] we rule out the existence of such an algorithm. Algorithm ========= For every $\sigma \in {\mathbb{Q}}$, $\sigma \geq 1$, there is an algorithm for online $\sigma$-interval coloring with $1+\sigma$ asymptotic competitive ratio. Let us present an algorithm which, in principle, works for any real $\sigma$, however only for a rational $\sigma$ it achieves the declared competitive ratio. The algorithm has a positive integer parameter $b$. Increasing the parameter brings the asymptotic competitive ratio closer to $1+\sigma$ at the cost of increasing the additive constant. More precisely, given an $\omega$-colorable set of intervals our algorithm colors it using at most ${{\left\lceil b\cdot(1 + \sigma) \right\rceil}} \cdot {{\left(\frac{\omega}{b} + b - 1\right)}}$ colors, and thus its competitive ratio is $\frac{{{\left\lceil b\cdot(1 + \sigma) \right\rceil}}}{b} + {O{{\left(1/\omega\right)}}}$. For a rational $\sigma$, in order to obtain exactly the declared $1 + \sigma$ asymptotic competitive ratio it is sufficient to set $b$ to the smallest possible denominator of a simple fraction representation of $\sigma$. Let $\varphi = {{\left\lceil b\cdot(1 + \sigma) \right\rceil}}$. The algorithm will use colors from the set ${\left\{0, 1, \ldots, \varphi-1\right\}} \times {\mathbb{N}}$. Now, let us consider the partition of the real line into *small blocks*. For $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, the $i$-th small block occupies the interval $[i\cdot\frac{1}{b}, (i+1)\cdot\frac{1}{b})$. Moreover, we define *large blocks*. The $i$-th large block occupies the interval $[i\cdot\frac{1}{b}, i\cdot\frac{1}{b} + 1)$. See Fig. \[fig:blocks\]. ![Small blocks (up), and large blocks (down), for $b=3$[]{data-label="fig:blocks"}](fig_blocks.pdf) Let us point out certain properties of the blocks, which will be useful in the further analysis. Each large block is the sum of $b$ consecutive small blocks, and each small block is a subset of $b$ consecutive large blocks. Further, length of a large block is $1$, and for any two intervals of length in ${{\left[1,\sigma\right]}}$ that both have the left endpoint in the same large block, the two intervals intersect. Thus, the intervals whose left endpoints belong to a fixed large block form a clique. Finally, if the indices of two large blocks differ by at least $\varphi$, then any two intervals – one with the left endpoint in one block, the other with the left endpoint in the other – do not intersect. With each small block the algorithm associates a *small counter*, and with each large block the algorithm associates a *large counter*. Let $S_i$ denote the small counter of the $i$-th small block, and $L_i$ denote the large counter of the $i$-th large block. Initially, all the small and large counters are set to zero. To assign a color to an interval, the algorithm proceeds as follows: 1. Let $i$ be the index of the small block containing the left endpoint of the interval. 2. Let $j$ be the index of the large block containing the left endpoint of the interval such that $j \equiv S_i \pmod{b}$. Note that there is exactly one such $j$.\[item:round\_robin\] 3. Assign to the interval the color $(j\ \mathrm{mod}\ \varphi, L_j)$. 4. Increase the small counter $S_i$ by one. 5. Increase the large counter $L_j$ by one. First let us argue that the algorithm outputs a proper coloring. Consider any two intervals which were assigned the same color. Let $j_1$ and $j_2$ denote the indices of the large blocks selected for these intervals by the algorithm. Since the colors of the two intervals have the same first coordinates, we have that $j_1 \equiv j_2 \pmod{\varphi}$. However, since the second coordinates, which are determined by large counters, are also the same, $j_1$ and $j_2$ must be different, and thus they differ by at least $\varphi$. Hence the left endpoints of the large blocks $j_1$ and $j_2$ are at least $1+\sigma$ apart, and the two considered intervals do not intersect, thus the coloring is proper. It remains to bound the number of colors in terms of the clique number $\omega$. Let $j$ be the index of the maximum large counter $L_j$. Clearly, the algorithm used at most $\varphi \cdot L_j$ colors in total. Let $C$ denote the set of intervals with the left endpoints in the $j$-th large block and colored with a color in ${\left\{j\ \mathrm{mod}\ \varphi\right\}} \times {\mathbb{N}}$. Observe that ${{\left|C\right|}} = L_j$. Let $x_k$ denote the number of intervals in $C$ which have the left endpoint in the $k$-th small block. Recall that the $j$-th large block is the sum of $b$ small blocks – indexed $j$, $j+1$, …, $j+b-1$ – and thus $L_j = x_j + x_{j+1} + \cdots + x_{j+b-1}$. Now, observe that, because of the round robin selection in the step \[item:round\_robin\] of the algorithm, $$S_k \ge b \cdot (x_k - 1) + 1\text{.}$$ Let $D$ denote the set of all intervals with the left endpoints in the $j$-th large block. We can bound the number of intervals in $D$ $${{\left|D\right|}}\ =\ \sum_{k=j}^{j+b-1}S_k\ \ge\ \sum_{k=j}^{j+b-1}{{\left(b \cdot (x_k - 1) + 1\right)}}\ =\ b \cdot (L_j - b) + b\text{.}$$ Recall that $D$ is a clique and thus the clique number $\omega$ of the input graph is at least the size of $D$. Therefore $L_j \le \frac{\omega + b \cdot (b - 1)}{b}$, and the algorithm used at most $${{\left\lceil b\cdot(1 + \sigma) \right\rceil}} \cdot {{\left(\frac{\omega}{b} + b - 1\right)}}$$ colors. Lower Bounds ============ In this section we show several families of strategies for Presenter that force Algorithm to use many colors while the introduced set of intervals is colorable with a smaller number of colors, and contains only short intervals. We start with a short, informal presentation of these strategies. Epstein and Levy [@EpsteinL05] give the following strategy for Presenter in online coloring of unit intervals (see the proof of Lemma \[lem:lower\_32\] for all the details, Figure \[fig:lower\_32\] may help visualize this strategy). 1. Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *initial* intervals. Algorithm has to use $\frac{\omega}{2}$ different colors, let $\mathcal{X}$ denote the set of these colors. 2. To the left of the initial intervals, Presenter plays a clique of $\omega$ *separation* intervals so that all intervals colored with colors in $\mathcal{X}$ are slightly shifted to the left of all intervals colored with colors not in $\mathcal{X}$. 3. Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *final* intervals that intersect all the initial intervals, and $\frac{\omega}{2}$ right-most separation intervals. Algorithm has to use at least $\frac{3\omega}{2}$ colors in total. In Section \[sec:lower\_warmup\] we generalize this strategy. We observe, that instead of presenting a clique in the first step, Presenter can use an arbitrary strategy that requires slightly shorter intervals. For $\sigma$-interval coloring we can construct a recursive strategy that applies this trick roughly $\sigma$ times. Using this simple observations we obtain a family of strategies for different $\sigma$. Corollary \[cor:lower\_32\] gives that, for example, there is no online algorithm with $(1.6-\epsi)$ asymptotic competitive ratio for $(2+\epsi)$-interval coloring (for any $\epsi > 0$). Now, consider the following strategy for Presenter in online coloring of $(1+\epsi)$-intervals (see the proof of Lemma \[lem:lower\_53\] for all the details, Figure \[fig:lower\_53\] may help visualize this strategy). 1. Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{3}$ *initial* intervals of length $1$. Algorithm has to use $\frac{\omega}{3}$ different colors, let $\mathcal{X}$ denote the set of these colors. 2. To the left of the initial intervals, Presenter plays a clique of $\omega$ *left separation* intervals of length $1$ so that all intervals colored with colors in $\mathcal{X}$ are slightly shifted to the left of all intervals colored with colors not in $\mathcal{X}$. Let $\mathcal{Y}$ denote the set of colors of $\frac{\omega}{3}$ right-most left separation intervals. 3. To the right of initial intervals, Presenter plays a clique of $\omega$ *right separation* intervals of length $1$ so that all intervals colored with colors in $\mathcal{X} \cup \mathcal{Y}$ are slightly shifted to the right of all intervals colored with colors not in $\mathcal{X} \cup \mathcal{Y}$. 4. Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{2\omega}{3}$ *final* intervals of length $1+\epsi$ that intersect all the initial intervals, $\frac{\omega}{3}$ right-most left separation intervals, and $\frac{\omega}{3}$ left-most right separation intervals. We get that there is no online algorithm with $(\frac{5}{3}-\epsi_1)$ asymptotic competitive ratio for $(1+\epsi_2)$-interval coloring (for any $\epsi_1,\epsi_2 > 0$), i.e. we’ve sketched an informal proof of Theorem \[thm:53\]. In Section \[sec:lower\_53\] we use the above strategy for $(1+\epsi)$-intervals as a recursive step that can be used to obtain strategies for larger $\sigma$’s. We get another family of strategies, where for $\sigma$-interval coloring we can apply the recursive step roughly $\frac{\sigma}{2}$ times. Corollary \[cor:lower\_53\] gives that, for example, there is no online algorithm with $1.7$ asymptotic competitive ratio for $(3+\epsi)$-interval coloring (for any $\epsi > 0$). Now, consider the following strategy for Presenter in online coloring of $(2+\epsi)$-intervals (see the proof of Lemma \[lem:lower\_74\] for all the details, Figures \[fig:lower\_74\_case1\] and \[fig:lower\_74\_case2\] may help visualize this strategy). 1. Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *left initial* intervals of length $1$. Algorithm has to use $\frac{\omega}{2}$ different colors, let $\mathcal{X}_1$ denote the set of these colors. 2. To the right of the left initial intervals, Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *right initial* intervals of length $1$. Algorithm has to use $\frac{\omega}{2}$ different colors, let $\mathcal{X}_2$ denote the set of these colors. 3. To the left of the left initial intervals, Presenter plays a clique of $\omega$ *left separation* intervals of length $1$ so that all intervals colored with colors in $\mathcal{X}_1$ are slightly shifted to the left of all intervals colored with colors not in $\mathcal{X}_1$. Let $\mathcal{Y}_1$ denote the set of colors of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ right-most left separation intervals. 4. To the right of the right initial intervals, Presenter plays a clique of $\omega$ *right separation* intervals of length $1$ so that all intervals colored with colors in $\mathcal{X}_2$ are slightly shifted to the right of all intervals colored with colors not in $\mathcal{X}_2$. Let $\mathcal{Y}_2$ denote the set of colors of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ left-most right separation intervals. 5. Let $\mathcal{C}_1 = \mathcal{X}_1 \cup \mathcal{Y}_1$, and $\mathcal{C}_2 = \mathcal{X}_2 \cup \mathcal{Y}_2$. 1. If ${{\left|\mathcal{C}_1 \cup \mathcal{C}_2\right|}} \geq \frac{5\omega}{4}$, Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *final* intervals of length $2+\epsi$ that intersect all the initial intervals, $\frac{\omega}{2}$ right-most left separation intervals, and $\frac{\omega}{2}$ left-most right-separation intervals. In total, Algorithm has to use at least $\frac{7\omega}{4}$ colors in this case. 2. If ${{\left|\mathcal{C}_1 \cup \mathcal{C}_2\right|}} < \frac{5\omega}{4}$ (which implies ${{\left|\mathcal{C}_1 \cap \mathcal{C}_2\right|}} > \frac{3\omega}{4}$), Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *pre-final* intervals of length $1+\epsi$ that intersect all the right initial intervals, and $\frac{\omega}{2}$ left-most right separation intervals. Then, Presenter plays a clique of $\frac{\omega}{2}$ *final* intervals of length $1+\epsi$ that intersect all the left initial intervals, $\frac{\omega}{2}$ right-most left separation intervals, and all the pre-final intervals. The sets of colors of final and pre-final intervals are disjoint, and moreover do not intersect with $\mathcal{C}_1 \cap \mathcal{C}_2$. A short calculation shows that in this case Algorithm also has to use at least $\frac{7\omega}{4}$ colors. Thus, we get that there is no online algorithm with $(\frac{7}{4}-\epsi_1)$ asymptotic competitive ratio for $(2+\epsi_2)$-interval coloring (for any $\epsi_1,\epsi_2 > 0$), i.e. we’ve sketched an informal proof of Theorem \[thm:74\]. In Section \[sec:lower\_74\] we use the above strategy for $(2+\epsi)$-intervals as a recursive step that can be used to obtain strategies for larger $\sigma$’s. We get another family of strategies, where for $\sigma$-interval coloring we can apply the recursive step roughly $\log \sigma$ times. Corollary \[cor:lower\_74\] gives that, for example, no online algorithm with $1.8$ asymptotic competitive ratio for $(8+\epsi)$-interval coloring (for any $\epsi > 0$). To get a lower bound better than $2$ we combine our method with some ideas from the lower bound by Kierstead and Trotter [@KiersteadT81]. In Section \[sec:lower\_52\] we prove Corollary \[cor:lower\_52\], which gives that, for example, there is no $2$-competitive online algorithm for $(4^{39}+\epsi)$-interval coloring, there is no $2.4$-competitive online algorithm for $(4^{486}+\epsi)$-interval coloring, and there is no $2.49$-competitive online algorithm for $(4^{7970}+\epsi)$-interval coloring (for any $\epsi > 0$). Table \[tab:strategies\] summarizes the aforementioned strategies, and illustrates the growth of the interval length $\sigma$ required to prove better and better lower bounds. ratio interval length strategy -------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- $1.5$ $1$ Epstein and Levy [@EpsteinL05] $1.6$ $2+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_32\], $n=2$ iterations $1.66$ $1+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_53\], $n=1$ iteration $1.72$ $3+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_53\], $n=2$ iterations $1.75$ $2+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_74\], $n=1$ iteration $1.81$ $8+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_74\], $n=2$ iterations $2$ $4^{39}+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_52\], $n=3$ iterations, $\gamma=0.21030395$ $2.4$ $4^{486}+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_52\], $n=6$ iterations, $\gamma=0.0339$ $2.49$ $4^{7970}+\epsi$ Corollary \[cor:lower\_52\], $n=10$ iterations, $\gamma=0.003449$ : Summary of selected strategies for Presenter[]{data-label="tab:strategies"} To properly capture asymptotic properties of the introduced strategies we give the following formal definitions. For $\omega, C \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$ and $\sigma, M \in {{\mathbb{R}}_{+}}$, an *${{\left<\omega,C,\sigma,M\right>}}$-strategy* is a strategy for Presenter that forces Algorithm to use at least $C$ colors subject to the following constraints: 1. the set of introduced intervals is $\omega$-colorable, 2. every introduced interval has length at least $1$ and at most $\sigma$, 3. every introduced interval is contained in the interval ${{\left[0,M\right]}}$. We are interested in providing strategies that achieve the biggest possible ratio $\frac{C}{\omega}$ for large $\omega$. This motivates the following definition. An *${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema* is a set of ${{\left<\omega,C_\omega,\sigma,M\right>}}$-strategies for all $\omega \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$ such that $C_\omega = \alpha\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}$. The ${o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}$ term in the above definition accounts for the fact that sometimes in a proof we would like to introduce, say, $\frac{\omega}{2}$-clique. Then, for odd $\omega$’s a rounding is required, which results in small inaccuracies we need to control. Note that the existence of an *${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema* implies a lower bound of $\alpha$ for the asymptotic competitive ratio of any online algorithm solving the $\sigma$-interval coloring problem. To put the above definitions in context, note that Kierstead and Trotter [@KiersteadT81] give, for all $\omega \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$, an ${{\left<\omega,3\omega-2,f(\omega),f(\omega)\right>}}$-strategy. However, their family of strategies does not yield an ${{\left<\alpha, \sigma,M\right>}}$-schema, because the length of the presented intervals grows with $\omega$. For any $\omega \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$, a strategy that introduces the interval ${{\left[0,1\right]}}$ in every round $1,\ldots,\omega$ is an ${{\left<\omega,\omega,1,1\right>}}$-strategy. The set of these strategies is a ${{\left<1,1,1\right>}}$-schema. In this section we show a series of constructions that use an existing schema to create another schema with different parameters. The ${{\left<1,1,1\right>}}$-schema given above is the initial step for those constructions. Let $S$ be an ${{\left<\omega,C,\sigma,M\right>}}$-strategy. We will say that *Presenter uses strategy $S$ in the interval ${{\left[x,x+M\right]}}$* to denote that Presenter plays according to $S$, presenting intervals shifted by $x$, until Algorithm uses $C$ colors. Warm-up {#sec:lower_warmup} ------- Our first construction is a natural generalization of the strategy for unit intervals given by Epstein and Levy [@EpsteinL05]. It is surpassed by more involved strategies coming later, but it serves as a gentle introduction to our framework. \[lem:lower\_32\] [If there is an ${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema, then there is a ${{\left<2-\frac{1}{\alpha+1}, M+\epsi, M+1+\epsi\right>}}$-schema for every $\epsi > 0$.]{} To prove the lemma we need to provide an ${{\left<\omega,(2-\frac{1}{\alpha+1})\omega-{o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}, M+\epsi, M+1+\epsi\right>}}$-strategy for every $\omega \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$. Let us fix an $\omega \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$, and let $\omega' = {{\left\lfloor \frac{\omega}{\alpha+1} \right\rfloor}}$. The ${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema contains an ${{\left<\omega',\alpha\omega' - \delta, \sigma, M\right>}}$-strategy $S$ for some $\delta = {o{{\left(\omega'\right)}}}$. The strategy for Presenter consists of three phases (see Fig. \[fig:lower\_32\]). In the first phase, called the *initial phase*, Presenter uses strategy $S$ inside the interval ${{\left[1+\epsi, M+1+\epsi\right]}}$. Let $C = \alpha \omega' - \delta$ and let $\mathcal{X}$ denote the set of $C$ colors used by Algorithm in the initial phase. fig\_lower\_32.tex The second phase, borrowed from [@EpsteinL05; @Azar06], is called the *separation phase*. In this phase, Presenter plays the following separation strategy for $\omega$ rounds. Let $l_1 = 0$ and $r_1 = \frac{\epsi}{2}$. In the $i$-th round of the separation phase Presenter introduces the interval $[\frac{l_i+r_i}{2}, \frac{l_i+r_i}{2}+1]$. If Algorithm colors the interval with one of the colors in $\mathcal{X}$, let $l_{i+1} = \frac{l_i+r_i}{2}$ and $r_{i+1} = r_i$, which means that the next interval will be shifted slightly to the right. Otherwise, let $l_{i+1} = l_i$ and $r_{i+1} = \frac{l_i+r_i}{2}$, which means that the next interval will be shifted slightly to the left. Observe that all intervals introduced in the separation phase have length $1$ and $\forall_i \frac{l_i+r_i}{2} < \frac{\epsi}{2}$. Thus, every interval introduced in the separation phase is contained in $\left[0,1+\frac{\epsi}{2}\right]$ and any two of those intervals intersect. Furthermore, the choice of $l_i$’s and $r_i$’s guarantees that for any two intervals $x$, $y$ introduced in the separation phase, $x$ colored with a color in $\mathcal{X}$, and $y$ colored with a color not in $\mathcal{X}$, we have that the left endpoint of $x$ is to the left of the left endpoint of $y$. Let $Y$ be the set of $\omega'$ right-most intervals introduced in the separation phase. Let $\mathcal{Y}$ be the set of colors used by Algorithm on the intervals in $Y$. As $C + \omega' < \omega$, we get that sets of colors $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ are disjoint. For the last phase, called the *final phase*, let $r$ be the left-most right endpoint of an interval in $Y$. In the final phase Presenter introduces $\omega - \omega'$ times the same interval ${{\left[r, M+1+\epsi\right]}}$. This interval intersects all intervals introduced in the initial phase, all intervals in $Y$, and no other interval introduced in the separation phase. Thus, Algorithm must use $\omega - \omega'$ colors in the final phase that are different from the colors in both $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$. Let $\mathcal{Z}$ denote the set of colors used by Algorithm in the final phase. The presented set of intervals is clearly $\omega$-colorable and Algorithm used at least ${{\left|\mathcal{X}\right|}}+{{\left|\mathcal{Y}\right|}}+{{\left|\mathcal{Z}\right|}} = \alpha\omega'-\delta+\omega'+\omega-\omega' = {{\left(2-\frac{1}{\alpha+1}\right)}}\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}$ many colors. The longest interval presented has length $M+\epsi$, and all intervals are contained in ${{\left[0,M+1+\epsi\right]}}$. Thus, we have constructed a ${{\left<2-\frac{1}{\alpha+1}, M+\epsi, M+1+\epsi\right>}}$-schema. \[cor:lower\_32\] There is an ${{\left<\frac{F_{2n+1}}{F_{2n}}, n+\epsi, n+1+\epsi\right>}}$-schema, for every $n \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$ and every $\epsi > 0$, where $F_{n}$ is the $n$-th Fibonacci number ($F_0 = F_1 = 1$, $F_{n+2}=F_{n+1}+F_{n}$). Starting with a ${{\left<1,1,1\right>}}$-schema and repeatedly applying Lemma \[lem:lower\_32\] one can generate[^2] a family of ${{\left<\alpha_n,\sigma_n+\epsi_n,M_n+\epsi_n\right>}}$-schemas, such that $\alpha_{n+1} = 2 - \frac{1}{\alpha_{n}+1}$, $\sigma_{n+1} = M_{n}$, $M_{n+1} = M_{n} + 1$ and $\alpha_0 = \sigma_0 = M_0 = 1$. Solving the recurrence equations we get $\alpha_{n} = \frac{F_{2n+1}}{F_{2n}}$, $\sigma_{n} = n$, and $M_{n} = n+1$. Note that this method cannot give a lower bound with the multiplicative factor better than $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{F_{2n+1}}{F_{2n}} = \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2} \approx 1.61803$. However, we can get arbitrarily close to this bound. That is, for every $\epsi > 0$ there is a $\sigma$ and $\omega_0$ such that for each $\omega \geq \omega_0$ there is a strategy for Presenter to present intervals of length at most $\sigma$ and force Algorithm to use ${{\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}-\epsi\right)}}\cdot\omega$ colors on an $\omega$-colorable set of intervals. \[obs:phi\] There is no online algorithm that works for all $\sigma \geq 1$ and uses at most $1.618\cdot\omega + f(\sigma)$ colors for $\omega$-colorable graphs (for any function $f$). The $5/3$ Lower Bound {#sec:lower_53} --------------------- \[lem:lower\_53\] [If there is an ${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema, then there is a ${{\left<2-\frac{1}{\alpha+2}, M+\epsi, M+2+\epsi\right>}}$-schema for every $\epsi > 0$.]{} For every $\sigma > 1$ there is no online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio less than $5/3$. Assume for contradiction that for some $\sigma > 1$ there exists an online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio $\frac{5}{3}-\epsi$, for some $\epsi > 0$. By the definition of the asymptotic competitive ratio, there is an $\omega_A$ such that for every $\omega \geq \omega_A$ the algorithm colors every $\omega$-colorable set of intervals using at most ${{\left(\frac{5}{3}-\epsi+\frac{\epsi}{3}\right)}}\omega = {{\left(\frac{5}{3}-\frac{2\epsi}{3}\right)}}\omega$ colors. [Observe that, for $n=1$, Corollary \[cor:lower\_53\] gives a ${{\left<\frac{5}{3},1+(\sigma-1),3+(\sigma-1)\right>}}$-schema. ]{}By the definition of schema, there is an $\omega_P$ such that for every $\omega \geq \omega_P$ there is a strategy for Presenter to present an $\omega$-colorable set of intervals, of length in ${{\left[1,\sigma\right]}}$, and force Algorithm to use ${{\left(\frac{5}{3}-\frac{\epsi}{3}\right)}}\omega$ colors. For $\omega=\max(\omega_A,\omega_P)$ we reach a contradiction. The $7/4$ Lower Bound {#sec:lower_74} --------------------- \[lem:lower\_74\] [If there is an ${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema, then there is a ${{\left<2-\frac{1}{2\alpha+2}, 2M+\epsi, 2M+2+\epsi\right>}}$-schema for every $\epsi > 0$.]{} For every $\sigma > 2$ there is no online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio less than $7/4$. [Observe that, for $\sigma > 2$ and $n=1$, Corollary \[cor:lower\_74\] gives a ${{\left<\frac{7}{4},2+(\sigma-2),4+(\sigma-2)\right>}}$-schema. ]{}Then proceed analogously to the proof of Theorem \[thm:53\]. The $5/2$ Lower Bound {#sec:lower_52} --------------------- [To prove our main negative result we need two simple combinatorial lemmas.]{} \[lem:4sets\] Let $\gamma \in {{\left[0,1\right]}}$. For every four sets $X_1,\ldots,X_4$, each of size $k$, if their intersection is small: ${{\left|\bigcap_{i=1}^{4}X_i\right|}} \leq {{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\cdot k$, their sum is large: ${{\left|\bigcup_{i=1}^{4}X_i\right|}} \geq \frac{3+\gamma}{3} \cdot k$. \[lem:4split\] Let $\gamma \in {{\left[0,1\right]}}$, and $X_1,\ldots,X_{4^n}$ be a family of $4^n$ sets, each of size $k$. Then, either $${{\left|\bigcup_{i=1}^{4^n}X_i\right|}} \geq {{\left(\frac{3+\gamma}{3}\right)}}^{n}k\text{,}$$ or the sequence $1,2,\ldots,4^n$ can be covered with four disjoint intervals $[l_1,r_1], \ldots, [l_4,r_4]$, $l_1=1$, $l_{i+1}=r_i+1$, $r_4=4^n$, such that for $Y_i = \bigcup_{j=l_i}^{r_i}X_j$ the intersection of $Y_i$’s is large: $${{\left|Y_1 \cap Y_2 \cap Y_3 \cap Y_4\right|}} \geq (1-\gamma)\cdot k\text{.}$$ \[lem:lower\_52\] If there is an ${{\left<\alpha,\sigma,M\right>}}$-schema, then for every $\epsi > 0$ and for every $\gamma \in {{\left(0,1\right)}}$, there is a ${{\left<\frac{5}{4}+\frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha, 4^{n}M+\epsi, 4^{n}M+\epsi\right>}}$-schema, for some $n := n{{\left(\gamma\right)}}$. Let us fix an $\omega \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$, and let $\omega' = {{\left\lfloor \frac{\omega}{2} \right\rfloor}}$. Let $S$ be an ${{\left<\omega',\alpha\omega' - \delta, \sigma, M\right>}}$-strategy for some $\delta = {o{{\left(\omega'\right)}}}$. Presenter repeats strategy $S$ in the initial phase $4^n$ times. For each $i \in {{\left[4^n\right]}}$ the $i$-th game is played inside interval ${{\left[(i-1)(M+\frac{\epsi}{4^n}), (i-1)(M+\frac{\epsi}{4^n})+M\right]}}$. See Fig. \[fig:lower\_52\_case1\]. Algorithm uses $C=\alpha\omega'-\delta$ colors in each of these games. Let $\mathcal{X}_i$ denote the set of $C$ colors used by Algorithm in the $i$-th game. Let $\mathcal{X}$ denote the set of all colors used in the initial phase, i.e., $\mathcal{X} = \bigcup_{i \in {{\left[4^n\right]}}} \mathcal{X}_i$. We apply Lemma \[lem:4split\] to the family $\mathcal{X}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{X}_{4^n}$ and get that either the union of these sets has at least ${{\left(\frac{3+\gamma}{3}\right)}}^{n} C$ elements, or we get four disjoint consecutive subfamilies $\mathcal{Y}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{Y}_4$ ($\mathcal{Y}_i = \bigcup_{j=l_i}^{r_i}\mathcal{X}_j$) such that the size of the intersection $\mathcal{Y}_1 \cap \mathcal{Y}_2 \cap \mathcal{Y}_3 \cap \mathcal{Y}_4$ has at least $(1-\gamma) \cdot C$ elements. **Case 1:** If the size of the union ${{\left|\mathcal{X}\right|}}$ is at least ${{\left(1+\frac{\gamma}{3}\right)}}^{n} \cdot C$, then Presenter introduces $\omega'$ intervals, all of them having endpoints ${{\left[0,4^{n}M+\epsi\right]}}$. See Fig. \[fig:lower\_52\_case1\]. Each interval introduced in the final phase intersects with all intervals introduced in the initial phase. Thus, Algorithm is forced to use at least ${{\left|\mathcal{X}\right|}} + \omega' \geq \frac{1}{2}{{\left({{\left(1+\frac{\gamma}{3}\right)}}^{n}\alpha+1\right)}}\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}$ colors in total. Easy calculation shows that for $\gamma \in {{\left(0,1\right)}}$, $\alpha \in {{\left[1,3\right]}}$ and for any $ n \geq \log_{1+\frac{\gamma}{3}}{{\left(5/2-\gamma\right)}}\text{,}$ we have $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}{{\left(1+\frac{\gamma}{3}\right)}}^{n}\alpha \geq \frac{5}{4}+\frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha$. [fig\_lower\_52\_case1.tex]{} **Case 2:** The size of the intersection ${{\left|\mathcal{Y}_1 \cap \ldots \cap \mathcal{Y}_4\right|}}$ is at least ${{\left(1-\gamma\right)}} \cdot C$. Let $\mathcal{Y} = \mathcal{Y}_1 \cap \mathcal{Y}_2 \cap \mathcal{Y}_3 \cap \mathcal{Y}_4$ denote the colors that appear in all four parts of the initial phase. Presenter introduces set $Z_1$ of $\omega'$ identical intervals covering all intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_1$ and disjoint with intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_2$. See Fig. \[fig:lower\_52\_case2a\]. Let $\mathcal{Z}_1$ be the set of colors used by Algorithm to color $Z_1$. Then Presenter introduces set $Z_2$ of $\omega'$ identical intervals covering all intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_4$ and disjoint with intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_3$. Let $\mathcal{Z}_2$ be the set of colors used by Algorithm to color $Z_2$. Clearly, ${{\left|\mathcal{Z}_1\right|}} = {{\left|\mathcal{Z}_2\right|}} = \omega'$, and $\mathcal{Z}_1 \cap \mathcal{Y} = \mathcal{Z}_2 \cap \mathcal{Y} = \emptyset$. Now we distinguish two subcases depending on the size of the set $\mathcal{Z}_2 \setminus \mathcal{Z}_1$. [fig\_lower\_52\_case2a.tex]{} **Case 2.1:** If ${{\left|\mathcal{Z}_{2} \setminus \mathcal{Z}_{1}\right|}} \geq \frac{1}{4}\omega$, then Presenter introduces set $W$ of $\omega'$ identical intervals intersecting all the intervals in $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, and covering all the intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_3$. Let $\mathcal{W}$ be the set of colors used by Algorithm to color $W$. By the definition, we have $\mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{Y} = \mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{Z}_1 = \mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{Z}_2 = \emptyset$. Algorithm was forced to use ${{\left|\mathcal{W}\right|}} + {{\left|\mathcal{Z}_1\right|}} + {{\left|\mathcal{Z}_2 \setminus \mathcal{Z}_1\right|}} + {{\left|\mathcal{Y}\right|}} \geq {{\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\right)}}\omega + \frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}} = {{\left(\frac{5}{4} + \frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha\right)}}\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}$ colors in total. See Fig. \[fig:lower\_52\_case2a\]. [fig\_lower\_52\_case2b.tex]{} **Case 2.2:** If ${{\left|\mathcal{Z}_2 \setminus \mathcal{Z}_1\right|}} < \frac{1}{4}\omega$, then let $\mathcal{Z} = \mathcal{Z}_1 \cap \mathcal{Z}_2$ and observe that ${{\left|\mathcal{Z}\right|}} \geq {{\left\lfloor \frac{\omega}{4} \right\rfloor}}$. Presenter introduces set $W_1$ of $\omega'$ identical intervals intersecting all the intervals in $Z_1$, and covering all the intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_2$. Then, presenter introduces set $W_2$ of $\omega'$ identical intervals, intersecting all the intervals in $W_1$ and $Z_2$, and covering all the intervals contributing to $\mathcal{Y}_3$. Let $\mathcal{W}$ be the set of colors used by Algorithm to color intervals in $W_1 \cup W_2$. We have that ${{\left|\mathcal{W}\right|}} = 2\omega'$, and $\mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{Y} = \mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{Z} = \emptyset$. Algorithm was forced to use ${{\left|\mathcal{W}\right|}} + {{\left|\mathcal{Z}\right|}} + {{\left|\mathcal{Y}\right|}} \geq {{\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\right)}}\omega + \frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}} = {{\left(\frac{5}{4} + \frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha\right)}}\omega - {o{{\left(\omega\right)}}}$ colors in total. See Fig. \[fig:lower\_52\_case2b\]. \[cor:lower\_52\] There is an an ${{\left<\alpha_{n}, 4^{n f{{\left(\gamma\right)}}}+\epsi, 4^{n f{{\left(\gamma\right)}}}+\epsi\right>}}$-schema, for every $n \in {{\mathbb{N}}_{+}}$, every $\epsi > 0$, and every $\gamma \in {{\left(0,1\right)}}$, where $$\alpha_{n} = \frac{5}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{1+\gamma} - \frac{{{\left(3-2\gamma\right)}}}{2{{\left(1+\gamma\right)}}}\cdot{{\left(\frac{1-\gamma}{2}\right)}}^{n} \text{,}\quad f{{\left(\gamma\right)}} = {{\left\lceil \frac{ \log{{\left(\frac{5}{2}-\gamma\right)}} }{ \log{{\left(1+\frac{\gamma}{3}\right)}}} \right\rceil}} \text{.}$$ The argument is similar to Corollaries \[cor:lower\_32\], \[cor:lower\_53\], and \[cor:lower\_74\], but now we solve the recurrence equations $\alpha_{0} = 1$, $\alpha_{n+1} = \frac{5}{4} + \frac{1}{2}{{\left(1-\gamma\right)}}\alpha_{n}$ for competitive ratio, and $M_{0} = 1$, $M_{n+1} = 4^{f{{\left(\gamma\right)}}}M_{n}$, $\sigma_{n} = M_{n}$ for region and interval lengths. For every $\epsi > 0$ there is $\sigma \geq 1$ such that there is no online algorithm for $\sigma$-interval coloring with the asymptotic competitive ratio $5/2 - \epsi$. Assume for contradiction that, for some $\epsi > 0$, there are $(5/2 - \epsi)$-competitive algorithms for every $\sigma \geq 1$. Setting $\gamma$ small enough and $n$ large enough, Corollary \[cor:lower\_52\] gives us a ${{\left<\frac{5}{2} - \frac{\epsi}{4}, \sigma, \sigma\right>}}$-schema, for some value of $\sigma$. This means, there is $\omega_P$ such that for every $\omega \geq \omega_P$ there exists an ${{\left<\omega, (\frac{5}{2} - \frac{2\epsi}{4})\omega, \sigma, \sigma \right>}}$-strategy. On the other hand, for the assumed $\sigma$-interval coloring algorithm, there exists $\omega_A$ such that for every $\omega \geq \omega_A$ the algorithm uses at most ${{\left(\frac{5}{2}-\frac{3\epsi}{4}\right)}}\omega$ colors for every $\omega$-colorable set of intervals. For $\omega=\max(\omega_A,\omega_P)$ we reach a contradiction. Open Problems ============= [^1]: Joanna Chybowska-Sokół was partially supported by the National Science Center of Poland under grant no. 2016/23/N/ST1/03181. Grzegorz Gutowski was partially supported by the National Science Center of Poland under grant no. 2016/21/B/ST6/02165. Patryk Mikos was partially supported by the National Science Center of Poland under grant no. 2014/14/A/ST6/00138. Adam Polak was partially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education program *Diamentowy Grant* under grant no. DI2012 018942. [^2]: Knowing the desired target values of $n$ and $\epsilon$, one needs to properly adjust the $\epsilon$ value for each application of Lemma \[lem:lower\_32\], e.g., it is sufficient to set it to $\epsilon/n$.

--- abstract: 'We report an experimental determination of the diamagnetic correction to the $^9$Be$^+$ ground state hyperfine constant $A$. We measured $A$ = $-625\,008\,837.371(11)$ Hz at a magnetic field $B$ of 4.4609 T. Comparison with previous results, obtained at lower values of $B$ (0.68 T and 0.82 T), yields the diamagnetic shift coefficient $k$ = $2.63(18) \times 10^{-11}$ T$^{-2}$, where $A(B)=A_0\times (1+k B^2)$. The zero-field hyperfine constant $A_0$ is determined to be $-625\,008\,837.044(12)$ Hz. The $g$-factor ratio ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ is determined to be $2.134\,779\,852\,7(10) \times 10^{-4}$, which is equal to the value measured at lower $B$ to within experimental error. Upper limits are placed on some other corrections to the Breit-Rabi formula. The measured value of $k$ agrees with theoretical estimates.' author: - 'N. Shiga' - 'W. M. Itano' - 'J. J. Bollinger' bibliography: - 'behfsexpt01.bib' date: 'June 22, 2011' title: 'Diamagnetic correction to the $\bm{^9}$Be$\bm{^+}$ ground-state hyperfine constant' --- [^1] Introduction\[sec:intro\] ========================= Transition frequencies between hyperfine-Zeeman sublevels of ground or metastable electronic states of atoms can in some cases be measured extremely accurately. One example is the ground-state hyperfine transition of $^{133}$Cs, which is currently the basis of the SI second [@terrien68]. Its frequency can be measured with a relative accuracy of better than $5 \times 10^{-16}$ [@parker10]. Because of the accuracy with which the energy separations can be made in the ground states of Cs and other atoms, various small contributions to the energies can be observed and compared with calculations. The relative energies of the sublevels of an atom with electronic angular momentum $\textbf{J}$ and nuclear spin $\textbf{I}$, in a fixed magnetic field $\textbf{B}$, are, to a good approximation, determined by the effective Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned} H &=& hA\textbf{I}\cdot\textbf{J} - \bm{\mu}_I\cdot \textbf{B} - \bm{\mu}_J\cdot \textbf{B}\nonumber \\ & = & hA\textbf{I}\cdot\textbf{J} + {g_I}^\prime\mu_B\textbf{I}\cdot \textbf{B} + g_J\mu_B\textbf{J}\cdot \textbf{B}.\label{eq:BRHamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ On the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:BRHamiltonian\]), the first term is the magnetic dipole hyperfine interaction, the second is the nuclear Zeeman interaction, and the third is the electronic Zeeman interaction. Here, $h$ is the Planck constant, $A$ is the magnetic dipole hyperfine constant, and $\bm{\mu}_I$ and $\bm{\mu}_J$ are the nuclear and electronic magnetic moment operators, respectively. The $g$-factors are defined by $g_J=-\mu_J/(J\mu_B)$ and ${g_I}^\prime = -\mu_I/(I\mu_B)$, where $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. The prime in ${g_I}^\prime$ is to distinguish it from the alternative definition $g_I = \mu_I/(I\mu_N)$, where $\mu_N$ is the nuclear magneton. For $I \ge 1$ and $J \ge 1$, other terms, such as the electric quadrupole hyperfine interaction, should also be included on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:BRHamiltonian\]). For $J=\frac{1}{2}$, the eigenvalues of $H$ are given analytically by the solutions of quadratic equations. The expression for the energy eigenvalues is known as the Breit-Rabi formula [@breit31; @ramn56]. (In its original form, the Breit-Rabi formula did not include the nuclear Zeeman interaction, since it was considered to be negligible [@breit31].) The Breit-Rabi formula for the energies of the ($F$, $m_F$) sublevels in a state with $J=\frac{1}{2}$ and $I \ge \frac{1}{2}$ is $$\begin{aligned} E(F,m_F)& = &h A \left(-\frac{1}{4}+ \frac{{g_I}^\prime m_F \mu_B B}{hA} \pm \frac{2I+1}{4}\sqrt{1 + \frac{4 m_F}{2I+1}X + X^2} \right)\nonumber\\ & = &h A \left(-\frac{1}{4}+ \frac{2\gamma}{1-\gamma} m_F X \pm\frac{2I+1}{4}\sqrt{1 + \frac{4 m_F}{2I+1}X + X^2} \right). \label{eq:BreitRabi}\end{aligned}$$ For the special case $F=I+\frac{1}{2}$, $m_F=\pm (I+\frac{1}{2})$, $$E(F,m_F) = hA\left[ \frac{I}{2} \pm \left(\frac{g_J}{2} + I{g_I}^\prime\right)\frac{\mu_B B}{hA}\right] = hA\left[ \frac{I}{2} \pm \frac{(1 + 2I\gamma)}{(1-\gamma)}X\right]. \label{eq:BreitRabiStretch}$$ Here, $\textbf{F}=\textbf{J}+\textbf{I}$, and $m_F$ is the eigenvalue of $F_z$. At finite $B$, the energy eigenstates are not eigenstates of $\textbf{F}^2$, except for the $F=I+\frac{1}{2}$, $m_F=\pm (I+\frac{1}{2})$ states. Nonetheless, we label them by the value of $F$ that is valid at $B = 0$. Here $X \equiv \mu_B B(g_J-{g_I}^\prime)/[(I+1/2)hA]$ is a dimensionless quantity proportional to $B$, and $\gamma$ $\equiv$ ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ is the $g$-factor ratio. The $\pm$ sign in Eq. (\[eq:BreitRabi\]) corresponds to the states labeled by $F=I\pm \frac{1}{2}$. For the $1s^2 2s\, ^2S_{1/2}$ ground electronic state of $^9$Be$^+$, which was the subject of this study, $I=\frac{3}{2}$. The value of $g_J$ for the ground electronic state of $^9$Be$^+$ has been determined by measuring the $^9$Be$^+$ cyclotron frequency and a hyperfine-Zeeman transition frequency at the same magnetic field [@wineland83]. The value is $g_J = 2.002\,262\,39(31)$, calculated with the use of the best current value of the proton-electron mass ratio [@mohr08]. For $^9$Be$^+$, $X \approx -22.414 B(\text{T})$. There are several ways in which the experimental energy separations can deviate from those predicted by the Breit-Rabi formula. For $I>\frac{1}{2}$, it is possible that, at a fixed value of $B$, no values of the parameters [$A$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, $X$]{} can be found that are consistent with all of the measured energy separations. It is also possible that the values of the parameters determined at one value of $B$ are not consistent with those determined at another value. There are several possible sources of deviations from the Breit-Rabi formula. If there is another electronic energy level that is close in energy, hyperfine or Zeeman interactions can mix the electronic states. For the ground state of an alkali atom or an alkali-like ion, there are no nearby electronic states, so such effects are small. More important are diamagnetic contributions to the interaction between the atom and the magnetic field that are neglected in the effective Hamiltonian given by Eq. (\[eq:BRHamiltonian\]). Diamagnetic corrections to the Breit-Rabi formula were first considered by Bender [@bender64]. He calculated the size of the deviation in the ground state of $^{133}$Cs to be equivalent to a fractional shift in $A$ of $\delta A/A$ = $3.9 \times 10^{-10}$ $B^2$, where $B$ is expressed in teslas. This effect, called the dipole diamagnetic shift in atomic hyperfine structure, is due mainly to a magnetic-field-induced change in the electronic spin density at the nucleus. Measurements of magnetic-field-dependent deviations from the Breit-Rabi formula in the ground state of Rb were made by Larson and coworkers [@economou77; @lipson86; @fletcher87]. The dipole diamagnetic shift was observed experimentally in the hyperfine structure of $^{85}$Rb [@economou77] and later in $^{87}$Rb [@lipson86]. A quadrupole diamagnetic shift was observed in $^{85}$Rb and $^{87}$Rb [@lipson86]. In contrast to the dipole shift, the quadrupole shift can be thought of as a magnetically induced electric quadrupole hyperfine interaction, which would be absent in a pure $J=\frac{1}{2}$ state. The diamagnetic potential, which contains a rank-2 spherical tensor part, breaks the spherical symmetry, so that the electronic state is no longer an exact eigenvalue of $\textbf{J}^2$. The signature of the quadrupole diamagnetic term is an energy shift proportional to $[I(I+1)-3m_I^2]QB^2/[I(2I-1)]$, where $Q$ is the nuclear quadrupole moment. In Rb, the quadrupole shift is smaller than the dipole shift by about three orders of magnitude. Another magnetic-field-dependent energy term was observed in $^{85}$Rb and $^{87}$Rb [@fletcher87]. The term was explained by Fortson [@fortson87] and is called the hyperfine-assisted Zeeman shift [@harris88]. The shift of a level is proportional to $[{m_I}^2 m_J-I(I+1)m_J+m_I/2 ]{({g_I}^\prime})^2B$ and is due to mixing of higher electronic states with reversed electronic spin into the ground electronic state by the magnetic dipole hyperfine interaction. The ground-state hyperfine constant of $^9$Be$^+$, $A$, was measured with a fractional uncertainty of $2.4 \times 10^{-6}$ by Vetter [*et al.*]{} by rf-optical double resonance [@vetter76]. The fractional uncertainty of $A$ was decreased to $1.6 \times 10^{-11}$ by Wineland [*et al.*]{}, in measurements made with laser-cooled ions in a Penning trap [@wineland83]. The low uncertainty was due mainly to the use of transitions for which the first derivative of the frequency with respect to $B$ is zero. Nakamura [*et al.*]{} measured $A$ with a fractional uncertainty of $1.2 \times 10^{-9}$ in laser-cooled ions in a linear rf trap, at $B$ = 0.47 T [@nakamura02]. Their value of $A$ differed from that of Ref. [@wineland83] by about two standard deviations. Okada et al. [@okada08] have measured $A$ for $^7$Be$^+$ in a linear rf trap. Based on theoretical considerations and the experimental results for Rb, the ground-state hyperfine constant of $^9$Be$^+$, $A$, is assumed to have a weak quadratic dependence on $B$ such that $A(B) = A_0\times (1 +kB^2)$. Transition frequencies measured at different values of $B$ are used to determine the diamagnetic shift coefficient $k$. The present experiment, on the measurement of the hyperfine-Zeeman transition frequencies in the ground electronic state of $^9$Be$^+$ in a high magnetic field ($B$ = 4.4609 T), is described in Sec. \[sec:highfield\]. In Sec. \[sec:diamagnetic\], the high-field results are combined with the previous, lower-magnetic-field measurements to obtain a value for $k$. A theoretical estimate of $k$ is given in Sec. \[sec:theory\]. \[sec:highfield\]High-Field Experiment ====================================== \[subsec:energylevels\]Atomic energy levels and transitions ----------------------------------------------------------- There are three unknown variables ($A$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, and $X$) in Eq. (\[eq:BreitRabi\]), and the measurement of three transition frequencies in the ground state at a fixed value of $B$ will determine these three variables. We experimentally determined the value of $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ at $B$ $\approx$ 4.4609 T by measuring the three transition frequencies labeled $f_{\text e}$, $f_1$, and $f_2$ in Fig. \[fig:EnergyLevelSP\]. While three frequencies are enough to determine $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, we also measured a fourth frequency $f_3$, to check for consistency. The typical period required for a complete set of frequency measurements needed to determine $A$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, and $X$ was 30 to 40 minutes. ![Energy level structure of $^9$Be$^+$ at $B \approx$ 4.4609 T. $f_\text{e}\approx 124$ GHz, $f_1\approx 340$ MHz, $f_2\approx 288$ MHz, and $f_3\approx 287$ MHz. The frequency tuning of the repump laser is shown for fast repumping of the electron spin-flip transition. For the nuclear spin-flip measurements the repump laser was tuned approximately 500 MHz lower than the cooling transition.[]{data-label="fig:EnergyLevelSP"}](energylevelsp-new.eps){width="8.2cm"} We trapped fewer than or approximately 10$^3$ ions in a Penning-Malmberg trap and cooled them to approximately 1 mK by Doppler laser cooling. The cooling laser also optically pumped the ions into the ($m_I$, $m_J$)=($\frac{3}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2}$) state, labeled as the initial state $|i\rangle$ in Fig. \[fig:EnergyLevelSP\]. \[Here the states are labeled by the ($m_I$, $m_J$) quantum numbers of their largest components.\] The basic experimental procedure for measuring the different transition frequencies was to (1) turn off the cooling laser, (2) probe the desired transition with the appropriate rf or microwave radiation, (3) measure the population of the ions remaining in $|i\rangle$ with the fluorescence induced by the cooling laser, (4) repump all ions to $|i\rangle$ with the cooling laser and an additional repumping laser. We used the same ions repetitively to measure all transition frequencies. We first discuss the basic experimental setup and the 124 GHz microwave system. We then discuss in more detail the measurements of the different transition frequencies and the determination of $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ at high magnetic field. \[subsec:setup\]Experimental setup ---------------------------------- ### \[subsubsec:trap\]Penning trap ![Schematic diagram of setup. Figure is not to scale. The trap diameter is 4 cm. The electrodes used to apply the rotating wall field are not shown. The direction of the side-view light collection and the direction of the perpendicular cooling beam form a $60^\circ$ angle in a plane perpendicular to the magnetic field axis. A side-view image of a plasma with approximately 500 ions is shown. The diameter of the fluorescing Be$^+$ ion plasma is 400 $\mu$m. Heavier-mass impurity ions are located at larger radii than the $^9$Be$^+$ ions [@jenm04].[]{data-label="fig:PenningTrap"}](penningtrap-new.eps){width="8.2cm"} Figure \[fig:PenningTrap\] shows a sketch of the Penning trap used for the high-$B$ measurements. The trap and the basic experimental setup have been described previously [@huap98b; @jenm04; @biercuk09A]. The 4.4609 T magnetic field of a superconducting solenoid with a 125 mm room-temperature bore produces a $^9$Be$^+$ cyclotron frequency of $\Omega_{c}=2\pi \times 7.602$ MHz. The long-term drift of the magnetic field was less than one part in $10^9$ per hour, resulting in an average drift of $f_\text{e}$ of less than 3 kHz per hour. Magnetic field shifts due to changes in the magnetic environment (due, for example, to movement of Dewars or to other activity in neighboring laboratories) were reduced by collecting data during the night. We did not stabilize the pressure in the magnet Dewar or actively cancel external magnetic field noise, which likely would have improved the long-term magnetic field stability [@vanr99]. The field of the superconducting magnet was found to have fluctuations which were fast compared to 20 Hz, superimposed on the slow magnetic field drift and noise. The frequency spectrum of the fast fluctuations contained a continuous part and narrow peaks between 30 and 300 Hz [@biercuk09A]. The integrated noise of the fast fluctuations produced $\delta B/B \approx 10^{-9}$ variation in the magnetic field for measurements separated by greater than 0.1 s. The fast fluctuations contributed to the linewidth and coherence of the electron spin-flip measurement, but had no significant impact on the nuclear spin-flip measurements ($f_1$, $f_2$, and $f_3$). (The fast fluctuations only produce a phase modulation of a few milliradians on the nuclear spin-flip transitions.) Recent work, which will be discussed in a separate publication, indicates that the fast fluctuations are fluctuations in the homogeneous field produced by the superconducting magnet, which can be mitigated through vibration isolation of the magnet. The Penning trap electrode structure consists of a stack of four cylindrical electrodes. The inner diameters of the cylinders are 4.1 cm and the combined length of the four cylinders is 12.7 cm. We typically operated the trap with the central cylindrical electrodes (the “ring” electrodes) biased at $-500$ V and the outer cylindrical electrodes (the “endcap” electrodes) grounded, which resulted in $^9$Be$^+$ single-particle axial and magnetron frequencies of, respectively, $\omega_{z} = 2\pi \times 565$ kHz and $\omega_{m} = 2\pi \times 21.1$ kHz. Due to the crossed electric and magnetic fields in a Penning trap, an ion plasma undergoes a rotation about the magnetic field axis. In thermal equilibrium this rotation is rigid [@dubd99], and we use $\omega_{r}$ to denote the plasma rotation frequency. The rotation frequency $\omega_r$ of the $^9$Be$^+$ plasma was precisely controlled with a rotating electric field (a rotating wall) [@huap98b; @mitt01]. A rotation frequency $\omega_{r}$ of 2$\pi \times$ 30 kHz or less was used, which produced planar plasmas (oblate spheroids) like that shown in Fig. \[fig:PenningTrap\] with ion densities of approximately 8 $\times$ 10$^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$. The measurements presented here were obtained on small ion plasmas of fewer than 10$^3$ $^9$Be$^+$ ions. The small axial extent of the plasmas (typically less than 50 $\mu$m) reduced the effect of axial gradients in the magnetic field. Axial magnetic field gradients were shimmed to be less than two parts in 10$^{8}$ per mm, which resulted in an axial magnetic field inhomogeneity of less than one part in 10$^{9}$ over a 50 $\mu$m axial extent. We found no evidence for any inhomogeneous broadening of the different resonance curves discussed in Secs. \[subsec:espin\] and \[subsec:nucspin\]. ### \[subsubsec:lasers\]Laser cooling, state preparation, and detection Doppler laser-cooling was carried out on the 313 nm $^2S_{1/2}\ (m_I = \frac{3}{2},m_J = \frac{1}{2})$ $\rightarrow$ $^2P_{3/2}\ (m_I = \frac{3}{2},m_J = \frac{3}{2})$ transition (see Fig. \[fig:EnergyLevelSP\]). The 313 nm light was generated by frequency-doubling the output of a dye laser at 626 nm. The axial and perpendicular cooling beams cooled the motion parallel and perpendicular, respectively, to the magnetic-field axis [@jenm04; @jenm05]. The axial cooling beam had a 1 mm waist diameter, a power of approximately 1 mW, and a polarization that was either linear or circular ($\sigma^+$). The axial cooling beam was aligned with the magnetic field axis to better than 0.01$^\circ$. The perpendicular cooling beam was linearly polarized in a direction perpendicular to $\textbf{B}$, focused to a waist diameter of approximately 50 $\mu$m, and had a power of approximately 1 $\mu$W. A double-pass acousto-optic modulator was used to rapidly switch the cooling beams off (in less than 1 $\mu$s) before applying rf or microwave radiation to drive the desired ground-state transitions. The cooling beams were switched back on after the rf or microwave radiation was switched off. The population of the $^2S_{1/2}\ (m_I = \frac{3}{2},m_J = \frac{1}{2})$ state (the initial state $|i\rangle$ in Fig. \[fig:EnergyLevelSP\]) was measured through the cooling-laser-induced resonance fluorescence. An $f/5$ imaging system was used to image the $^9$Be$^+$ ion fluorescence onto the photocathode of a photon-counting imaging tube (quantum efficiency was approximately 5 %). The total imaging tube count rate was proportional to the $|i\rangle$ state population. The total photon count rate was recorded for 0.5 s both before and after applying the rf or microwave radiation. The ratio of these two count rates (with small corrections for repumping effects) measured the fraction of the ions remaining in the $|i\rangle$ state. The cooling radiation optically pumped more than 94 % of the ions into the $^2S_{1/2}\ (\frac{3}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ state, i.e., the lower level of the cooling transition [@brel88; @itaw81]. This was a non-resonant optically pumping process with a time constant of approximately 5 s for the cooling laser parameters in this experiment. The repumping time on the electron spin-flip transition ($f_\text{e}$) was reduced to less than 1 ms by a second frequency-doubled dye laser (labeled the repump laser in Fig. \[fig:EnergyLevelSP\]). The repump laser was turned on after the second 0.5 s detection period (the detection period after the applied rf or microwave radiation). The $f_1$, $f_2$, and $f_3$ transitions involve a change in the $^9$Be$^+$ nuclear spin orientation. For example, in $f_2$ the nuclear spin changes from $m_I = \frac{3}{2}$ to $m_I = \frac{1}{2}$. Optical repumping back to $|i\rangle$ occurred through the $^2S_{1/2}\ (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ $\rightarrow$ $^2P_{3/2}\ (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{3}{2})$ transition and the small admixture of different ($m_I$, $m_J$) states in the $2p\, ^2P_{3/2}$ manifold [@itaw81]. We reduced this repumping time somewhat by tuning the repump laser frequency between 400 MHz and 600 MHz below that of the cooling transition. This had the added benefit of maintaining a cold-ion plasma when most of the ions are driven to the $(m_I = \frac{1}{2}, m_J = \frac{1}{2})$ state. Presumably this was because the frequency of the repump laser was now below that of the $^2S_{1/2}\ (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ $\rightarrow$ $^2P_{3/2}\ (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{3}{2})$ transition. A similar improvement in the repumping and plasma stability was also observed for the $f_1$ and $f_3$ transitions with a “far-detuned” laser tuned 400 MHz to 600 MHz below the cooling transition. The repump or far-detuned beam was directed along the magnetic field axis of the trap, as shown in Fig. \[fig:PenningTrap\]. The beam waist diameter was approximately 0.5 mm; the power was a few milliwatts. ### \[subsubsec:microwave\]Microwave apparatus A sketch of the 124 GHz microwave system used to measure $f_{\text{e}}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:MicroSource\]. Reference [@biercuk09A] further discusses the microwave system and its use in quantum information experiments. A Gunn diode oscillator generated 30 mW of microwave power, and its frequency was coarsely set to approximately 124 GHz by a manually tuned microwave cavity. The microwave radiation was transmitted through WR-8 wave guides and launched to free space through a pyramidal rectangular microwave horn. A small fraction of the microwave power ($-10$ dB) was mixed with the 8th harmonic of a 15.5 GHz dielectric resonator oscillator (DRO). The intermediate frequency (IF) signal from the harmonic mixer was sent to a phase-locked loop (PLL) controller and phase-locked to a 76 MHz reference frequency generated by direct digital synthesis (DDS). The microwave frequency and phase were controlled by changing the frequency and phase of the DDS signal. The DDS was controlled by computer through a parallel interface. All of the frequency synthesizers used in the experiment were referenced to the same passive hydrogen maser, including the DRO and the DDS. The frequency of the passive hydrogen maser was calibrated relative to that of the NIST atomic time scale. ![Schematic diagram of the 124 GHz microwave source. A Gunn diode oscillator generates 30 mW of microwave power that was transmitted through WR-8 wave guide (shown in gray) and emitted to free space via a pyramidal microwave horn. The frequency of the Gunn diode oscillator was phase-locked to a signal derived from a hydrogen-maser frequency standard.[]{data-label="fig:MicroSource"}](microsource-new.eps){width="8.6cm"} The microwave radiation emitted from the horn was rapidly switched on and off with a reflective PIN diode switch. The ratio of the high and low power states was $26.5 \pm 0.9$ dB. Switching between the high- and low-power states could cause the PLL to lose phase-lock because of the change in the reflected signal. To avoid losing phase-lock, we added a phase shifter between the Gunn diode oscillator and the PIN diode switch. (The large fringing field of the magnet made use of an isolator impractical.) The phase shifter required careful adjustment to achieve a condition where the Gunn diode oscillator would not lose lock when the microwave power was switched. ![Schematic diagram of the quasi-optical coupling of 124 GHz microwave radiation to the ions. Figures are not to scale. (a) Side view. (b) Top view. The inner diameter of the super-conducting magnet was 12.5 cm, the distance from the horn to the lens was 29 cm, and from the lens to the ions is 28 cm. The horn was shifted off-axis in order to avoid hitting the horn with the axial laser beams. The lens was also shifted about half this amount to focus on the ions. The lens diameter was 10.2 cm. It had a cut on the side to make a room for the $f/5$ optics used for the side-view camera. Electron spin-flip $\pi$-pulse periods of 100 $\mu$s were obtained with this setup. The position of the rf antenna is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:QuasiOptical"}](quasioptical-new.eps){width="8cm"} We used quasi-optical techniques (with a horn and Teflon[^2] lens) to couple the microwave radiation to the ions, as schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:QuasiOptical\]. The pyramidal horn coupled mainly to the Gaussian TEM00 mode with an initial waist diameter of approximately 0.7 cm. The waist diameter $w$ is defined by ${P(r)}/{P(0)} = e^{-2(r/w)^2}$, where $P(r)$ is the power per unit area at a radius $r$. The waist diameter of the Gaussian beam increases as it propagates. The beam was focused to a waist of about 0.7 cm at the ions by the hyperbolic surfaces of the lens [@golp98], which was 29 cm below the horn and 28 cm above the ions. The lens had a cut near the side for the $f/5$ side-view optics and a 4.8 mm diameter hole near center to pass laser beams (see Fig. \[fig:QuasiOptical\]). The horn was shifted off axis to avoid the laser beams, and the lens was shifted accordingly to center the microwave focus on the ions. The microwave system was on an $x$-$y$ mechanical stage, and the position of the horn was adjusted to maximize the coupling of the microwave radiation with the ions. Electron spin-flip $\pi$-pulse periods as short as 100 $\mu$s were obtained with this microwave system. $\pi$-pulse fidelities of better than 99.9 % were measured with random benchmarking on plasmas consisting of a single plane [@biercuk09A]. The Ramsey free-induction decay (that is, the free-precession period in a Ramsey experiment where the fringe contrast has decayed by 1/$e$) was measured to be $T_2 \approx 2.4$ ms, limited by the fast magnetic field fluctuations. \[subsec:espin\]Electron spin-flip measurement ---------------------------------------------- Figure \[fig:ElectronRabi\] shows an electron spin-flip resonance obtained with a 600 $\mu$s square Rabi pulse. The data were fitted to the expected Rabi resonance curve [@ramn56], $$P_i=1-\frac{(2b)^2}{(f_\text{e}-f)^2+(2b)^2} \sin\left( \pi t \sqrt{(f\text{e}-f)^2+(2b)^2} \right). \label{eq:RabiSpectrum}$$ Here $P_i$ is the probability of an ion to be in state $|i\rangle$, $b\equiv\Omega/2\pi$, where $\Omega$ is the Rabi frequency, $t=600~\mu$s is the microwave pulse duration, $f$ is the microwave frequency, and $f_\text{e}$ is the electron spin-flip resonance frequency. From the fit to the data in Fig. \[fig:ElectronRabi\], we determine a value for the electron spin-flip frequency $f_\text{e} = 124~076~860~036~\pm 15$ Hz. The uncertainty obtained from the fit we define to be the internal error, and for electron spin-flip resonance curves taken under conditions similar to that shown in Fig. \[fig:ElectronRabi\], the internal error was typically less than 20 Hz. Because $f_\text{e}$ is roughly proportional to $B$, 20 Hz corresponds to a 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ fractional measurement of $B$, a reduction by about a factor of five, due to averaging, from the shot-to-shot variation in $B$. ![Electron spin-flip Rabi resonance. The microwave power is adjusted to produce a $\pi$-pulse on resonance in 600 $\mu$s. The solid line is a fit to the expected Rabi resonance, as discussed in the text. All experimental measurements were equally weighted in the fit.[]{data-label="fig:ElectronRabi"}](electronrabi-new.eps){width="8.4cm"} The resonance curve in Fig. \[fig:ElectronRabi\] took a few minutes to obtain. If we took many resonance curves over a longer period, the scatter in the fitted values for $f_\text{e}$ was larger than the internal error of an individual fit, due to slow drift and fluctuations in $B$. We define the external error to be the standard deviation of $f_\text{e}$, determined from many separate scans. The typical external error for data taken over a 30-minute period was greater than 40 Hz. We found the external error to be smallest between 10 PM and midnight local time. Since the measurement of $f_\text{e}$ was limited by the stability of $B$, reducing the internal error by narrowing the line width with longer Rabi pulses would not have benefited us. To determine the hyperfine constant $A$, we cycled between measurements of $f_\text{e}$ and measurements of the nuclear spin-flip frequencies discussed in the next section. To minimize the effect of drift and slow fluctuations in $B$, it was important to complete one cycle of measurements as rapidly as conveniently possible. We found that we could complete a cycle of measurements more rapidly if we did not change the frequency of the repump laser to the repumping transition (see Fig. \[fig:EnergyLevelSP\]) for the $f_\text{e}$ measurements. Therefore, we set the frequency of the repump laser to the far-detuned position (400 MHz to 600 MHz lower than the cooling transition) for all measurements of $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, $f_2$, and $f_3$. \[subsec:nucspin\]Nuclear spin-flip measurements ------------------------------------------------ The rf radiation used to drive the nuclear spin-flip transitions was generated by mixing the output of an 80 MHz synthesizer having 1 mHz resolution with a higher-frequency synthesizer that had lower frequency resolution. For measurements of $f_2$ and $f_3$ (approximately 290 MHz), the higher-frequency synthesizer was set to 220 MHz. For measurements of $f_1$ (approximately 340 MHz) the higher-frequency synthesizer was set to 280 MHz. Switching of the rf was done with a switch having approximately 90 dB isolation. The rf radiation was coupled to the ions through a two-turn rf loop antenna, placed near ions, outside the vacuum envelope (see Fig. \[fig:QuasiOptical\]). ![$f_2$ resonance obtained with a 4 s Ramsey free-precession period. The rf power was adjusted to apply a $\pi$/2-pulse in 0.5 s.[]{data-label="fig:F2Ramsey"}](f2ramsey-new.eps){width="8cm"} Figure \[fig:F2Ramsey\] shows an $f_2$ resonance curve obtained with the Ramsey method. The rf power was adjusted to achieve a $\pi/2$ pulse in 0.5 sec. The two $\pi/2$ pulses were separated by 4 s. After the Ramsey sequence, both the cooling laser and the far-detuned laser were turned on simultaneously. The power of the far-detuned beam was adjusted so that the dark state repumped with a 1/$e$ time constant of approximately 2 s. To avoid any significant ac Zeeman shifts due to the finite isolation (26 dB) of the microwave switch, the microwave frequency was detuned from resonance with $f_\text{e}$ by 1 MHz during the $f_2$ measurement. Fitting the data of Fig. \[fig:F2Ramsey\] to a sinusoidal curve gives $f_2$ = 288 172 932.435 3(7) Hz. The typical external error from measurements taken over a 30 to 40 minute measurement cycle was approximately 5 mHz. A 5 mHz external error with the 6.5 kHz/mT sensitivity of this transition implies a fractional magnetic field stability of 2 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ over a typical 30 to 40 minute period, which is comparable to what was observed on the electron spin-flip transition. ![An $f_1$ resonance obtained with a 4 s Ramsey free-precession period. The rf power was adjusted to apply a $\pi$/2-pulse in 0.5 s. The microwave frequency was shifted by $\pm$100 kHz during Ramsey sequence. []{data-label="fig:F1Ramsey"}](f1ramsey-new.eps){width="8.4cm"} Figure \[fig:F1Ramsey\] shows an $f_1$ resonance curve obtained with the Ramsey method. We first transferred the population in $|i\rangle$ to the ($m_I=\frac{3}{2}, m_J=-\frac{1}{2}$) state with a 600 $\mu$s $\pi$-pulse. This was followed by the Ramsey interrogation, as shown in Fig. \[fig:F1Ramsey\]. We then used a second 600 $\mu$s microwave $\pi$-pulse to transfer any ions remaining in the ($m_I=\frac{3}{2}, m_J=-\frac{1}{2}$) state to $|i\rangle$. The ion population in $|i\rangle$ was then detected by the laser-induced fluorescence. We shifted the microwave frequency by $\pm$100 kHz from resonance during the Ramsey interrogation of $f_1$. This prevented driving the $f_\text{e}$ transition with microwave radiation that leaked through the microwave switch. The DDS frequency could be switched by as much as 100 kHz, and we could still keep the Gunn diode oscillator phase-locked. A 100 kHz offset produced a 2 mHz ac Zeeman shift due to the microwave leakage through the switch. A measurement of $f_1$ consisted of taking two scans with alternate signs of the microwave detuning. The $f_1$ transition frequency was determined by fitting the average of the two scans. A fit to the data in Fig. \[fig:F1Ramsey\] provides $f_1$ = 339 961 281.917 0(8) Hz. The external error from measurements taken over a 30 to 40 minute period was typically 5 mHz, about the same as for the $f_2$ measurements. ![An $f_3$ resonance obtained with the Ramsey method. The power of the rf was adjusted to apply a $\pi$/2-pulse in 0.5 second.[]{data-label="fig:F3Ramsey"}](f3ramsey-new.eps){width="8.4cm"} Figure \[fig:F3Ramsey\] shows an $f_3$ resonance curve obtained with a 4 s Ramsey free-precession period. The pulse sequence was very similar to the one for $f_1$. The microwave $\pi$-pulse in the $f_1$ measurement was replaced with a 0.5 s rf $\pi$-pulse to transfer the population from $|i\rangle$ to the $(m_I=\frac{1}{2}, m_J=\frac{1}{2})$ state. Then the rf frequency and amplitude were changed, and we applied a Ramsey sequence with a 4 s free-precession period. The frequency of the microwave radiation was detuned from resonance by 1 MHz during the $f_3$ measurement. A fit to the data in Fig. \[fig:F3Ramsey\] gives $f_3$ = 286 586 654.158 5(14) Hz. The length of the Ramsey free-precession periods in the nuclear spin-flip measurements (4 s) was limited by the heating, presumably due to collisions with residual gas molecules, that occurred when the cooling laser was turned off [@jenm04]. For free precession periods longer than 4 s, the ion fluorescence decreased, due to the increase in the Doppler width of the cooling transition. This added noise and complicated the signal analysis. Longer free-precession periods (20 s to 100 s) have been used with sympathetic cooling in previous low-$B$ measurements [@bolj89; @bolj91]. The nuclear spin-flip measurements at 4.4609 T were limited by magnetic-field instabilities, so there was no compelling reason to use longer free-precession periods. \[subsec:results\]Experimental results -------------------------------------- To determine the hyperfine constant $A$, resonance curves such as those shown in Figs. \[fig:ElectronRabi\]–\[fig:F1Ramsey\] were taken in succession, as shown in Fig. \[fig:meascycle\], and fits to the resonance curves were used to determine $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, and $f_2$. A typical measurement cycle consisted of an $f_\text{e}$ measurement, followed by an $f_1$ measurement, followed by another $f_\text{e}$ measurement, followed by an $f_2$ measurement, followed by a final $f_\text{e}$ measurement. One measurement cycle took 30 to 40 minutes to complete. The average of the three $f_\text{e}$ measurements in one cycle was use to determine $f_\text{e}$. The uncertainty in $f_\text{e}$ was taken to be the external error from the scatter in the three measurements, which was typically about 40 Hz. The uncertainties assigned to $f_1$ and $f_2$ were the external errors from the scatter in the $f_1$ and $f_2$ measurements from consecutive measurement cycles, which was typically about 5 mHz. ![ (Color online) Summary of measurements taken during a 4 hour run at night. The measured electron and nuclear spin-flip frequencies (relative to fixed frequencies $f_{{\text e}0} = 124\,076\,861\,270$ Hz, $f_{10} = 339\,961\,281.922$ Hz, $f_{20} = 288\,172\,932.440$ Hz, and $f_{30} = 286\,586\,654.160$ Hz) are plotted against the time the measurement was made. The measurements are grouped into cycles, labeled 1–6 on the graph. Each cycle was used to determine a value of $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$. The error bars are the internal errors obtained from the fits to the resonance curves. Due to magnetic field drift, $f_{\text e}$ drifted down by about 100 Hz during this run. This is consistent with the drifts observed with $f_{1}$ and $f_{2}$, where $f_1$ decreases and $f_{2}$ increases with decreasing magnetic field. []{data-label="fig:meascycle"}](meascycle04.eps){width="8.6cm"} All known systematic errors in the nuclear spin-flip resonance frequency measurements, other than those due to the magnetic field instability, were less than 1 mHz. The largest systematic error is due to microwave radiation leaking through the microwave switch. As discussed in Sec. \[subsec:nucspin\], this produced a 2 mHz shift in the $f_1$ resonance curve. However, by taking data with the microwave frequency shifted off resonance by both $+100$ kHz and $-100$ kHz, this shift could effectively be canceled. During a 4 s nuclear spin-flip measurement, the ion temperature increased due to collisions with the room temperature residual background gas. Previous studies indicated that the temperature increase over a 4 s period is limited to a few kelvins [@jenm04; @jenm05]. However even a 10 K temperature would produce only an approximately $-0.1$ mHz time-dilation shift in the measured $^9$Be$^+$ nuclear spin-flip frequency. We performed some simple checks for unknown systematic errors by varying the length of the Rabi pulse in the $f_\text{e}$ measurement and the length of the free-precession period in the nuclear spin-flip measurements. In addition, we took some $f_1$ and $f_2$ measurements with an 8 s Rabi pulse. No systematic dependencies were observed at the level permitted by the magnetic field stability. For each measurement cycle, the Breit-Rabi formula \[Eq. (\[eq:BreitRabi\])\] was used to solve for values of $A$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, and $X$. The uncertainties in these values were determined by using the Breit-Rabi formula to solve again for $A$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, and $X$, but with $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, and $f_2$ set to the limits of their uncertainties. We conservatively assigned the largest uncertainty that could be obtained from the different combinations of limits. For example, if $\delta f_\text{e}$, $\delta f_1$, and $\delta f_2$ are the uncertainties in $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, and $f_2$, solving the Breit-Rabi formula with the frequency values $f_\text{e}+\delta f_\text{e}$, $f_1+\delta f_1$, and $f_2+\delta f_2$ gives the largest uncertainty for $A$, while solving the Breit-Rabi formula with the frequency values $f_\text{e}+\delta f_\text{e}$, $f_1-\delta f_1$, and $f_2+\delta f_2$ gives the largest uncertainty for ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$. ![Summary of the measurements of the high-field hyperfine constant $A$. Each of the four runs is a series of determinations of $A$ made on the same date. Each $A$ value is determined from the Breit-Rabi formula and one cycle of $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, and $f_2$ measurements. The assignment of uncertainties is described in the text.[]{data-label="fig:Avalues"}](avalue-new.eps){width="8.6cm"} Figure \[fig:Avalues\] summarizes the measurements of $A$ at high magnetic field. Four different sets of data were taken on four different dates over a period of two months. Each set of data consisted of at least two and as many as six measurement cycles. The consistency of the data is good. The standard deviation from the scatter of the 15 different measurements of $A$ is 7 mHz, which is slightly less than the average 11 mHz uncertainty of an individual measurement. For the determination of $A$ we use a weighted average of the data shown in Fig. \[fig:Avalues\] and conservatively assign an 11 mHz uncertainty, the average uncertainty for a single measurement cycle. An 11 mHz uncertainty corresponds to about a $3\times 10^{-10}$ fractional magnetic field instability, about a factor of three below the shot-to-shot fluctuations in the magnetic field. We believe that an assignment of a smaller uncertainty would require a careful study of the statistics of the magnetic field fluctuations. The result is $$A(4.4609~\text{T}) = -625\,008\,837.371(11)~\text{Hz}. \label{eq:highB_Avalue}$$ Although $A$ was the main focus of this study, a value of the $g$-factor ratio is also obtained from the same analysis: $${g_I}^\prime/g_J = 2.134\,779\,852\,7(10) \times 10^{-4}. \label{eq:highB_gamma}$$ In four of the data cycles shown in Fig. \[fig:Avalues\], the fourth frequency $f_3$ was measured in addition to $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, and $f_2$. These measurements were used to place upper limits on corrections to the Breit-Rabi formula at a fixed value of $B$. The results are listed in Table \[table:f3results\]. If the Breit-Rabi formula is assumed to be correct, and $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ are fixed at the values given by the complete set of 15 data cycles \[Eqs. (\[eq:highB\_Avalue\]) and (\[eq:highB\_gamma\])\], then any of the three frequencies $f_\text{e}$, $f_1$, or $f_2$ can be be used to determine $X$ for a given data cycle. This value of $X$ can then be used to predict $f_3$ for that data cycle. In practice $f_2$ tended to yield the most consistent values of $X$. The rms difference between the measured value of $f_3$ and the value predicted from the measurement of $f_2$ was 7 mHz. This is consistent with the noise expected from magnetic field fluctuations. We use these results to place an upper limit of 10 mHz on any shifts of $f_3$ at $B$ = 4.4609 T due to corrections to the Breit-Rabi formula. More specifically, we can set limits on corrections to the Breit-Rabi formula having the form of the quadrupole diamagnetic shift or of the hyperfine-assisted Zeeman shift. Since all of the measurements were made at nearly the same value of $B$, this test is not sensitive to modifications to the Breit-Rabi formula that amount to a dependence of either $A$ or ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ on $B$. $f_2$ (measured) $f_3$ (predicted from $f_2$) $f_3$ (measured) $f_3$ (predicted) $-$ $f_3$ (measured) ------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------------------- 288172931.6510 286586653.4049 286586653.4003 0.0046 288172931.6097 286586653.3658 286586653.3727 -0.0069 288172932.4470 286586654.1568 286586654.1671 -0.0103 288172932.4535 286586654.1629 286586654.1578 0.0051 The energy shift of an $(m_I, m_J)$ state due to the quadrupole diamagnetic shift, at a fixed value of $B$, has the form [@lipson86] $$E_Q = hf_Q B^2 \frac{[I(I+1)-3m_I^2]}{I(2I-1)}. \label{eq:quadform}$$ If the only correction to the Breit-Rabi formula is given by Eq. (\[eq:quadform\]), then agreement of the measured and predicted values of $f_3$ to less than 10 mHz sets a limit $|f_Q|B^2 < 5$ mHz at $B$ = 4.4609 T, or $|f_Q| < 2.5 \times 10^{-4}$ Hz T$^{-2}$. The hyperfine-assisted Zeeman shift of an $(m_I, m_J)$ state has the form [@fortson87] $$E_{\text{HZ}} = 2h\beta_{\text{HZ}} B [m_I^2 m_J - I(I+1) m_J + m_I/2]. \label{eq:hfszeemanform}$$ If the only correction to the Breit-Rabi formula is given by Eq. (\[eq:hfszeemanform\]), then agreement of the measured and predicted values of $f_3$ to $\pm 10$ mHz sets a limit $|2\beta_{\text{HZ}} B| < 6.7$ mHz at $B$ = 4.4609 T, or $|\beta_{\text{HZ}}| < 7.5 \times 10^{-4}$ Hz T$^{-1}$. \[sec:diamagnetic\]Determination of $\bm{k}$ from high-field measurements and previous low-field measurements ============================================================================================================= The present experimental results can be combined with previous measurements made by some of the present authors at lower values of $B$ to determine the $B$-dependence of $A$ or ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$. Preliminary values of $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ were given in Ref. [@wineland83] but not the transition frequencies on which they were based. We now supplement Ref. [@wineland83] with the transition frequencies and a final determination of $A$ and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$. Two nuclear spin-flip frequencies, labeled 1 and 3 in Table \[table:lowfieldfreqs\], were measured near two particular values of $B$ where the first derivatives of the frequencies are zero. Electron spin-flip frequencies, labeled 2 and 4 in Table \[table:lowfieldfreqs\], were measured at the same two values of $B$. The experimental methods have been described in detail [@wineland83; @bollinger85; @bolj89; @bolj91]. Transition 3 is known better than transition 1 because it was studied for use as a frequency standard [@bollinger85; @bolj91]. The value we report for transition 3 in Table \[table:lowfieldfreqs\] is slightly different than that reported in [@bollinger85] because it includes additional measurements made in 1988 and 1989 as well as an evaluation of the background pressure shift. If no account is taken of any $B$-dependence of $A$ or ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, the four frequency measurements, together with the Breit-Rabi formula, yield a system of four equations with four unknowns, $A$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, $X_1$, and $X_2$, where $X_1$ is the value of $X$ for transitions 1 and 2, and $X_2$ is the value of $X$ for transitions 3 and 4. The frequencies given in Table \[table:lowfieldfreqs\] yield $A = -625\,008\,837.053(11)$ Hz and ${g_I}^\prime/g_J = 2.134\,779\,851\,8(23) \times 10^{-4}$. The precise values of $X_1$ and $X_2$ are not important, since they reflect only the value of $B$ at which the experiment was performed, not any intrinsic property of the $^9$Be$^+$ ion. Comparing these results to Eqs. (\[eq:highB\_Avalue\]) and (\[eq:highB\_gamma\]), we see that there is clear evidence for $B$-dependence of $A$, but that ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ is independent of $B$ to within experimental error. Label $(m_I,m_J) \leftrightarrow ({m_I}^\prime,{m_J}^\prime)$ $B$(T) Frequency (Hz) Uncertainty (Hz) ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------- ------------------ 1 $(\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}) \leftrightarrow (\frac{3}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})$ 0.677395 321168429.685 0.010 2 $(\frac{3}{2},-\frac{1}{2}) \leftrightarrow (\frac{3}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ 0.677395 18061876000 150000 3 $(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}) \leftrightarrow (-\frac{3}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ 0.819439 303016377.26520 0.00011 4 $(-\frac{3}{2},-\frac{1}{2}) \leftrightarrow (-\frac{3}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ 0.819439 23914008800 150000 From theoretical considerations and from experimental results with Rb, a quadratic $B$-dependence of $A$ is expected. If we assume that $A(B) = A_0\times (1 + kB^2)$, then there are five unknowns to solve for: $A_0$, $k$, ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$, $X_1$, and $X_2$. In addition to the four equations for the low magnetic field measurements, derived from the Breit-Rabi formula, a fifth equation is given by the expression for the high-$B$ value of $A$: $$A_0\times (1+k{B_3}^2) = -625\,008\,837.371~\text{Hz}, \label{eq:fiftheqn}$$ where $B_3 = 4.4609$ T. Solving the set of five equations gives $$\begin{aligned} A_0 & = & -625\,008\,837.044(12)~\text{Hz},\\ k & = & 2.63(18) \times 10^{-11}\;\text{T}^{-2},\\ {g_I}^\prime/g_J & = & 2.134\,779\,852\,0(23) \times 10^{-4}. \label{eq:finalparameters}\end{aligned}$$ The uncertainties of the parameters are obtained by varying the experimental frequencies through their uncertainties. The value of ${g_I}^\prime/g_J$ given by Eq. (\[eq:finalparameters\]) is consistent with, but less precise than, that obtained from the high-$B$ data alone \[Eq. (\[eq:highB\_gamma\])\]. \[sec:theory\]Calculation of diamagnetic hyperfine shift coefficient $\bm{k}$ ============================================================================= In nonrelativistic atomic theory, the diamagnetic shift in hyperfine structure arises as a cross term involving both the diamagnetic interaction and the hyperfine interaction in second-order perturbation theory. Let the unperturbed Hamiltonian for an $N$-electron atom with nuclear charge $Ze$ be $$H_0 = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{\textbf{p}_i^2}{2m} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{Ze^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_i} + \sum_{i < j} \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0|\textbf{r}_i - \textbf{r}_j|}, \label{eq:unperturbed}$$ where $m$ is the electron mass, $-e$ is the electron charge, and $\textbf{r}_i$ and $\textbf{p}_i$ are the position and momentum of the $i$th electron. The interaction with an external magnetic field $\textbf{B} = B\hat{\textbf{z}}$ is taken into account by the minimal coupling prescription, i.e., making the replacement $\textbf{p}_i \rightarrow \textbf{p}_i + e\textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i)$, where $\textbf{A}$ is the vector potential function, $\bm{\nabla} \times \textbf{A} = \textbf{B}$. Nuclear Zeeman, electron spin Zeeman, and hyperfine interactions are also added as perturbations to $H_0$. The kinetic energy term for the $i$th electron in Eq. (\[eq:unperturbed\]) undergoes the change $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\textbf{p}_i^2}{2m} & \rightarrow &\frac{[\textbf{p}_i+e\textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i)]^2}{2m} \label{eq:minimalcoupling}\\ & = & \frac{\textbf{p}_i^2}{2m} + \frac{e[\textbf{p}_i \cdot \textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i)+ \textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i) \cdot \textbf{p}_i]}{2m} \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{e^2 \textbf{A}^2(\textbf{r}_i)}{2m}\label{eq:minimalcoupling-b}\\ & = & \frac{\textbf{p}_i^2}{2m} + H_i^\text{p} + H_i^\text{d}. \label{eq:single-electron-change}\end{aligned}$$ The term containing the first power of $\textbf{A}$ is called the paramagnetic interaction $H_i^\text{p}$, while the one containing $\textbf{A}^2$ is called the diamagnetic interaction $H_i^\text{d}$. The division into paramagnetic and diamagnetic parts is gauge-dependent, but the choice of gauge, $$\textbf{A}(\textbf{r})= \frac{1}{2} \textbf{r}\times \textbf{B}, \label{eq:Larmor}$$ is particularly convenient. With that choice, the paramagnetic term becomes $$\begin{aligned} H_i^\text{p} & = & \frac{e}{2m}[\textbf{p}_i \cdot \textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i)+ \textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i) \cdot \textbf{p}_i]\\ & = & \frac{e}{4m} (\textbf{p}_i \cdot \textbf{r}_i \times \textbf{B} + \textbf{r}_i \times \textbf{B} \cdot \textbf{p}_i)\\ & = & \frac{e}{2m}\textbf{r}_i \times \textbf{p}_i \cdot \textbf{B} = \frac{e}{2m}\bm{\ell}_i \cdot \textbf{B} = \frac{e(\ell_i)_z B}{2m}, \label{eq:reduce_paramagnetic}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\ell}_i = \textbf{r}_i \times \textbf{p}_i$ is the orbital angular momentum of the $i$th electron. The diamagnetic term becomes $$H_i^\text{d} = \frac{e^2 \textbf{A}^2(\textbf{r}_i)}{2m}=\frac{e^2}{8m}(\textbf{r}_i \times \textbf{B})^2 = \frac{e^2}{8m}(x_i^2 + y_i^2)B^2. \label{eq:diamagnetic}$$ $H_i^\text{d}$ can be divided into a spherically symmetric (scalar) part and a rank-2 spherical tensor part: $$H_i^\text{d} = \frac{e^2B^2r_i^2}{12m} + \frac{e^2 B^2 r_i^2}{24m}(1 - 3\cos^2\theta_i) \equiv H_i^{\text{d}0} + H_i^{\text{d}2}.$$ The total paramagnetic interaction is obtained by summing $H_i^\text{p}$ over all electrons: $$H^\text{p} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} H_i^\text{p} = \frac{eB}{2m}\sum_{i=1}^N (\ell_i)_z = \frac{eB}{2m}L_z,$$ where $L_z$ is the $z$-component of the total electronic orbital angular momentum. To a very good approximation, the ground electronic state is an $S$-state, that is, an eigenstate of $\textbf{L}^2$ with $L=0$, so $H^\text{p}$ can be neglected. The total scalar part of the diamagnetic interaction is $$H^{\text{d}0} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} H_i^{\text{d}0} = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{e^2B^2r_i^2}{12m}.$$ In first-order perturbation theory, this leads to a common shift of all of the hyperfine-Zeeman sublevels of the ground electronic state. In second-order perturbation theory, there is a cross term that is first-order in both $H^{\text{d}0}$ and the Fermi contact hyperfine interaction. This leads to an effective interaction that appears as a shift in the hyperfine $A$ value, proportional to $B^2$ [@bender64; @larson78; @economou77; @ray79; @lipson86A]. Evaluation of the second-order perturbation term yields the constant $k$. Unpublished calculations by Lipson, similar to those done for Rb [@lipson86; @lipson86A], yielded $k = 2.52 \times 10^{-11}$ T$^{-2}$ for Be$^+$. These calculations used Hartree-Fock-Slater wave functions [@herman63]. The inclusion of all intermediate states, including the continuum, was done by solving an inhomogeneous differential equation for the perturbed wave function [@sternheimer51; @dalgarno55]. Similar calculations were done by one of the present authors (W.M.I.), but using a parametric potential for Be$^+$ that reproduces the experimental energy levels [@ganas79]. This yielded $k = 2.68 \times 10^{-11}$ T$^{-2}$. The estimate given in Ref. [@wineland83] of $\Delta A = -0.017$ Hz T$^{-2}$ (equivalent to $k = 2.7 \times 10^{-11}$ T$^{-2}$) was based on these calculations. Another method of obtaining $k$ to the same order in perturbation theory is to calculate an approximate electronic wave function that is accurate to first order in $H^{\text{d}0}$ and then to calculate the mean value of the hyperfine interaction with these wave functions. A simple way to do this is to use the MCHF (multiconfiguration Hartree-Fock) or MCDHF (multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock) method, where an additional term, $br_i^2$ is added to each single-electron Hamiltonian. Unlike model potential methods, MCHF and MCDHF are [*ab initio*]{} in the sense that they require no experimental input, such as observed energy levels, only values of fundamental constants. The GRASP set of MCDHF programs [@grant07; @parpia96; @jonsson96; @jonsson07] were used to calculate correlated wave functions for Be$^+$ with and without the $br_i^2$ term and to calculate hyperfine constants with these wave functions [@itano09]. The calculation of the unperturbed hyperfine constant $A_0$ for $^9$Be$^+$ was similar to that done by Biero[' n]{} et al., [@bieron99] but less extensive, leaving out for example nuclear recoil and the Breit interaction. The result, $A_0 = -624.19$ MHz, is within 0.13 % of the experimental value. The calculation was then modified by including the $br_i^2$ terms in the Hamiltonian. In Hartree atomic units ($e = m = \hbar = 1$), $b$ is dimensionless. It was varied from $1\times 10^{-5}$ to $2\times 10^{-3}$. The change in $A$, relative to $A_0$, was found to be proportional to $b$ for $b \leq 1\times 10^{-4}$. Evaluating the constant of proportionality yields $k = 2.645(2) \times 10^{-11}$ T$^{-2}$, where the uncertainty here reflects only numerical error, not error due to physical approximations, such as neglect of the Breit interaction. However, given the good agreement of the calculated and experimental values of $A_0$, we estimate the error of the calculated value of $k$ to be no more than 1 %. All of the calculated values of $k$, including Hartree-Fock-Slater, parametric potential, and MCDHF, are in good agreement with the experimental result within the experimental error of 7 %. The use of the diamagnetic potential in a relativistic calculation requires some justification, since the minimal coupling prescription does not yield a term proportional to $\textbf{A}^2$ in the Dirac Hamiltonian [@luber09]. Instead of Eq. (\[eq:minimalcoupling\]) we have, for the kinetic energy term in the single-electron Dirac Hamiltonian: $$c\bm{\alpha} \cdot \textbf{p}_i \rightarrow c\bm{\alpha} \cdot [\textbf{p}_i +e\textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i)] = c\bm{\alpha} \cdot \textbf{p}_i + ec\bm{\alpha}\cdot\textbf{A}(\textbf{r}_i), \label{eq:relmincoupling}$$ where $$\bm{\alpha} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \bm{\sigma} \\ \bm{\sigma} & 0 \end{array} \right),$$ and $\bm{\sigma} = (\sigma^1, \sigma^2, \sigma^3)$ is defined in terms of the Pauli matrices $\sigma^i$. Since the field-dependent perturbation only contains $B$ to the first power, calculation of $k$ with Eq. (\[eq:relmincoupling\]) requires third-order perturbation theory (two orders in the magnetic field interaction and one order in the hyperfine interaction), unlike the nonrelativistic case, which requires only second-order perturbation theory. Kutzelnigg [@kutzelnigg03] showed that a unitary transformation of the Dirac Hamiltonian in the presence of a magnetic field yields terms resembling the nonrelativistic paramagnetic and diamagnetic terms, plus another term which is first-order in $\textbf{A}$ and whose effect goes to zero in the nonrelativistic limit. This justifies the use of second-order perturbation theory to calculate $k$ in the relativistic case. The relativistic form of the single-electron diamagnetic interaction is [@kutzelnigg03; @luber09] $${H_i^\text{d}}(\text{rel}) = \beta\frac{e^2 \textbf{A}^2(\textbf{r}_i)}{2m},$$ which differs from the nonrelativistic form \[Eq. (\[eq:diamagnetic\])\] only by the factor of $\beta$, where $\beta$ is the $4 \times 4$ matrix $$\beta = \left( \begin{array}{cc} I & 0 \\ 0 & -I \end{array} \right),$$ where $I$ is a $2 \times 2$ identity matrix. The factor of $\beta$ was found also by Szmytkowski by a different method [@szmytkowski02]. The effect of $\beta$ on a matrix element of ${H_i^\text{d}}(\text{rel})$ is to reverse the sign of the integral involving the product of the small components of the Dirac orbitals. Thus, the relative error incurred by ignoring $\beta$ should be less than $(Z\alpha)^2$, where $\alpha$ here is the fine-structure constant $e^2/(4\pi\epsilon_0\hbar c)$. This error can be neglected for Be$^+$ ($Z = 4$) but may amount to a few percent for Rb ($Z = 37$). The total tensor part of the nonrelativistic diamagnetic interaction is $$H^{\text{d}2} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} H_i^{\text{d}2} = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{e^2 B^2 r_i^2}{24m}(1 - 3\cos^2\theta_i) .$$ In first-order perturbation theory, this leads to no energy shifts in the ground electronic state. In second-order perturbation theory, there is a cross term that is first-order in both $H^{\text{d}2}$ and the electric quadrupole hyperfine interaction. This leads to an effective interaction called the magnetically induced quadrupole hyperfine interaction [@lipson86; @lipson86A]. Comparison of the second-order perturbation expression for the induced quadrupole interaction and the expression for the quadrupole antishielding factor $\gamma_\infty$ defined by Sternheimer [@armstrong71] yields $$f_Q = \frac{e^2 Q \gamma_\infty}{24 mh}, \label{eq:reltogamma_inf}$$ where $f_Q$ is the coefficient of the induced quadrupole interaction defined in Eq. (\[eq:quadform\]). This form is useful because values of $\gamma_\infty$ have already been calculated for many atoms and ions. The value $\gamma_\infty=0.7088$ for Be$^+$ has been calculated in a Hartree-Fock approximation [@langhoff65]. The most recent experimental value of the $^9$Be nuclear quadrupole moment is $5.288 (38) \times 10^{-30}$ m$^2$ [@pyykko08]. These values of the constants yield the estimate $f_Q = 6.64 \times 10^{-6}$  Hz T$^{-2}$, which is much smaller than the experimental upper limit set in Sec. \[subsec:results\]. The hyperfine-assisted Zeeman shift can be estimated by the same method as that used for the rubidium atom [@fortson87]. In this approximation, the hyperfine matrix elements are given by the Fermi-Segr[\` e]{} formula [@fermi33], the $ns$-state energies are obtained from a hydrogenic (quantum defect) approximation, and the continuum $s$-state wave functions are obtained from a Coulomb approximation. In this approximation, the coefficient $\beta_{\text{HZ}}$ for $^9$Be$^+$ is equal to $2.61\times 10^{-4}$ Hz T$^{-1}$, which is smaller than the experimental upper limit set in Sec. \[subsec:results\]. Some other $B$-dependent shifts are in principle present, such as a magnetic-field-induced spin-dipole hyperfine term, but based on calculations done for Rb [@lipson86A] they are likely to be much smaller than the terms already considered. Various corrections to $g_J$ and to ${g_I}^\prime$ (e.g., nuclear diamagnetic shielding) are calculable but are beyond the scope of this paper. For recent calculations of $g_J$ for Be$^+$ and other three-electron atoms, see Refs. [@yan01; @yan02; @glazov04; @moskovkin08]. For a recent calculation of the nuclear diamagnetic shielding of Be$^+$, see Ref. [@pachucki10]. This article is a contribution of the U. S. government, not subject to U. S. copyright. N. S. was supported by a Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative administered by the Office of Naval Research. We thank S. J. Lipson for providing an early estimate of $k$ for $^9$Be$^+$. [^1]: Work of the U. S. government. Not subject to U. S. copyright. [^2]: Teflon is a registered trademark of the Dupont Company. Mention of this material should in no way be construed as indicating that this material is endorsed by NIST or that it is necessarily the best material for the purpose.

--- abstract: 'The well known formulas express the curvature and the torsion of a curve in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$ in terms of euclidean invariants of its derivatives. We obtain expressions of this kind for all curvatures of curves in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. It follows that a curve in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ is determined up to an isometry by the norms of its $n$ derivatives. We extend these observations to curves in arbitrary riemannian manifolds.' address: 'Nicolaus Copernicus University (UMK), Chopina 12/18, Torun 87-100 and Mathematics Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IMPAN), Sniadeckich 8, Warszawa 10, Poland' author: - Eugene Gutkin title: The curvatures of regular curves and euclidean invariants of their derivatives --- Introduction {#intro} ============ What mathematical material is better known than the curvature and the torsion of spatial curves? It is a must in every textbook on differential geometry. See, for instance, [@DoC76; @Sp79; @Kl78]. Although most mathematicians are familiar with this material, I will briefly outline it now. Let $c(t),\,a\le t \le b,$ be a differentiable curve in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. Orthonormalizing the derivatives $c'(t),c''(t)$,[^1] we associate with the curve an orthonormal triple $e(t)=(e_1(t),e_2(t),e_3(t))$. Differentiating these vectors, we obtain a system of linear differential equations; it is customary to write it as $e'(t)=||c'(t)||F(t)e(t)$. The $3\times 3$ matrix $F(t)$ is determined by the curve; it has a very special form. These observations were obtained independently and simultaneously[^2] by Frenet and Serret. See the Wikipedia article [@Wi] for this. The standard terminology is as follows: $e(t)=(e_1(t),e_2(t),e_3(t))$ is the [*Frenet-Serret frame*]{}, the equation $e'(t)=||c'(t)||F(t)e(t)$ is the [*Frenet-Serret equation*]{}, the matrix $F(t)$ is the [*Frenet-Serret matrix*]{}. It is skew-symmetric and tri-diagonal. The above-diagonal entries of $F(t)$ are the [*curvature*]{} and the [*torsion*]{} of the curve. These two functions, say ${\kappa}(t)$ and $\tau(t)$, plus the speed $||c'(t)||$, determine the curve up to an orientation preserving isometry of ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. Let $l>0$ be the length of our curve. Replacing $t$ by the [*arclength parameter*]{}, we code the curve by the functions ${\kappa}:[0,l]\to{{\mathbb R}}_+$ and $\tau:[0,l]\to{{\mathbb R}}$. Two questions arise. One is to consruct, for a given pair of functions on $[0,l]$, the essentially unique curve $c:[0,l]\to{{\mathbb R}^3}$ whose curvature and torsion are these functions. This is equivalent to integration of the differential equation $e'(\cdot)=F(\cdot)e(\cdot)$. The solution is not given, in general, by an explicit formula. The other problem is to explicitly determine the curvature and the torsion of a given curve $c(\cdot)$ in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. The following identities are well known:[^3] $$\label{curv_eq} {\kappa}(t)=\frac{||c'(t)\times c''(t)||}{||c'(t)||^3},$$ $$\label{torsion_eq} \tau(t)=\frac{\det(c'(t),c''(t),c'''(t))}{||c'(t)\times c''(t)||^2}.$$ In the arclength parameter these equations further simplify: $${\kappa}=||c'\times c''||,\ \tau=\det(c',c'',c''')/{\kappa}^2.$$ Note that these identities involve the [*cross product*]{}[^4] $u\times v$ of vectors in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. This operation is peculiar to ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. It has to do with the canonical isomorphism of ${{\mathbb R}^3}$ and the Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak g}}(SO(3))$ of the group of linear isometries in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. With this isomorphism, $u\times v$ becomes the Lie bracket in ${{\mathfrak g}}(SO(3))$. There are modifications of the Frenet-Serret approach, as well as generalizations to curves in other spaces [@Gr74; @Bi75; @Gr83; @Iv00; @SaWa03]. The most straightforward is to extend this approach to the curves in euclidean spaces ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, where $n$ is arbitrary. Let $c(t),\,a\le t \le b,$ be a regular curve in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Orthonormalizing the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t)$, we obtain a moving orthonormal frame $e(t)=(e_1(t),\dots,e_n(t))$. Differentiating it, we obtain the system $e'(t)=||c'(t)||F(t)e(t)$ of linear differential equations. The matrix $F(t)$ is skew-symmetric and tri-diagonal. Its matrix elements yield $n-1$ [*curvature functions*]{} ${\kappa}_r,1\le r \le n-1$. Together with $||c'(\cdot)||$, they determine the curve up to an orientation preserving isometry of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. The definition of the top curvature ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ differs somewhat from those of the other $n-2$ curvatures; the function ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ may well be called the torsion of a curve in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. This material is due to C. Jordan [@Jo874]; see [@Wi] for more information. The modern terminology does not acknowledge Jordan’s contribution: It is customary to say the Frenet-Serret frame, the Frenet-Serret equation, etc, no matter the dimension of ambient space. The original goal of this work was to obtain analogs of equation   and equation   for all of the curvatures of regular curves in euclidean spaces of arbitrary dimensions. Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] gives these generalizations. See also Corollary  \[crsprd\_curv\_cor\] and Corollary  \[arcleng\_cor\]. They provide remarkably simple expressions for all curvatures in terms of the volumes of parallelepipeds spanned by the higher derivatives of the curve. These expressions allow us to estimate the distortion of curvatures under affine transformations. See Theorem  \[estim\_thm\] and Corollary  \[estim\_cor\]. The $n-1$ curvatures, together with the norm of the tangent vector, give a complete set of invariants for curves in $n$-dimensional euclidean spaces. More precisely, they determine the parameterized curve, up to an isometry of the ambient space. We point out a problem with this set of invariants: The curvatures and the norm of the derivative have very different natures. Theorem  \[deriv\_norm\_thm\] yields more natural invariants. The norms of the derivatives up to the $n$th order form a complete set of invariants for the curve in question. This result is a consequence of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\]. From the geometry viewpoint, euclidean spaces are special examples of riemannian manifolds. In section  \[rieman\] we extend the above observations to arbitrary riemannian manifolds. These generalisations are straightforward. We obtain them by replacing the differentiation in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ by the riemannian covariant differentiation. See Theorem  \[riem\_all\_curv\_thm\], Theorem  \[Riem\_deriv\_norm\_thm\], and Theorem  \[nonoren\_main\_thm\]. Heuristics; connections to mathematical physics {#set} =============================================== Let us try to guess the $n$-dimensional versions of equations   and  . Let $u,v\in{{\mathbb R}^3}$. It is immediate from the definition that $||u\times v||$ is equal to the area of the parallelogram $P(u,v)\subset{{\mathbb R}^3}$ spanned by the vectors $u,v$. Let $k\le n$ and let $v_1,\dots,v_k\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ be any vectors. Denote by $P(v_1,\dots,v_k)\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n$ the $k$-dimensional parallelepiped spanned by $v_1,\dots,v_k$ and by ${\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k)$ its $k$-volume.[^5] With this notation, we rewrite equation   and equation  , respectively, as $${\kappa}(t)=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c'(t),c''(t))}{{\text{vol}}(c'(t))^3}$$ and $$\tau(t)=\frac{\det(c'(t),c''(t),c'''(t))}{{\text{vol}}(c'(t),c''(t))^2}.$$ Let $c^{(k)}=c^{(k)}(t)$ denote the $k$-th derivative of the function $c(\cdot)$. The above expressions for ${\kappa}$ and $\tau$ do not explicitly contain cross products. They suggest that for $r<n-1$ the curvature ${\kappa}_r$ of a curve $c(\cdot)\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ should be expressed in terms of $i$-dimensional volumes ${\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(i)})$ with $i\le r$. They also suggest that the formula for the torsion ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ should contain the determinant $\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})$ as a factor. Moreover, the above expressions lead one to speculate that ${\kappa}_r$ might be a product of powers of ${\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(i)})$ and $\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})$. The actual expressions for curvatures given by Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] do agree with these heuristics. The author doubts, however, that any one would guess the strikingly simple identities in Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] and Corollary  \[crsprd\_curv\_cor\] solely from equations   and  . Our proof of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] in section  \[exter\] is based on the notion of multiple cross products of vectors in a euclidean space of any dimension. This notion is not new. See, for instance, [@Sp79] for the cross product of $n-1$ vectors in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. In particular, multiple cross products are used in mathematical physics. Thus, the work [@DaGu95] explores the triple cross product of vectors in ${{\mathbb R}}^4$ to analyze the generalized Heisenberg ferromagnet. We will now briefly survey the relevant material. The classical[^6] Heisenberg model[^7] is described by the differential equation $S_t=S\times S_{xx}$, where $S(x,t)$ is a differentiable function with values in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. It is immediate that $||S(x,t)||$ does not depend on $t$. In the physical interpretation, $S(x,t)$ is the spin at time $t$ located at the point $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Spins are unit vectors in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$, thus $||S(x,t)||=1$. Hence, for every $t\in{{\mathbb R}}$, we have a continuous spin chain $S(\cdot,t)$; its time evolution is described by $S_t=S\times S_{xx}$. We view $x$ as the arclength parameter for a time-dependent curve $c(x,t)\in{{\mathbb R}^3}$ such that $S(x,t)=c_x(x,t)$. Then the equation $S_t=S\times S_{xx}$ defines a time evolution for curves in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$ parameterized by arclength. This evolution can be described by certain nonlinear partial differential equations on the curvature and the torsion of the curve. Besides being of interest on its own, the equation $S_t=S\times S_{xx}$ is equivalent to the classical nonlinear Schroedinger equation [@DoSa94].[^8] It is not known whether the quantum Heisenberg model is equivalent to the quantum nonlinear Schroedinger equation [@Gut88]. The generalized Heisenberg ferromagnet studied in [@DaGu95] corresponds to the time evolution of a spin chain $S(x,t)$ with values in ${{\mathbb R}}^4$. It is given by the equation $S_t=S\times S_x\times S_{xx}$, where $u\times v\times w$ is the triple cross product in ${{\mathbb R}}^4$. Again, $||S(x,t)||$ does not depend on $t$, and we set $||S(x,t)||=1$. Viewing $x$ as the arclength parameter for a curve $c(x,t)$ satisfying $S=c_x$, we obtain a time evolution for curves in ${{\mathbb R}}^4$. As in the case of the Heisenberg model in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$, the evolution $c(x,t)$ is equivalent to a system of nonlinear partial differential equations on the three curvatures ${\kappa}_1(x,t),{\kappa}_2(x,t),{\kappa}_3(x,t)$. See [@DaGu95] for details. We will now briefly discuss a generalization of the Heisenberg model to spin chains with values in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, $n\ge 4$. Consider the equation $$\label{n_heisen_eq} S_t=S\times S'\times S''\times\cdots\times S^{(n-2)}.$$ As before, $||S||$ does not change with the time. The $n$-dimensional Heisenberg ferromagnet is given by equation   under the condition $||S||=1$. Set $S(x,t)=c'(x,t)$. Equation   defines a time evolution for curves in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ parameterized by the arclength parameter. It is equivalent to a system of nonlinear partial differential equations on the $n-1$ curvatures ${\kappa}_1(x,t),\cdots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(x,t)$. The material exposed in the body of the paper suggests an approach to invariants of equation  . The proposition below illustrates this approach. The proof is straightforward, and we leave it to the reader. \[1\_curv\_prop\] For $n\ge 3$ let $c(x,t)$ be a time-dependent curve in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ satisfying equation  . Let ${\kappa}_1(x,t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(x,t)$ be its curvatures. [*1*]{}. The curvature ${\kappa}_1$ does not depend on time. [*2*]{}. If $n\ge 4$ then $<c',c'''>$ does not depend on time. Concluding this section, we note that evolutions of curves in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$ by the curvature and torsion have applications to turbulence and to DNA analysis [@RiKi02]. Multiple cross products for euclidean spaces of arbitrary dimensions {#exter} ==================================================================== By a euclidean space we will mean a finite dimensional, oriented, real vector space with a positive definite scalar product $<\cdot,\cdot>$. Let $V^n$ be such a space. Choosing a positive orthonormal basis, say $e_1,\dots,e_n$, we identify the space with ${{\mathbb R}^n}=\{(x_1,\dots,x_n)\}$; then $<x,y>=x_1y_1+\dots+x_ny_n$. Sometimes it will be convenient to use a positive orthonormal basis. However, our approach is coordinate free. Neither our results nor our methods depend on a particular basis. The [*exterior algebra*]{} $$\bigwedge V =\oplus_{k=0}^n\wedge^kV$$ is endowed with several structures. First of all, each $\wedge^kV$ is a real vector space and $\dim_{{{\mathbb R}}}\wedge^kV= {n\choose k}$. The subspaces $\wedge^kV,0\le k \le n,$ provide a grading of $\bigwedge V$; we refer to $w\in\wedge^kV$ as elements of degree $k$. The wedge product is anticommutative: Let $z,w\in\bigwedge V$ have degrees $k,l$ respectively; then $$w\wedge z=(-1)^{kl} z\wedge w.$$ The pairing $<\cdot,\cdot>$ on $V$ induces a bilinear form on $\bigwedge V$. We denote it by $<\cdot,\cdot>$ as well. The subspaces $\wedge^kV$ are pairwise orthogonal with respect to $<\cdot,\cdot>$; thus, we only need to determine $<\cdot,\cdot>$ on each $\wedge^kV$. The vector space $\wedge^kV$ is spanned by elements $v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k$; thus, it suffices to define the scalar product for monomials. Let $S_k$ be the permutation group of $k$ items. We code permutations $g\in S_k$ by $k$-tuples $(i_1,\dots,i_k)$ of distinct elements in $\{1,\dots,k\}$. Let ${\sigma}(g)\in\{0,1\}$ be the [*parity*]{} of permutation, so that $\det g=(-1)^{{\sigma}(g)}$. Then we have $$\label{scal_prod_eq} <u_1\wedge\cdots\wedge u_k,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k>=\sum_{g\in S_k}(-1)^{{\sigma}(g)}<u_1,v_{i_1}>\cdots<u_k,v_{i_k}>.$$ Let $I=\{1\le i_1<\cdots<i_k\le n\}$ be a subset in $\{1,\dots,n\}$, with $|I|=k$. Set $e_I=e_{i_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_{i_k}\in\wedge^kV$. As $I$ runs through the subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}$, the vectors $e_I$ form a basis of $\bigwedge V$. By equation  , the basis $\{e_I:\,I\subset\{1,\dots,n\}\}$ is orthonormal. Thus, the bilinear form   yields a scalar product in $\bigwedge V$.[^9] We will now explain why this is a natural scalar product. Let $v_1,\dots,v_k\in V$ be any $k$-tuple. The wedge product $v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k\in\wedge^kV$ corresponds to the $k$-dimensional parallelepiped $P(v_1,\dots,v_k)$ spanned by $v_1,\dots,v_k$. Note that the vectors $v_1,\dots,v_k$ are linearly dependent iff $P(v_1,\dots,v_k)$ collapses. Let ${\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k)$ be the $k$-volume of $P(v_1,\dots,v_k)$. We leave it to the reader to prove the identity[^10] $$\label{prlpd_vol_eq} <v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k>={\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k)^2.$$ Thus, the scalar product equation   is the symmetric bilinear form corresponding to the quadratic form ${\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k)^2$. For $k=2$, equation   yields the classical formula for the area of a parallelogram. Note that we have not yet used the orientation of $V$. Since $\dim\wedge^nV=1$, the euclidean space $\wedge^nV$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb R}}$. There are exactly [*two linear isometries*]{} $O:{{\mathbb R}}\to\wedge^nV$. Choosing one of them is equivalent to endowing $V$ with an orientation. Indeed, the space $\wedge^nV$ has two elements of unit norm. Let $o\in\wedge^nV$ be one of them, and set $O(1)=o$. Let now $e_1,\dots,e_n$ be an orthonormal basis in $V$. By equation  , $||e_1\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n||=1$, hence $e_1\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n=\pm o$. The basis $e_1,\dots,e_n$ is positive if $e_1\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n=o$, and negative otherwise. Let now $v_1,\dots,v_n\in V$ be any vectors. Then $v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_n=f(v_1,\dots,v_n)o$ where $f$ is a $n$-linear form on $V$. Let $A=A(v_1,\dots,v_n)$ be the $n\times n$ matrix of coefficients of $v_1,\dots,v_n$ with respect to any positive orthonormal basis. Then $f(v_1,\dots,v_n)=\det A$. Thus, $\det A$ does not depend on the choice of a positive orthonormal basis. It depends on the orientation of $V$. We set $\det A(v_1,\dots,v_n)=\det(v_1,\dots,v_n)$. Then $$\label{determi_eq} v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_n=\det(v_1,\dots,v_n)o.$$ For $z\in\bigwedge V$ let $E_z:\bigwedge V\to\bigwedge V$ be the operator of left exterior multiplication, i. e., $E_zw=z\wedge w$. The operator of left [*interior multiplication*]{} $I_z:\bigwedge V\to\bigwedge V$ is the adjoint of $E_z$ with respect to the scalar product $<\cdot,\cdot>$, i. e., $I_z=E_z^*$. For any $z,t,w\in\bigwedge V$ we have $$\label{int_mult_eq} <I_zt,w>=<E_z^*t,w>=<t,E_zw>=<t,z\wedge w>.$$ \[poincare\_def\] [For $z\in\bigwedge V$ set $D(z)=I_zo$. We call the linear operator $D:\bigwedge V\to\bigwedge V$ the [*poincare duality operator*]{}. ]{} It will be sometimes convenient to write $E(z),I(w)$ and $Dt$ or $D\cdot t$ for $E_z,I_w$ and $D(t)$ respectively. The following lemma summarizes the basic properties of these operators. \[poincare\_lem\] [*1*]{}. Let $D':\bigwedge V\to\bigwedge V$ be the poincare duality operator corresponding to $V$ with the orientation reversed. Then $D'=-D$. [*2*]{}. Let $u,v\in V$. Then $$\label{relate_eq} E_uI_v+I_vE_u=<u,v>{\text{Id}}.$$ [*3*]{}. The operator $D$ is an isometry of $\bigwedge V$. [*4*]{}. We have $$D^2|_{\wedge^kV}=(-1)^{k(n-k)}{\text{Id}}.$$ Reversing the orientation of $V$ is equivalent to replacing the element $o\in\wedge^nV$ by $-o$. Thus, claim 1 follows from Definition  \[poincare\_def\]. Let $u_1,\dots,u_k\in V$ and $v_1,\dots,v_k\in V$ be arbitrary sequences of $k$ vectors. We denote by $G=G(u_1,\dots,u_k;v_1,\dots,v_k)$ the $k\times k$ matrix such that $G_{i,j}=<u_i,v_j>$. Thus, $G$ is the Gram matrix corresponding to $u_1,\dots,u_k$ and $v_1,\dots,v_k$. It is immediate from equation   that $$\label{det_eq} \det G = <u_1\wedge\cdots\wedge u_k,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k>.$$ We will use the following notational conventions. By $v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge\widehat{v_i}\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k$ we indicate that the factor $v_i$ is omitted. By $v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge(v_i\mapsto u)\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k$ we indicate that the factor $v_i$ is replaced by $u$. Let $u,v,z_1,\dots,z_k\in V$ be arbitrary. From the definition of operators $I_w$ and equation  , we obtain $$\label{ext_prod_eq} I_u(z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k) = \sum_{i=1}^k(-1)^{i-1}<u,z_i>z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge\widehat{z_i}\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k.$$ From equation   we straightforwardly calculate $$E_uI_v(z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k) = \sum_{i=1}^k<v,z_i>z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge(z_i\mapsto u)\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k$$ and $$I_vE_u(z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k) =$$ $$<u,v>z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k-\sum_{i=1}^k<v,z_i>z_1\wedge\cdots\wedge(z_i\mapsto u)\wedge\cdots\wedge z_k.$$ Claim 2 follows. We will now prove that $D:\bigwedge V\to\bigwedge V$ is an isometry. Since $\bigwedge V=\oplus_{k=0}^n\wedge^kV$, it suffices to show that $D|_{\wedge^kV}$ is an isometry for $0\le k \le n$. For $k=0$ this is immediate from the definition. Let $u,v\in V$. By claim 2, we have $$<Du,Dv>=<I_uo,I_vo>=<o,E_uI_vo>=$$ $$<u,v><o,o>-<o,I_vE_uo>=<u,v>.$$ Thus, $D|_{V}$ is an isometry. Let now $u_1,\dots,u_k$ and $v_1,\dots,v_k$ be arbitrary vectors in $V$. Iterating the above procedure, and using equation   every time we switch the order of operators $E_u,I_v$, we prove by induction on $k$ that $$<D(u_1\wedge\cdots\wedge u_k),D(v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k)>=$$ $$\sum_{g\in S_k}(-1)^{{\sigma}(g)}<u_1,v_{i_1}>\cdots<u_k,v_{i_k}>.$$ Since $\wedge^kV$ is spanned by monomials, and in view of equation  , this proves claim 3. Let $$(z,w)=<Dz,w>=<o,z\wedge w>$$ be the bilinear form on $\bigwedge V$ corresponding to the operator $D$. The subspaces $\wedge^iV,\wedge^jV$ are orthogonal with respect to $(\cdot,\cdot)$ unless $i+j=n$. By equation  , the bilinear form pairs up $\wedge^kV$ and $\wedge^{n-k}V$ for all $k$. Let $z\in\wedge^kV,w\in\wedge^{n-k}V$. It is immediate from the definition of $(\cdot,\cdot)$ and the anticommutativity of the wedge product that $$(z,w)=(-1)^{k(n-k)}(w,z).$$ Denote by $D^*$ the adjoint operator with respect to $<,>$. Then for any $z\in\wedge^kV,w\in\wedge^{n-k}V$ we have $$(z,w)=<Dz,w>=<z,D^*w>=(-1)^{k(n-k)}(w,z)=$$ $$(-1)^{k(n-k)}<Dw,z>=(-1)^{k(n-k)}<z,Dw>.$$ Thus, $D^*|_{\wedge^{n-k}V}=(-1)^{k(n-k)}D|_{\wedge^{n-k}V}$. On the other hand, by claim 3, $D^*=D^{-1}$. Hence, $D^{-1}|_{\wedge^{n-k}V}=(-1)^{k(n-k)}D|_{\wedge^{n-k}V}$, which proves claim 4. \[cross\_prod\_def\] Let $v_1,\dots,v_k\in V$ be arbitrary vectors, and let $1\le k \le n$. We define the [*cross product*]{} on $k$ factors $v_1\times\cdots\times v_k$ by $$\label{cross_prod_eq} v_1\times\cdots\times v_k=D(v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k).$$ Thus, the cross product on $k$ factors is a $k$-linear map from $V$ to $\wedge^{n-k}V$. Let $k=n-1$. Then $v_1\times\cdots\times v_{n-1}\in V$. In the special case $n=3,k=2$ equation   yields the standard cross product of vectors in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. This motivates the terminology. By definition, the operation $v_1\times\cdots\times v_k$ is distributive. However, it is not associative. In fact, already the standard cross product in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$ is not associative. The following proposition summarizes the properties of cross product that we will use. \[basic\_cross\_prop\] [*1*]{}. The cross product $v_1\times\cdots\times v_k$ changes sign if we switch around any two consecutive factors. [*2*]{}. We have $$\label{crsprd_vol_eq} ||v_1\times\cdots\times v_k||={\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k).$$ [*3*]{}. Let $v_1,\dots,v_{n-1}\in V$ be linearly independent. Then the vector $v_1\times\cdots\times v_{n-1}\in V$ has the following properties: i\) Its norm satisfies $||v_1\times\cdots\times v_{n-1}||={\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_{n-1})$; ii\) The vector $v_1\times\cdots\times v_{n-1}$ is orthogonal to $v_1,\dots,v_{n-1}$; iii\) The basis $v_1,\dots,v_{n-1},v_1\times\cdots\times v_{n-1}$ is positive. [*4*]{}. Let $u_1,\dots,u_k$ and $v_1,\dots,v_{n-k}$ be arbitrary vectors in $V$. Then $$\label{determ_eq} <u_1\times\cdots\times u_k,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_{n-k}>=\det(u_1,\dots,u_k,v_1,\dots,v_{n-k}).$$ Claim 1 is immediate from the anticommutativity of the wedge product and equation  . Claim 2 follows from equation  , equation  , and claim 3 in Lemma  \[poincare\_lem\]. We will now prove claim 4. From preceding equations, we have $$<u_1\times\cdots\times u_k,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_{n-k}>=<E^*(u_1\wedge\cdots\wedge u_k)o,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_{n-k}>$$ $$=<o, u_1\wedge\cdots\wedge u_k\wedge v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_{n-k}>.$$ Equation   now follows from equation  . In the special case $k=n-1$ equation   yields $$\label{def_crss_prd_eq} <v_1\times\cdots\times v_{n-1},v>=\det(v_1,\dots,v_{n-1},v).$$ Claim 3 follows from equations   and  . \[poincare\_rem\] *i) We point out that equation   is equivalent to our definition of the cross product. ii) The name we use for the operator $D$ in Definition  \[poincare\_def\] is motivated by the following observation. Let $T^n={{\mathbb R}}^n/{{\mathbb Z}}^n$ be the standard torus. Set $V=H^1(T^n,{{\mathbb R}})$. The scalar product on $V$ is induced by the isomorphism $H_1(T^n,{{\mathbb R}})=H^1(T^n,{{\mathbb R}})$ and the integration with respect to the riemannian volume form. The orientation of $V$ comes from the orientation of $T^n$. Then under the isomorphism $\bigwedge V = H^*(T^n,{{\mathbb R}})$ the operator $D$ in Definition  \[poincare\_def\] goes to the poincare duality operator on $H^*(T^n,{{\mathbb R}})$.* The Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization {#gram_schmi} ================================== Let $f_1,\dots,f_k\in V$ be arbitrary linear independent vectors. Then there exists a unique collection of orthonormal vectors $e_1,\dots,e_k\in V$ such that for $1\le i \le k$ we have $$\label{span_eq} e_i=a_{i,1}f_1+\cdots+a_{i,i}f_i,\ a_{i,i}>0.$$ The collection $e_1,\dots,e_k$ is called the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of $f_1,\dots,f_k$. The coefficients in equation   are determined by the scalar products of vectors $f_1,\dots,f_k$. We will need only the coefficients $a_{i,i}$. \[gram\_schmi\_lem\] Let $f_1,\dots,f_k\in V$ be linear independent. Let $e_1,\dots,e_k$ be the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. Let $a_{i,j},j\le i\le k,$ be the coefficients in equation  . Then for $1\le i \le k$ we have $$\label{coeff_eq} a_{i,i}=\frac{\mbox{vol}(f_1,\dots,f_{i-1})}{{\text{vol}}(f_1,\dots,f_{i-1},f_i)}.$$ Observe that for $i=1$ the numerator in equation   is not defined. By convention, the volume of the parallelepiped formed by an empty collection of vectors is $1$. With this convention, equation   obviously holds for $i=1$. By the definition of Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization, for any $1 \le i \le k$ we have $${\text{vol}}(f_1,\dots,f_{i-1},e_i)={\text{vol}}(f_1,\dots,f_{i-1}).$$ By equation   and equation   $${\text{vol}}(f_1,\dots,f_{i-1},e_i)={\text{vol}}(f_1,\dots,f_{i-1},f_i)a_{i,i}.$$ Combinining the two equations, we obtain the claim. Universal identities for the curvatures {#all_curv} ======================================= Let $V^n$ be a euclidean space. By a [*regular curve*]{} in $V$ we will mean a mapping $c:[a,b]\to V$ such that i) the interval $[a,b]$ is nontrivial; ii) the vector function $c(t)$ is as smooth as necessary; iii) the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t)$ are linearly independent for any $t\in[a,b]$. Although it is customary to think of the variable $t\in[a,b]$ as the time, we will denote the differentiation with respect to $t$ by “prime”, as opposed to “dot”. We will use the following notational convention. Let $E(n)$ be an expression that depends explicitly on $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. If the expression is defined only for $n\ge n_0$, we set $E(k)=1$ for $k<n_0$. For instance, if $E(n)={\text{vol}}(c',c''\dots,c^{(n-1)})$, then $E(1)=1$. We will now state and prove the main result. \[all\_curv\_thm\] Let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in $V$. Then the following holds. [*1*]{}. For $1\le r \le n-2$ the curvatures ${\kappa}_r$ satisfy $$\label{gen_curv_eq} {\kappa}_r=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r-1)}){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^2}||c'||^{-1}.$$ [*2*]{}. For the torsion, i. e., the top curvature, we have $$\label{top_curv_eq} {\kappa}_{n-1}=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n-2)})\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n-1)})^2}||c'||^{-1}.$$ Let $e(t)=(e_1(t),\dots,e_n(t))$ be the associated Frenet-Serret frame. The Frenet-Serret equation says $$\label{frenet_eq} e'\ = \ ||c'|| \begin{pmatrix} 0 & {\kappa}_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ -{\kappa}_1 & 0 & {\kappa}_2 & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & \cdots & -{\kappa}_{n-2} & 0 & {\kappa}_{n-1} \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -{\kappa}_{n-1} & 0 \end{pmatrix} e.$$ Let $v_1(t),\dots,v_k(t)$ be arbitrary differentiable functions with values in $V$. Then, from Definition  \[cross\_prod\_def\], $\left(v_1\times\cdots\times v_k\right)' =\sum_{i=1}^kv_1\times\cdots v_i'\times\cdots v_k$. We will refer to this identity as the [*product rule*]{}. Let $1\le r <n$. By the product rule and equation   $$(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)'=||c'||{\kappa}_r e_1\times\cdots\times e_{r-1}\times e_{r+1}.$$ By Lemma  \[gram\_schmi\_lem\] $$\label{gram_schmi_eq} e_1\times\cdots\times e_r={\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-1}c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r)}.$$ Hence, by the product rule and Proposition  \[basic\_cross\_prop\] $$(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)'=$$ $$\left[{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-1}\right]'c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r)} +{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-1}c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r-1)}\times c^{(r+1)}.$$ We assume first that $r<n-1$ and take the scalar product with $e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n$. From the former of the above equations and the product rule, we have $$<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)',e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>=$$ $$-||c'||{\kappa}_r\det(e_1,\dots,e_n)=-||c'||{\kappa}_r.$$ The latter of the above equations implies $$<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)',e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>=$$ $$\left[{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-1}\right]'<c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r)},e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>+$$ $${\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-1}<c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r-1)}\times c^{(r+1)},e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>.$$ By equation   and equation  , the former of the two scalar products vanishes. Using Lemma  \[gram\_schmi\_lem\] again, we obtain $$<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)',e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>=$$ $$-{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-1}O^{-1}(c'\wedge\dots\wedge c^{(r-1)}\wedge e_r\wedge c^{(r+1)}\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n).$$ Applying Lemma  \[gram\_schmi\_lem\] to $c^{(k+1)}$ in the above wedge product, we have $$<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)',e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>=$$ $$-{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^{-2}{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})O^{-1}(c'\wedge\dots\wedge c^{(r-1)}\wedge e_r\cdots\wedge e_n).$$ Applying Lemma  \[gram\_schmi\_lem\] once more yields $$<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)',e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>=$$ $$-\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r-1)}){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^2}O^{-1}(e_1\wedge\dots\wedge e_n)$$ $$=-\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r-1)}){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^2}.$$ Comparing this with our previous expression for $<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_r)',e_r\wedge e_{r+2}\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n>$, we obtain equation  . Let now $r=n-1$. As before, we compare two expressions for $<(e_1\times\cdots\times e_{n-1})',e_{n-1}>$. Recall that, as opposed to $e_1,\dots,e_{n-1}$, the vector $e_n$ does not necessarily satisfy equation  . Instead, the vector $e_n$ is chosen so that $e_1,\dots,e_n$ form a positive orthonormal basis. Let $$e_n=a_{n,1}c'+\cdots+a_{n,n}c^{(n)}.$$ The argument of Lemma  \[gram\_schmi\_lem\] allows us to calculate $a_{n,n}$; it yields $$\label{last_coeff_eq} a_{n,n}=\frac{\mbox{vol}(c'\dots,c^{(n-1)})}{\det(c'\dots,c^{(n)})}.$$ The preceding argument for $r=n-1$ and equation   yield equation  . Applications to curves in euclidean spaces {#corol_appli} ========================================== We begin by exposing a few immediate consequences of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\]. Immediate corollaries {#corol_sub} --------------------- Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] was motivated by equations   and   for the curvature and torsion of curves in ${{\mathbb R}^3}$. Our first application of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] is to the curvatures ${\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2$ for curves in arbitrary euclidean spaces. \[low\_curv\_cor\] Let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in $V^n$. If $n\ge 3$ then we have $$\label{1_curv_eq} {\kappa}_1=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',c'')}{||c'||^3}.$$ If $n\ge 4$, then $$\label{2_curv_eq} {\kappa}_2=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',c'',c''')}{{\text{vol}}(c',c'')^2}.$$ When $n\ge 3$, the assumptions of claim 1 in Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] hold for ${\kappa}_1$. Equation   is a special case of equation  . When $n\ge 4$, the assumptions of claim 1 in Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] hold for ${\kappa}_2$. From equation  , we have $${\kappa}_2=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c'){\text{vol}}(c',c'',c''')}{{\text{vol}}(c',c'')^2||c'||}.$$ Since ${\text{vol}}(c')=||c'||$, we obtain equation  . \[n=3\_rem\] Note that equation   and equation   are the special cases of equation   and equation   respectively. \[crsprd\_curv\_cor\] Let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in a euclidean space $V$ of $n$ dimensions. Let ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ be its curvatures. Then for $1\le r \le n-2$ we have $${\kappa}_{r}=\frac{||c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r-1)}||\,||c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r+1)}||}{||c'\times\cdots\times c^{(r)}||^2}||c'||^{-1}.$$ For the torsion we have $${\kappa}_{n-1}=\frac{||c'\times\cdots\times c^{(n-2)}||}{||c'\times\cdots\times c^{(n-1)}||^2} \det\left(c',c'',\dots,c^{(n)}\right)||c'||^{-1}.$$ Immediate from Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] and Proposition  \[basic\_cross\_prop\]. \[arcleng\_cor\] Let $c(s)$ be a regular curve in a euclidean space $V$ of $n$ dimensions parameterized by arclength. Let ${\kappa}_1(s),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(s)$ be its curvatures. Then for $1\le r \le n-2$ $$\label{arclen_curv_eq} {\kappa}_{r}=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r-1)}){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^2}.$$ The top curvature satisfies $$\label{arclen_tors_eq} {\kappa}_{n-1}=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n-2)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n-1)})^2} \det\left(c',c'',\dots,c^{(n)}\right).$$ Equation   and equation   follow from equation   and equation   respectively, via $||c'||=1$. \[volumes\_cor\] [*1*]{}. Let $V$ be a euclidean space of $n$ dimensions; let $c(s)$ be a regular curve in $V$ parameterized by arclength. Let ${\kappa}_1(s),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(s)$ be its curvatures. Then for $1\le r \le n-1$ $$\label{volum_eq} {\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})={\kappa}_1^{r-1}{\kappa}_2^{r-2}\cdots{\kappa}_{r-2}^2{\kappa}_{r-1}$$ and $$\label{det_curv_eq} \det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})={\kappa}_1^{n-1}{\kappa}_2^{n-2}\cdots{\kappa}_{n-2}^2{\kappa}_{n-1}.$$ [*2*]{}. Let $V$ be as above; let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in $V$. Let ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ be its curvatures. Then for $1\le r \le n-1$ $$\label{Volum_eq} \frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})}{||c'||^{r(r+1)/2}}={\kappa}_1^{r-1}{\kappa}_2^{r-2}\cdots{\kappa}_{r-2}^2{\kappa}_{r-1}$$ and $$\label{Det_curv_eq} \frac{\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})}{||c'||^{n(n+1)/2}}={\kappa}_1^{n-1}{\kappa}_2^{n-2}\cdots{\kappa}_{n-2}^2{\kappa}_{n-1}.$$ Let $x_i\ne 0,1\le i,$ be any sequence of numbers. Set, for convenience, $x_i=1$ if $i<1$. For $i\ge 1$ set $y_i=x_i/x_{i-1}$. Then for $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ we have $$x_k=y_1\cdots y_k.$$ Setting $y_i=1$ if $i<1$ and defining $z_j=y_j/y_{j-1}$, we have for $l\in{{\mathbb N}}$ $$y_l=z_1\cdots z_l.$$ The above equations yield $$\label{Teleskop_eq} x_k=z_1^kx_2^{k-1}\cdots z_k.$$ Let $c(s)$ be as in claim 1. Set $x_i={\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(i)})$. Let the sequences $y_i$ and $z_i$ be as above. Then, by equation  , $z_i={\kappa}_{i-1}$. Hence, Corollary  \[arcleng\_cor\] and equation   yield equation  . Let now $c(t)$ be as in claim 2. Again, set $x_i={\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(i)})$ and define the sequences $y_i$ and $z_i$ as above. By Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\], $z_i={\kappa}_{i-1}||c'||$. Now equation   yields equation  . Equations   and   follow the same way from equations   and   respectively. We leave details to the reader. \[brauner\_rem\] *Equations   and   are contained in [@Br81]. See problem 2 on p. 100. Since these identities are equivalent to equations   and   respectively, our Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] is not new. However, equations   and   are more direct than equations   and  ; our derivation of these identities is elementary and straightforward.[^11] For these reasons we feel that Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] deserves publication.* Now we expose some less immediate consequences of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\]. Estimates for curvatures {#appli_sub} ------------------------ Let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in $V^n$; let ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ be its curvatures. Let $L:V\to V$ be a nondegenerate linear transformation; let ${\lambda}\in V^n$. Set ${\tilde{c}}(t)=Lc(t)+{\lambda}$. Let ${\tilde{\kappa}}_1(t),\dots,{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}(t)$ be the curvatures of ${\tilde{c}}$. How do they relate to ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$? If $L\in SO(V)$,[^12] then ${\tilde{\kappa}}_r={\kappa}_r$ for $1\le r\le n-1$. Conversely, the $n-1$ curvatures determine the curve up to a transformation ${\tilde{c}}(t)=Lc(t)+{\lambda}$ with $L\in SO(V)$. Assume now that $L\notin O(V)$. Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] allows us to estimate ${\tilde{\kappa}}_1(t),\dots,{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}(t)$. In order to state the result, we briefly recall the notion of [*singular values*]{} of matrices [@HoJo90]. Every $n\times n$ matrix has a decomposition $L=U{\Sigma}V$ where $U,V\in O_n$ and ${\Sigma}$ is a diagonal matrix with non-negative entries ${\sigma}_1\ge{\sigma}_2\ge\cdots\ge{\sigma}_n$. Then $n$ numbers ${\sigma}_1\ge{\sigma}_2\ge\cdots\ge{\sigma}_n\ge 0$ uniquely determined by the matrix $L$ are its singular values. Let $L:V^n\to V^n$ be a linear mapping. Identifying $V$ with ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, we represent $L$ by a $n\times n$ matrix. Its singular values do not depend on the isomorphism $V={{\mathbb R}}^n$. Thus, we can talk about the singular values of a linear mapping $L:V\to V$. The subject of singular values of matrices is of use in control theory; see, for instance, [@Jon97]. There are nontrivial relationships between singular values of matrices, convex geometry and differential geometry [@Gut04; @GJK]. \[estim\_thm\] Let $V^n$ be a euclidean space. Let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in $V$. Let ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ be its curvatures. Let $L:V\to V$ be an invertible linear mapping, let ${\lambda}\in V$ be arbitrary and set ${\tilde{c}}(t)=Lc(t)+{\lambda}$. Denote by ${\tilde{\kappa}}_1(t),\dots,{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}(t)$ the curvatures of ${\tilde{c}}$. Let ${\sigma}_1\ge{\sigma}_2\ge\cdots\ge{\sigma}_n$ be the singular values of $L$. Then for $1\le r\le n-2$ we have the bounds $$\label{all_curv_bound_eq} \frac{{\sigma}_{n-r}{\sigma}_{n-r+1}{\sigma}_{n-r+2}^2\cdots{\sigma}_n^2}{{\sigma}_1^3{\sigma}_2^2\cdots{\sigma}_r^2}\,{\kappa}_r\le{\tilde{\kappa}}_r\le \frac{{\sigma}_1^2\cdots{\sigma}_{r-1}^2{\sigma}_r{\sigma}_{r+1}}{{\sigma}_{n-r+1}^2\cdots{\sigma}_{n-1}^2{\sigma}_n^3}\,{\kappa}_r.$$ For the torsion we have the bounds $$\label{top_curv_bound_eq} \frac{{\sigma}_n^2}{{\sigma}_1^2{\sigma}_2}\,|{\kappa}_{n-1}| \le |{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}|\le \frac{{\sigma}_1^2}{{\sigma}_{n-1}{\sigma}_n^2}\,|{\kappa}_{n-1}|.$$ We denote by $||L||$ the [*operator norm*]{}, i. e., $$||L||=\max_{v\in V,v\ne 0}\frac{||Lv||}{||v||}.$$ For $0\le k \le n$ we denote by $\wedge^kL:\wedge^kV\to\wedge^kV$ the induced linear operator. Thus, $\wedge^kL$ is the $k$th exterior power of $L$. The singular values of $\wedge^kL$ are the $n\choose k$numbers ${\sigma}_{i_1}\cdots{\sigma}_{i_k}:1\le i_1<\cdots<i_k\le n$ listed in the decreasing order. The singular values of $L^{-1}$ are ${\sigma}_n^{-1}\ge\cdots\ge{\sigma}_1^{-1}$. The norm of an operator is equal to its largest singular value. Let $v_1,\dots,v_k\in V$ be arbitrary independent vectors. Then $$||\wedge^kL^{-1}||^{-1} {\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k) \le {\text{vol}}(Lv_1,\dots,Lv_k) \le ||\wedge^kL|| {\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k).$$ In view of preceding remarks, we obtain $$\label{volum_bound_eq} {\sigma}_{n-k+1}\cdots{\sigma}_n {\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k) \le {\text{vol}}(Lv_1,\dots,Lv_k) \le {\sigma}_1\cdots{\sigma}_k {\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k).$$ Substituting the bounds equation   into the first formula of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\], we obtain equation  . The estimate equation   is obtained in the same fashion from the second formula of Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\]. The absolute values in equation   are due to the fact that ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ is not necessarily positive. Often we have only partial infofmation about the singular values. For instance, we may know the norms of the matrices in question. Using that ${\sigma}_1=||L||,{\sigma}_n=||L^{-1}||^{-1}$, we immediately obtain from Theorem  \[estim\_thm\] the following statement. \[estim\_cor\] Let the setting and the notation be as in Theorem  \[estim\_thm\]. Then for $1\le r\le n-2$ we have the bounds $$\label{crud_curv_bound_eq} ||L^{-1}||^{-2r} ||L||^{-2r-1}\,{\kappa}_r \le {\tilde{\kappa}}_r \le ||L||^{2r}||L^{-1}||^{2r+1}\,{\kappa}_r.$$ We also have $$\label{crud_tors_bound_eq} ||L^{-1}||^{-3}||L||^{-2}\,|{\kappa}_{n-1}| \le |{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}| \le ||L||^2 ||L^{-1}||^3\, |{\kappa}_{n-1}|.$$ Theorem  \[estim\_thm\] and Corollary  \[estim\_cor\] provide very basic estimates for the curvatures of ${\tilde{c}}(t)=Lc(t)$. However, as the following remark shows, these estimates are sharp. \[scalar\_rem\] Let $a\in{{\mathbb R}}$ be any nonzero number. Set ${\tilde{c}}(t)=ac(t)+{\lambda}$. Then the inequalities in Theorem  \[estim\_thm\] and Corollary  \[estim\_cor\] become the identities $${\tilde{\kappa}}_r=|a|^{-1}{\kappa}_r:\,1\le r \le n-2;\ |{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}|=|a|^{-1}|{\kappa}_{n-1}|.$$ For convenience of the reader, we outline a proof. Since the inequalities in Corollary  \[estim\_cor\] are the consequences of those in Theorem  \[estim\_thm\], it suffices to show that they become equalities. We have $L=a\,{\text{Id}}$. We assume without loss of generality that $a>0$. Then $||L||=a,||L^{-1}||=a^{-1}$. Equation   yields $a^{-1}{\kappa}_r\le{\tilde{\kappa}}_r\le a^{-1}{\kappa}_r$. Equation   becomes $a^{-1}|{\kappa}_{n-1}|\le|{\tilde{\kappa}}_{n-1}|\le a^{-1}|{\kappa}_{n-1}|$. Natural invariants for curves {#invari_sub} ----------------------------- Let $c(t)$ be a regular curve in $V^n$. Choosing an orthonormal basis in $V$, we associate with the curve $n$ real functions, $c(t)=(x_1(t),\dots,x_n(t))$; they determine the curve. However, these functions are not intrinsically defined by the curve; they depend on the choice of a basis in $V$. By the Frenet-Serret equation, the $n-1$ curvatures ${\kappa}_1,\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}$ together with $||c'||$ determine the parameterized curve $c(t)$. See equation  . The $n$ functions $||c'(t)||,{\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ are intrinsically defined by the curve. However, this is an inhomogeneous collection of functions. The first member of this collection does not belong with the remaining $n-1$. A more homogeneous collection of functions intrinsically defined by a curve would be $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$. Do they determine the curve up to an isometry? Recall that a curve $c(t)$ is regular if the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t)$ are linearly independent for all $t$. \[str\_reg\_def\] A curve $c(t)$ in $V^n$ is [*strongly regular*]{} if it is $n$ times continuously differentiable and the $n$ vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t),c^{(n)}(t)$ are linearly independent for all $t$ in the interval of definition of the curve. We have assumed on the outset that our curves are differentiable as many times as we need. Thus, the emphasis in Definition  \[str\_reg\_def\] is not on the existence of all $n$ derivatives but on their linear independence. Let $v_1,\dots,v_n\in V^n$ be linearly independent. Set $${\text{sgn}}(v_1,\dots,v_n)=\mbox{sign}[\det(v_1,\dots,v_n)].$$ If $v_1,\dots,v_n$ are linearly dependent, we set ${\text{sgn}}(v_1,\dots,v_n)=0$. Let $c(\cdot)$ be a regular curve in $V^n$. We define ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))$ by $${\text{sgn}}(c(t))={\text{sgn}}(c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)).$$ Thus, $c$ is strongly regular iff ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))\equiv 1$ or ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))\equiv -1$. We denote it by ${\text{sgn}}(c)$ and call it the [*sign of the curve*]{}. We will say that $c(\cdot)$ is a [*right curve*]{} (resp. [*left curve*]{}) if ${\text{sgn}}(c)=1$ (resp. ${\text{sgn}}(c)=-1$). We will need the following lemma. \[det\_vol\_lem\] Let $v_1,\dots,v_n\in V^n$ be any vectors. Then $$\label{det_vol_eq} \det(v_1,\dots,v_n)={\text{sgn}}(v_1,\dots,v_n){\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_n).$$ If $v_1,\dots,v_n\in V^n$ are linearly dependent, equation   becomes $0=0$. Thus, we assume that $v_1,\dots,v_n\in V^n$ are linearly independent. Setting $k=n$ in equation   and using equation  , we obtain $$||v_1\times\cdots\times v_n|| = |\det(v_1,\dots,v_n)|.$$ Since ${\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_n)=||v_1\times\cdots\times v_n||$, the claim follows. \[det\_vol\_rem\] ** Equation   is well known. It is essentially equivalent to the identity $$\det(v_1,\dots,v_n)^2={\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_n)^2$$ which is easy to prove directly, bypassing cross products. For completeness, we outline a proof. Choosing an orthonormal basis in $V$, we identify it with ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Let $A$ be the $n\times n$ matrix whose columns are the vectors $v_1,\dots,v_n$. Then $A^tA=G(v_1,\dots,v_n)$, the Gram matrix. Computing the determinants of these matrices, we obtain the claim. \[deriv\_norm\_thm\] Let $c(t)$ be a strongly regular curve in $V^n$. 1. The functions $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$ determine the curve up to an isometry of $V$.[^13] 2\. The functions $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$ and the number ${\text{sgn}}(c)\in\{1,-1\}$ determine the curve up to an orientation preserving isometry of $V$. Let $I$ be a finite set of indices. Recall that ${{\mathbb N}}=\{0,1,\dots\}$. We will say that a function, say $\psi$, is a linear combination of derivatives of the functions ${\varphi}_i,i\in I,$ if $\psi=\sum_{i\in I,k\in{{\mathbb N}}}a_{i,k}{\varphi}_i^{(k)}$, and the sum is finite. If the right hand side in this representation is a polynomial on variables ${\varphi}_i^{(k)}$, we say that $\psi$ is a differential polynomial of functions ${\varphi}_i$. Denote by $f_{i,j}$ the functions defined by $f_{i,j}(t)=<c^{(i)}(t),c^{(j)}(t)>$. It will suffice to consider the indices between $1$ and $n$. We claim that each function $f_{k,l}$ is a linear combination of derivatives of functions $f_{i,i}$ where $1\le i\le n$. By symmetry, we can assume that $k\le l$. If $k=l$, there is nothing to prove. For $l=k+1$ the claim follows from the identity $f_{k,k}'=2f_{k,k+1}$. Let $l>k+1$. We have $$f_{k,l}=f_{k,l-1}'- f_{k+1,l-1}.$$ The claim now follows by induction on $l-k$. Let $1\le k \le n$. By equation  , equation  , and the above claim, ${\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(k)})^2$ is a differential polynomial of $||c^{(i)}||^2$, where $i=1,\dots,k$. By equation   in Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\], the curvatures ${\kappa}_1,\dots,{\kappa}_{n-2}$ are determined by $||c'||,\dots,||c^{(n-1)}||$. Applying Lemma  \[det\_vol\_lem\] to the vectors $c',\dots,c^{(n-1)},c^{(n)}$, we obtain the identity $$\label{signum_eq} \det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})={\text{sgn}}(c){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n)}).$$ By equation   in Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] and equation  , ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ is expressed in terms of $||c'||,\dots,||c^{(n-1)}||,||c^{(n)}||$ and ${\text{sgn}}(c)$. By Serret-Frenet, the $n-1$ curvatures and $||c'||$ determine the curve up to an orientation preserving isometry of $V$, yielding claim 2. Suppose now that we know only $||c'||,\dots,||c^{(n-1)}||,||c^{(n)}||$. The two possibilities ${\text{sgn}}(c)=\pm 1$ yield two curves $c_+(\cdot),c_-(\cdot)$.[^14] Claim 1 now follows from the observation that $c_-$ and $c_+$ differ by an orientation reversing isometry. Curves in arbitrary riemannian manifolds {#rieman} ======================================== The approach of Frenet-Serret extends to curves in riemannian manifolds. We will assume that our mappings, functions, etc are differentiable as many times as necessary. Thus, to simplify the exposition, by a riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ we will mean a connected, $C^{\infty}$ riemannian manifold of at least two dimensions. We will now briefly recall the basic material on riemannian geometry, referring the reader to [@He62] or another textbook for details. Let $c(t)$ be a curve in $M$ defined on an interval $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$. Let $c'(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$ be the tangent vector. Thus $t\mapsto c'(t)$ maps $I$ to the tangent bundle $TM$. We assume that $c'(t)\ne 0$. Let $D$ be the [*operator of covariant differentiation*]{} with respect to $c'(t)$. Using $D$, we obtain the higher derivatives of $c(\cdot)$. We set $c''(t)=Dc'(t),c'''(t)=Dc''(t)$, etc. We will use the notation $c^{(k)}(t)=D^kc(t)$. The details of Frenet-Serret approach depend on the orientability of the manifold. We will first consider the case when $M$ is oriented. Curves in oriented riemannian manifolds {#orient_sub} --------------------------------------- Analogously to the euclidean case, we introduce the notions of regular and strongly regular curves. Throughout this section, $(M^n,g)$ is an oriented riemannian manifold. Whenever this does not lead to confusion, we will simply use the notation $M$ or $M^n$. \[reg\_riem\_def\] A parameterized curve $c(t)$ in $(M^n,g)$ is (resp. strongly) regular if for each parameter $t\in I$ the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$ (resp. $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t),c^{(n)}(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$) are linearly independent. When $M$ is a euclidean space, Definition  \[reg\_riem\_def\] reproduces Definition  \[str\_reg\_def\]. Let $c(t)$ be a geodesic in $(M^n,g)$ parameterized by arclength.[^15] Then $c''\equiv 0$. Thus, geodesics parameterized by arclength are not (resp. strongly) regular curves if $n>2$ (resp. $n\ge 2$). Let $c(\cdot)$ be a regular curve in $M$. Orthonormalizing the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n-1)}(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$, we obtain the Frenet-Serret frame $e(t)=(e_1(t),\dots,e_n(t))$ of the curve in $M$. Here we have $e_i(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$. The argument pertaining to equation   applies verbatim and yields $$\label{riem_frenet_eq} e'(t)=D\cdot e(t)\ = \ ||c'(t)|| \begin{pmatrix} 0 & {\kappa}_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ -{\kappa}_1 & 0 & {\kappa}_2 & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & \cdots & -{\kappa}_{n-2} & 0 & {\kappa}_{n-1} \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -{\kappa}_{n-1} & 0 \end{pmatrix} e(t).$$ In particular, just like in the euclidean case, a regular curve in $M^n$ has $n-1$ curvatures ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$; the first $n-2$ curvatures are strictly positive. There are no restrictions on ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ unless $c(\cdot)$ is strongly regular. In this case ${\kappa}_{n-1}$ does not change sign. Equation   allows us to obtain the counterparts of the preceding material for curves in riemannian manifolds. \[exi\_uni\_riem\_prop\] Let $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ be a nontrivial interval; let $f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{n-1}$ be smooth functions on $I$ satisfying $f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{n-2}>0$. Let $0\in I$ be an interior point, and let $m_0\in M$ be arbitrary. Let $v_0\in T_{m_0}M$ be such that $||v_0||=f_0(0)$. Then there exists a unique regular curve $c:I\to M$ such that i\) We have $c(0)=m_0,c'(0)=v_0$; ii\) For $t\in I$ we have $||c'(t)||=f_0(t)$ for all $t\in I$; iii\) For all $t\in I$ and $1\le i \le n-1$ we have ${\kappa}_i(t)=f_i(t)$. We rewrite equation   in local coordinates; then we apply the classical propositions about the solutions of ordinary differential equations. Note that equation   and essentially the same argument yield the corresponding claims for curves in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. The only difference is that ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ has global coordinates. We will now extend Theorem  \[all\_curv\_thm\] to curves in riemannian manifolds. Let $c:I\to M$ be a regular curve in $M$. Since $M$ is oriented, every tangent space $T_mM$ is a euclidean space. Set $V(t)=T_{c(t)}M$. Then $t\mapsto V(t)$ is a smooth function with values in $n$-dimensional euclidean spaces. Each $V(t)$ is endowed with cross products and the other structures defined in section  \[exter\]. For $i=1,\dots,n$ let $v_i(t)\in V(t)$ be differentiable functions. Let $1\le k \le n$. Then $v_1(t)\times\cdots\times v_k(t)$ are differentiable vector functions on $I$ with values in $\wedge^{n-k}V(t)$. Analogously, ${\text{vol}}(v_1(t),\dots,v_k(t))$ and $\det(v_1(t),\dots,v_n(t))$ are differentiable real valued functions. We call them the $k$-volume, $1\le k \le n$, and the determinant. The material in section   \[exter\] straightforwardly extends to the present setting. \[riem\_all\_curv\_thm\] Let $M$ be an oriented riemannian manifold of at least two dimensions. Let $c(t),t\in I,$ be a regular curve in $M$. For $1\le i \le n$ let $c^{(i)}(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$ be the consecutive covariant derivatives. Let ${\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(k)})$ and $\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})$ be the $k$-volume functions and the determinant function.[^16] Then for $1\le r \le n-2$ we have $$\label{riem_gen_curv_eq} {\kappa}_r=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r-1)}){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^2}||c'||^{-1}.$$ The torsion, i. e., the top curvature, satisfies $$\label{riem_top_curv_eq} {\kappa}_{n-1}=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n-2)})\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(n-1)})^2}||c'||^{-1}.$$ The proof of Theorem   \[all\_curv\_thm\] is based on the vector calculus applied to the functions $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)$ with values in a euclidean space $V$. The functions $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)$ have values in the variable euclidean space $V(t)$. All of the equations used in the proof of Theorem   \[all\_curv\_thm\] remain valid in the present context, once we replace the differentiation of vector functions $v(t)\mapsto v'(t)$ by the covariant derivative $v(t)\mapsto (D\cdot v)(t)$. Thus, the proof of Theorem   \[all\_curv\_thm\] applies verbatim here. The propositions in section  \[corol\_sub\] are direct corollaries of Theorem   \[all\_curv\_thm\]. Hence, they straightforwardly extend to curves in oriented riemannian manifolds. We let the reader elaborate on this remark. Let $c:I\to M$ be a regular curve. We define the function ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))$ on $I$ the same way we did it in section  \[invari\_sub\] for curves in euclidean spaces. Thus, the only values of ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))$ are $\pm 1$ and $0$. The curve $c(\cdot)$ is strongly regular iff ${\text{sgn}}(c)\equiv 1$ or ${\text{sgn}}(c)\equiv -1$. In what follows we assume without loss of generality that $0\in I$. \[riem\_deriv\_norm\_prop\] Let $M$ be an oriented riemannian manifold of at least two dimensions. Let $m_0\in M$ and let $v_0\in T_{m_0}M$ be a nonzero vector. Let $c:I\to M$ be a regular curve satisfying $c(0)=m_0,c'(0)=v_0$. Then the curve $c:I\to M$ is determined by the $n+1$ functions $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$, ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))$ on $I$. The first part of the proof of Theorem  \[deriv\_norm\_thm\] is valid in the present setting. Hence, for $1\le k \le n$ the $k$-volumes ${\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(k)})(t)$ are determined by the functions $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$. Equation   is also valid, thus $\det(c',\dots,c^{(n)})(t)$ is also determined by our $n+1$ functions. The claim now follows from Theorem  \[riem\_all\_curv\_thm\] and Lemma  \[exi\_uni\_riem\_prop\]. The following is immediate from Proposition  \[riem\_deriv\_norm\_cor\]. \[riem\_deriv\_norm\_cor\] Let $M^n$ be an oriented riemannian manifold. Let $m_0\in M$ and let $v_0\in T_{m_0}M$ be a nonzero vector. Let $I\subset {{\mathbb R}}$ be a nontrivial interval containing zero. Let $f_1,\dots,f_n$ be smooth positive functions on $I$. Let ${\varphi}$ be a piecewise constant function on $I$ taking values $\pm 1$. Then there exists at most one regular curve $c:I\to M$ satisfying i) $c(0)=m_0,c'(0)=v_0$; ii) $||c'(t)||=f_1(t),\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||=f_n(t)$; iii) ${\text{sgn}}(c(t))={\varphi}(t)$. Curves in oriented two-point homogeneous spaces {#2-point_sub} ----------------------------------------------- In section  \[corol\_appli\] we did not specify the initial points and the initial directions of curves in euclidean spaces. For instance, we stated that a curve $c(\cdot)$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ whose $n-1$ curvatures and $||c'(\cdot)||$ are prescribed, is unique up to an isometry of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. In order to formulate the riemannian counterpart of the material in section  \[corol\_appli\], we briefly recall the basic notions pertaining to homogeneous riemannian manifolds. A riemannian manifold $M$ is homogeneous if the group of isometries ${\text{Iso}}(M)$ acts transitively on $M$. We denote by ${\text{Iso}}_0(M)\subset{\text{Iso}}(M)$ the group of orientation preserving isometries. Let $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denote the riemannian distance. Then $M$ is a two-point homogeneous space if for any two pairs of points $x,y$ and $x_1,y_1$ such that $d(x,y)=d(x_1,y_1)$ there exists $g\in{\text{Iso}}(M)$ satisfying $g(x)=x_1,g(y)=y_1$. Basic facts about two-point homogeneous spaces [@He62] imply the following. \[2\_point\_lem\] Let $M$ be a two-point homogeneous space. For $i=1,2$ let $m_i\in M, v_i\in T_{m_i}M$ be such that $||v_1||=||v_2||\ne 0$. Then there exists $g\in{\text{Iso}}(M)$ such that $g(m_1)=m_2,g(v_1)=v_2$. \[2\_point\_rem\] ** The isometry claimed in Lemma  \[2\_point\_lem\] is not unique, in general. Let $M$ be an oriented two-point homogeneous space of at least two dimensions. Then there exist orientation preserving and orientation reversing isometries satisfying the conditions of Lemma  \[2\_point\_lem\]. \[uni\_riem\_prop\] Let $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ be a nontrivial interval. Let $n\ge 2$ and let $f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{n-1}$ be smooth functions on $I$ satisfying $f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{n-2}>0$. Let $M^n$ be an oriented two-point homogeneous space. Then there is a regular curve $c:I\to M$ such that for all $t\in I$ we have i) $||c'(t)||=f_0(t)$; ii) ${\kappa}_i(t)=f_i(t)$ for $1\le i \le n-1$. The curve $c(t)$ is unique up to an orientation preserving isometry of $M$. We assume without loss of generality that $I$ contains $0$ in its interior. Let $m_0\in M$ be any point; let $v_0\in T_{m_0}M$ be any vector satisfying $||v_0||=f_0(0)$. By Lemma  \[exi\_uni\_riem\_prop\], there is a curve, say $c_0:I\to M$, satisfying the above assumptions and such that $c_0(0)=m_0,c'(0)=v_0$. Let now $c:I\to M$ be any curve satisfying the assumptions of the Proposition. By Lemma  \[2\_point\_lem\], there is $g\in{\text{Iso}}(M)$ such that $g(m_0)=c(0),g\cdot v_0=c'(0)$. By Remark  \[2\_point\_rem\], we can assume that $g$ preserves orientation. By the uniqueness claim in Lemma  \[exi\_uni\_riem\_prop\], we have $c(t)=g\cdot c_0(t)$. We will now extend Theorem  \[deriv\_norm\_thm\] to the present setting. \[Riem\_deriv\_norm\_thm\] Let $M$ be an oriented two-point homogeneous space. Let $c(t),\,t\in I,$ be a strongly regular curve in $M$. 1\. The functions $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$ determine the curve up to an isometry of $M$. 2\. The functions $||c'(t)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||$ and the number ${\text{sgn}}(c)\in\{1,-1\}$ determine the curve up to an orientation preserving isometry of $M$. Let $f_i:I\to{{\mathbb R}}_+,1\le i \le n,$ be positive functions, let ${\sigma}\in\{1,-1\}$. Let $m_0\in M$ be a particular point. Let $v_0\in T_{m_0}M$ be a vector such that $||v_0||=||c'(0)||$. Suppose that there is a curve $c_0:I\to M$ such that i) for $1\le k \le n$ we have $||c_0^{(k)}(t)||=f_k(t)$; ii) ${\text{sgn}}(c_0(t))={\sigma}$; iii) $c_0(0)=m_0,c_0'(0)=v_0$. Let now $m\in M$ be any point; let $v\in T_mM$ be such that $||v||=||c'(0)||$. By Lemma  \[2\_point\_lem\], there is $g\in{\text{Iso}}(M)$ such that $g\cdot m_0=m,g\cdot v_0=v$. By Remark  \[2\_point\_rem\], we can ensure that $g$ preserves orientation. Set $c(t)=g\cdot c_0(t)$. If ${\tilde{c}}:I\to M$ is any curve that has the same norms of the derivatives, has the same number ${\text{sgn}}(c)$, passes through the same point ${\tilde{c}}(0)$, and has the same tangent vector ${\tilde{c}}'(0)$, then, by Corollary  \[riem\_deriv\_norm\_cor\], ${\tilde{c}}=c$. This proves claim 2. Applying orientation reversing isometries to strongly regular curves $c(\cdot)$, we do not change the norms of their derivatives but we flip ${\text{sgn}}(c)$. Hence claim 1 follows from claim 2. Curves in non-orientable riemannian manifolds {#non_orient_sub} --------------------------------------------- In this section, $M$ is a non-orientable riemannian manifold.[^17] The Frenet-Serret approach works with slight modifications. We will consider only strongly regular curves $c:I\to M$. Thus, we assume that the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)\in T_{c(t)}M$ are linearly independent. The manifold does not impose any orientation on $T_{c(t)}M$; for $t\in I$ we set $V(t)=T_{c(t)}M$ oriented in such a way that the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)$ form a positive basis. Note that we may have parameter values $t_1,t_2\in I$ such that $c(t_1)=c(t_2)$ but $V(t_1)\ne V(t_2)$. This happens when the curve $c(\cdot)$ passes through a point, say $m\in M$, more than once, inducing opposite orientations on the tangent space $T_mM$. From now on, $c:I\to M$ is a strongly regular curve. Orthonormalizing the vectors $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)\in V(t)$, we obtain the orthonormal frame $e(t)=(e_1(t),\dots,e_n(t))$. \[curv\_nonorien\_lem\] The Frenet-Serret frame $e(\cdot)$ satisfies equation  . The curvature functions ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ are positive. The argument that we used to prove equation   applies verbatim. By construction, the vectors $e_i(t)$ satisfy equation   for $1\le i \le n$. This implies the positivity of all the curvatures. \[curv\_nonorien\_rem\] ** In particular, $e_1(t),\dots,e_n(t)$ is a positive orthonormal basis in $V(t)$. Lemma  \[curv\_nonorien\_lem\] and Remark  \[curv\_nonorien\_rem\] allow us to extend the material in sections  \[orient\_sub\] and  \[2-point\_sub\] to non-oriented riemannian manifolds. The following theorem states the main claims. In order to prove them, it suffices to repeat verbatim the proofs of homologous claims in sections  \[orient\_sub\] and  \[2-point\_sub\], invoking Lemma  \[curv\_nonorien\_lem\] and Remark  \[curv\_nonorien\_rem\]. \[nonoren\_main\_thm\] Let $c:I\to M$ be a strongly regular curve in a non-orientable riemannian manifold. Let $c'(t),\dots,c^{(n)}(t)$ be the tangent vectors and let ${\kappa}_1(t),\dots,{\kappa}_{n-1}(t)$ be the curvatures. Then the following claims hold. 1\. For $1 \le r \le n-1$ we have the identities $$\label{non_orien_curv_eq} {\kappa}_r=\frac{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r-1)}){\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r+1)})}{{\text{vol}}(c',\dots,c^{(r)})^2}||c'||^{-1}.$$ 2. Let $f_1,\dots,f_n$ be positive functions on $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$. Assume that $0\in I$. Let $m_0\in M$ and $v_0\in T_{m_0}M$ be such that $||v_0||=f_1(0)$. Then there exists at most one strongly regular curve $c:I\to M$ such that i) $c(0)=m_0,c'(0)=v_0$; ii) for $t\in I$ we have $||c'(t)||=f_1(t),\dots,||c^{(n)}(t)||=f_n(t)$. 3\. Suppose that $M$ is a two-point homogeneous space. Then the functions $||c'(\cdot)||,\dots,||c^{(n)}(\cdot)||$ determine the curve up to an isometry of $M$. In conclusion we note that there are non-orientable two-point homogeneous spaces, e. g., the even-dimensional real projective spaces. [**Acknowledgements.**]{} While working on the project, the author enjoyed the hospitality of mathematical establishments at the following institutions: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität in Freiburg im Breisgau, FIM, ETH in Zurich, and the University of California in Los Angeles. The author has presented some of the results in this article at the Geometry Oberseminar in Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. The participants’ feedback is greatly appreciated. The work was partially supported by MNiSzW grant NN201384834. [99]{} R.L. Bishop, [*There is more than one way to frame a curve*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly [**82**]{} (1975), 246 – 251. H. Brauner, [*Differentialgeometrie*]{}, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1981. M. Daniel and E. Gutkin, [*The dynamics of generalized Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin chain*]{}, Chaos [**5**]{} (1995), 439 – 442. M. do Carmo, [*Differential geometry of curves and surfaces*]{}, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1976. A. Doliwa and P. Santini, [*An elementary geometric characterization of the integrable motions of a curve*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**A 185**]{} (1994), 373 – 384. P. Griffiths, [*On Cartan’s method of Lie groups and moving frames as applied to uniqueness and existence questions in differential geometry*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**41**]{} (1974), 775 – 814. P. Griffiths, [*Exterior differential systems and the calculus of variations*]{}, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1983. E. Gutkin, [*Quantum nonlinear Schroedinger equation. Two solutions*]{}, Phys. Reports [**167**]{} (1988), 1 – 131. E. Gutkin, [*The Toeplitz-Hausdorff theorem revisited: relating linear algebra and geometry*]{}, Math. Intelligencer [**26**]{} (2004), 8 – 14. E. Gutkin, E. Jonckheere, M. Karow, [*Convexity of the joint numerical range: topological and differential geometric viewpoints*]{}, Linear Algebra Appl. [**376**]{} (2004), 143 – 171. S. Helgason, [*Differential Geometry and Symmetric Spaces*]{}, Academic Press, New York 1962. R. Horn and C. Johnson, [*Matrix analysis*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. T.A. Ivey, [*Minimal curves of constant torsion*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**128**]{} (2000), 2095 – 2103. E.A. Jonckheere, [*Algebraic and differential topology of robust stability*]{}, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997. C. Jordan, [*Sur la théorie des courbes dans l’espace à $n$ dimensions*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**79**]{} (1874), 795 -– 797. W. Klingenberg, [*A Course in Differential Geometry*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978. G. Richardson and J.R. King, [*The evolution of space curves by curvature and torsion*]{}, J. Phys. [**A 35**]{} (2002), 9857 – 9879. J.A. Sanders and J.P. Wang, [*Integrable systems in $n$-dimensional Riemannian geometry*]{}, Mosc. Math. J. [**3**]{} (2003), 1369 – 1393. M. Spivak, [*A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry*]{}, Publish or Perish, Berkeley, 1979. Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet-Serret. [^1]: We assume that the vector function $c(t)$ is differentiable as many times as needed, and that the derivatives $c'(t),c''(t)$ are linearly independent. In what follows, we refer to conditions of this kind as the regularity assumptions. [^2]: Around 1850. [^3]: Textbooks on differential geometry usually give them as exercises; see, for instance, [@Kl78] and [@DoC76]. However, they are not in [@Sp79]. [^4]: It is also called the vector product. [^5]: Note that ${\text{vol}}(v_1,\dots,v_k)=0$ iff the vectors are linearly dependent. [^6]: As opposed to quantum. [^7]: More precisely, the classical, isotropic Heisenberg ferromagnet. [^8]: I thank A. Veselov for pointing this out to me. [^9]: Note that $\bigwedge V$ does not have a natural orientation. [^10]: For instance, by induction on $k$. [^11]: There is no information in [@Br81] about the solution of problem 2. [^12]: We denote by $O(V)$ (resp. $SO(V)$) the group of (resp. orientation preserving) linear isometries. [^13]: We do not assume that the isometry is orientation preserving. [^14]: This is a slight abuse of language. In fact, these are two equivalence classes of curves, where equivalent curves differ by an orientation preserving isometry. [^15]: The same statements hold if $t$ is proportional to an arclength parameter. [^16]: We suppress $t$ from notation, whenever this does not cause confusion. [^17]: The inequality $\dim M\ge 2$ is necessarily satisfied.

--- --- \ [Dedicated to John Milnor on his $80^{\rm th}$ birthday]{}\ Hugo García-Compeán$^a$[^1], Roberto Santos-Silva$^a$[^2], Alberto Verjovsky$^b$[^3]\ \[2mm\] [*$^a$Departamento de Física, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN*]{}\ [*P.O. Box 14-740, 07000 México D.F., México*]{}\ [*$^b$Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Unidad Cuernavaca*]{}\ [*Av. Universidad s/n, Col. Lomas de Chamilpa*]{}\ [*c.p. 62210, Cuernavaca Morelos, México*]{}\ \ [ The Jones-Witten invariants can be generalized for non-singular smooth vector fields with invariant probability measure on $3$-manifolds, giving rise to new invariants of dynamical systems [@VV]. After a short survey of cohomological field theory for Yang-Mills fields, Donaldson-Witten invariants are generalized to four-dimensional manifolds with non-singular smooth flows generated by homologically non-trivial $p$-vector fields. These invariants have the information of the flows and they are interpreted as the intersection number of these flow orbits and constitute invariants of smooth four-manifolds admitting global flows. We study the case of Kähler manifolds by using the Witten’s consideration of the strong coupling dynamics of ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories. The whole construction is performed by implementing the notion of higher dimensional asymptotic cycles à la Schwartzman [@SH]. In the process Seiberg-Witten invariants are also described within this context. Finally, we give an interpretation of our asymptotic observables of 4-manifolds in the context of string theory with flows.]{} Introduction ============ Quantum field theory is not only a framework to describe the physics of elementary particles and condensed matter systems but it has been useful to describe mathematical structures and their subtle interrelations. One of the most famous examples is perhaps the description of knot and link invariants through the correlation functions of products of Wilson line operators in the Chern-Simons gauge theory [@WJP]. These invariants are the Jones-Witten invariants or Vassiliev invariants depending on whether the coupling constant is weak or strong respectively. Very recently some aspects of gauge and string theories found a strong relation with Khovanov homology [@Witten:2011zz]. In four dimensions the Donaldson invariants are invariants of the smooth structure on a closed four-manifold. This is in the sense that if two homeomorphic differentiable manifolds have different Donaldson invariants then they are not diffeomorphic [@Donaldson; @DK]. These invariants were reinterpreted by Witten in terms of the correlation functions of suitable observables of a cohomological Yang-Mills field theory in four dimensions [@WTQ]. Such a theory can be obtained from an appropriate topological twist on the global symmetries of the ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in Minkowski space with global $R$-symmetry SU$(2)$ that rotates the supercharges. A gravitational analog of the Donaldson theory is given by the topological gravity in four and two dimensions [@WTG]. The computation of Donaldson invariants for Kähler manifolds has been done from the mathematical point of view in Refs. [@GRADY; @KM]. These Donaldson invariants were later reproduced in Ref. [@MINIMAL] by using the strong coupling dynamics of ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions. Precisely a deeper understanding of the dynamics of strong coupling ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories in four dimensions [@SW] including the notion of $S$-duality, allowed to give an alternative approach to Donaldson theory in terms of the low energy effective abelian gauge theory coupled to magnetic monopoles [@MONO]. For a recent account of all these developments, see [@book1]. Moreover, the topological twist was applied to other theories such as string theory resulting in the so called topological sigma models [@TSM]. The two possible twists of the global symmetries of the world-sheet theory leads to the so called $A$ and $B$-models, whose correlation functions give rise to a description of the moduli space in terms of only the Kähler cone or only the moduli of complex structures of a target space Calabi-Yau manifold. $A$-models give rise to Gromov-Witten invariants. Mirror symmetry is realized through the interchanging of $A$ and $B$ models of two Calabi-Yau manifolds related by the interchanging of Betti numbers [@MM]. For a recent survey of all these topological field theories and their interrelations, see for instance [@Marino:2005sj]. On the other hand it is well known that topology and symplectic geometry play a very important role in the theory of dynamical systems [@khesin]. Schwartzman introduced some years ago, homology 1-cycles associated to a foliation known as [*asymptotic cycles*]{} [@SA]. These 1-cycles are genuine homology cycles and they represent an important tool to study some properties of dynamical systems. Moreover, the generalization to $p$-cycles, with $p>1$, was done in Ref. [@SH]. Such generalization was achieved by using some concepts of dynamical systems such as flow boxes and geometric currents [@RS; @S]. The definition of asymptotic cycles for non-compact spaces was discussed in Ref. [@NCS]. In particular, the results [@SA] were used define the Jones-Witten polynomial for a dynamical system [@VV]. More recently the ideas from [@SH; @RS; @S] were used to find new suitable higher dimensional generalizations of the asymptotic linking number starting from a topological $BF$ theory (see [@GarciaCompean:2009zh] and references therein). In the present paper we also use the notion of asymptotic $p$-cycles to extend the Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten invariants when smooth $p$-vector fields are incorporated globally on the underlying four-manifold. The asymptotic $p$-cycles associated to $p$-vectors on the manifolds define real homology $p$-cycles on these manifolds. They will constitute refined topological invariants of dynamical systems which distinguish the triplet $(M,{\cal F},\mu)$, where $M$ is a four-manifold, ${\cal F}$ is the foliation (possibly singular) associated to a $p$-vector and $\mu$ is a transverse measure of ${\cal F}$ which is invariant under holonomy. Two triplets $(M_1,{\cal F}_1,\mu_1)$ and $(M_2,{\cal F}_2,\mu_2)$ are [*differentiably equivalent*]{} if there is a diffeomorphism from $M_1$ to $M_2$, which sends the leaves of ${\cal F}_1$ to the leaves of ${\cal M}_2$ and the push-forward of $\mu_1$ is $\mu_2$. Moreover these invariants will constitute a generalization of the Donaldson-Witten invariants for such triplets. For instance, one of the main results here is that our invariants will distinguish triplets: if two triplets $(M_i,{\cal F}_i,\mu_i)$ ($i=1,2$) have the property that the four-dimensional Donaldson-Witten invariants of $M_1$ and $M_2$ are equal but our invariants are different then the corresponding systems of flows on them are not differentiably equivalent. On the other hand it is well known that Donaldson-Witten invariants can be interpreted in terms of the scattering amplitude (at zero momentum) of an axion with a NS5-brane in the heterotic string theory [@Harvey:1991hq]. This paper would suggest a possible physical interpretation of our invariants involving flows in terms of an averaged propagation of a closed string in a target space described in terms of the moduli space of positions of a NS5-brane. That means, a “continuous” flux of closed strings (propagating in the transverse space to the worldvolume of the NS5 brane) giving rise to an asymptotic 2-cycle. The diffuseness of the asymptotic cycle is determined by a flow (or set of flows) in the target space given by some field in the target space, for instance, the NS $B$-field whose associated 2-vector field gives the 2-foliation on the target. The organization of the present paper is as follows: Sec. 2 is devoted to a brief review of asymptotic $p$-cycles with $p>1$. In Sec. 3 we overview cohomological field theory for Donaldson-Witten theory. In Sec. 4 we define the Donaldson-Witten invariant for four-dimensional manifolds in the presence of a smooth and nowhere vanishing $p$-vector field over the underlying spacetime manifold. It is also verified that this invariant is well defined as a limiting average of the standard definition. Section 5 is devoted to describe the procedure for Kähler four-manifolds. This is done by using a physical procedure through the incorporation of a mass term which breaks the supersymmetry to ${\cal N}=1$ theories allowing the existence of a mass gap. In Section 6 we survey the Seiberg-Witten invariants. We focus mainly on the case of abelian magnetic monopoles. Non-abelian monopoles are also briefly described. In Sec. 7 we derive the Seiberg-Witten invariants in the presence of flows. Sec. 8 is devoted to explain how the Donaldson-Witten invariants for flows can be derived from a suitable system of strings in non-trivial flows on the spacetime target space. Finally, in Sec. 9 our final remarks and conclusions close the paper. Asymptotic Cycles and Currents ============================== In this section we give a brief overview of asymptotic $p$-cycles with $p \geq 1$. Our aim is not to provide an extensive review of this material but introduce the notations and conventions of the relevant structures, which will be needed in the subsequent sections. For a more complete treatment see Refs. [@SA; @SH; @RS; @S; @dRham]. In order to study the main aim of the paper, which is a generalization of invariants of four-manifolds in the presence of a non-singular flows over a closed four-dimensional manifold $M$, it is necessary to consider asymptotic homology $p$-cycles of the flow on $M$ with values of $p$ greater than one. Here we will have two possibilities. The first one corresponds to a flow generated by a $p$-vector field which is not localized in the homology $p$-cycles of $M$. The second possibility is when the $p$-vector field is defined only on the tangent space of the $p$-cycles of $M$. Of course we could have a mixed situation. We also consider a set of flow invariant probability measures supported on the whole underlying manifold $M$. In this case the cycles constitute some “diffuse” cycles depending on the flow and the measure. The invariants constructed from these cycles detecting the differentiable structure of the four-manifolds with flows will be the asymptotic polynomial invariants of $M$. These invariants will coincide with the standard Donaldson-Witten invariants when the measure set is supported on the homology $p$-cycles $\gamma_p$ of $M$. For simply connected closed 4-manifolds we will be interested in cycles of dimension $p=0,2,4$. From physical reasons $p=4$ is not an interesting case since it gives a topological term that can be added to the classical Lagrangian while that for $p=0$ it is a trivial cycle. Thus the only relevant cycle will be for $p=2$. In this section we define and interpret the observables as currents in terms of the winding number of asymptotic cycles. The case $p=1$ was discussed in detail by Schwartzman in Ref. [@SA]. In Ref. [@VV] asymptotic cycles were applied to the Jones-Witten theory in order to find refined invariants of dynamical systems. Recently, these ideas were generalized to higher dimensions with foliations of dimension grater than one using the $BF$ theory without a cosmological constant in [@GarciaCompean:2009zh]. A current on a compact manifold $M$ of dimension $n$, is a linear and continuous functional in the de Rham complex $\Omega^*(M)$ i.e., satisfying: $$\label{current} C [a_1 \omega_1 + a_2 \omega_2 ] = a_1 C[ \omega_1] + a_2 C [\omega_2],$$ for all $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ differential forms and $a_1$ and $a_2$ scalars. As an example we define the following current $\gamma_p [\omega] = \int_{\gamma_p} \omega$, where $\gamma_p$ is a $p$-cycle of $M$ and $\omega$ is a $p$-form on $M$. Moreover a closed $(n-p)$-form $\alpha$ also defines a current in the following way $$\alpha[\omega] = \int_M \alpha \wedge \omega.$$ Another example is the contraction of a $p$-vector field $\nu_p$ and a $p$-form $\omega$. Let $\nu_p = \nu^{i_1 \ldots i_p} \partial_{i_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge \partial_{i_p}$ be a $p$-vector field and $\omega = \omega_{i_1 \ldots i_p} dx^{i_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{i_p}$, then we have $$\nu_p [\omega] = \omega_{i_1 \ldots i_p} \nu^{i_1 \ldots i_p}.$$ A current restricted to the space of smooth $m$-forms is called an $m$-current. Let ${\mathcal D}_m$ denote the topological vector space (with the weak\* topology ) of $m$-currents. Then in Ref. [@dRham] there were constructed a series of boundary operators $\partial_m:{\mathcal D}_m\to {\mathcal D}_{m-1}$, defined on arbitrary $m$-currents, which define a chain complex and thus a homology theory which is dual to the de Rham cohomology. $p$-Cycles and Geometrical Currents ----------------------------------- The definition of asymptotic cycles for higher dimensional foliations (under suitable hypothesis) starts by considering a closed subset ${\cal S}$ of a $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, a family of submanifolds $L_\alpha$ of dimension $p$, such that ${\cal S}= \cup_\alpha L_\alpha$ defines a [*partial foliation*]{} ${\cal F}_p$ (or [*lamination*]{} [@Candel], see chapter 10) of dimension $p$. If $M$ is compact we cover all $M$ (including the interior) with a finite collection of closed disks ${\bf D}^p \times {\bf D}^{n-p}$ (horizontal and vertical disks respectively), these collections are called [*flow boxes*]{} and they are defined in such a way that they intersect each $L_\alpha$ in a set of horizontal disks $\{ {\bf D}^p \times \{y\}\}$. The disks are smoothly embedded, such that the tangent planes vary continuously on the flow boxes. A $(n-p)$ submanifold $T$ of $M$ is called a [*transversal*]{} if it is transversal to each $L_\alpha$ of the foliation ${\cal F}_p$. A [*transversal Borel measure*]{} of the foliation ${\cal F}_p$ assigns to each small[^4] transversal submanifold $T$ a measure $\mu_{p,T}$. We assume that the measures are holonomy invariant and they are finite on compact subsets of the transversals [@Plante]. Thus a [*geometrical current*]{} is the triple $(L_\alpha,\mu_T, \nu)$, with the entries being objects defined as above and $\nu$ is the orientation of $L_\alpha$, which is assigned to every point. Assume that $M$ is covered by a system of flow boxes endowed with partitions of unity. Then every $p$-form $\omega$ can be decomposed into a finite sum $\omega = \sum_i \omega_i$, where each $\omega_i$ has his own support in the $i$-th flow box. We proceed to integrate out every $\omega_i$ over each horizontal disk $({\bf D}^p \times \{y\})_i$. Thus we obtain, using the transversal measure, a continuous function $f_i$ over $({\bf D}^{n-p})_i$, . In this way we define a geometric current as $$\langle (L_\alpha, \mu_T, \nu), \omega \rangle = \sum_i \int_{({\bf D}^{n-p})_i} \mu_T(y) \left( \int_{({\bf D}^p \times \{y\})_i} \omega_i \right) .$$ This current is closed in the sense of de Rham [@dRham] i.e., if $\omega = d \phi$ where $\phi$ has compact support then $\langle (L_\alpha, \mu_T, \nu), d\phi \rangle = 0$, since we can write $\phi = \sum_i \phi_i$. Ruelle and Sullivan [@RS] have shown that this current determines precisely an element of the $p$-th cohomology group of $M$. It does not depend of the choice of flow boxes. Recall that any $(n-p)$-form $\rho$ on $M$, determines a $p$-dimensional current by Poincaré duality $\langle \rho, \omega \rangle = \int_M \rho \wedge \omega$. Thus $(L,\mu,\nu)$ determines an element in Hom$\big(H^k(M,\mathbb{R}),\mathbb{R}\big)$ which is isomorphic to $H_k(M,\mathbb{R})$ and therefore gives the asymptotic cycle. Now consider an example of a geometrical current. Let $\mu_p$ be an invariant (under ${\bf X}_p$) volume $n$-form and ${\bf X}_p$ is a $p$-vector field nowhere vanishing on $M$. This defines a current in the de Rham sense via the $(n-p)$-form $\eta= i_{{\bf X}_p} (\mu_p)$. The current is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{currentW} W_{\mu, {\bf X}_p} (\beta) = \int_M i_{{\bf X}_p} (\mu_p) \wedge \beta.\end{aligned}$$ This current is not in general closed but it will be closed, for instance, if the $p$-vector ${\bf X}_p$ consists of vector fields corresponding to one-parameter subgroups of an action of a Lie group which preserves the volume form $\mu_p$. More precisely, one can obtain asymptotic cycles for values of $p>1$ [@SH] as follows. Consider the action of a connected Lie group $G$ on a smooth compact oriented manifold $M$, whose orbits are of the same dimension $p$. A *quantifier* is a continuous field of $p$-vectors on $M$ everywhere tangent to the orbits and invariant under the action of $G$ via the differential. A quantifier is said to be *positive* if it is nowhere vanishing and determines the orientation of the tangent space. A *preferred action* is an oriented action of a connected Lie group $G$ such that for any $x \in M$ the isotropy group $I_x$ of $x$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ and $G/I_x$ is unimodular. In [@SH] it was proved that a preferred action possesses a positive quantifier and given a positive quantifier we can define a $1-1$ correspondence between finite invariant measures and transversal invariant measures. An important result which will be used in the next sections is the following theorem (Schwartzman [@SH]) that states: Let ${\bf X}_p$ be a positive definite quantifier (i.e. $p$-vector field) and $\mu_p$ an invariant measure given by a the volume $n$-form, then $i_{{\bf X}_p} (\mu_p)$ is a closed $(n-p)$-form and the asymptotic cycle $W_{\mu,{\bf X}_p}$ will be obtained by Poincaré duality of an element of $H^{n-p} (M, \mathbb{R})$ determined by $i_{{\bf X}_p} (\mu_p)$. If $W_{\mu,{\bf X}_p}$ in $H_p (M,\mathbb{R})$ is an asymptotic cycle, the theorem gives an explicit way to construct asymptotic cycles and interpret currents as winding cycles, if the above conditions are satisfied. In [@S] Sullivan gave another way of specifying a foliation, using structures of $p$-cones and operators acting over vectors on these cones. One concrete example of the above is the following: Let $G$ be a connected abelian Lie group (for instance $\R^n$ or a compact torus ${\mathbb T}^n$) acting differentiably and locally freely (i.e. the isotropy group of every point is a discrete subgroup of $G$) on the smooth closed manifold $M$. Then, the orbits of the action determines a foliation with leaves of the same dimension as $G$. Since the group is abelian it has an invariant volume form and we obtain a natural foliated cycle. Overview of Cohomological Quantum Field Theory: Donaldson-Witten Invariants =========================================================================== In this section we overview briefly the Donaldson-Witten invariants for a closed, oriented and Riemannian four-manifold $M$ [@Donaldson; @DK], representing our spacetime. We will focus on the Witten description [@WTQ] in terms of correlation functions (expectation values of some BRST-invariant operators). A cohomological field theory is a field theory with a BRST-like operator ${\cal Q}$ transforming as a scalar with respect to the spacetime symmetries. This operator represents a symmetry of the theory and it is constructed such that ${\cal Q}^2=0$. The Lagrangians of these theories can be written as a BRST commutator (BRST-exact) $L=\{{\cal Q},V \}$, for some functional $V$. Given the properties of ${\cal Q}$, it implies that the Lagrangian is invariant under the ${\cal Q}$ symmetry $\{{\cal Q},L\}=0$ i.e. the Lagrangian is ${\cal Q}$-closed. In general, all observables ${\cal O}$ in the theory are BRST invariant and they define cohomology classes given by ${\cal O} \sim {\cal O} + \{ {\cal Q}, \lambda \}$ for some $\lambda$. Here ${\cal O}$ are the observables of the theory, which are invariant polynomials of the fields under the symmetry generator ${\cal Q}$. The observables are given by local field operators thus they depends on the point $x \in M$. Sometimes, in order to simplify the notation, we will omit explicitly this dependence. Usually the relevant topological (twisted) Lagrangian can be derived from a physical Lagrangian which may depend on the Riemannian metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ of the underlying spacetime manifold $M$ and consequently there exists an energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu \nu}$ which is also BRST-exact, i.e. $T_{\mu \nu}=\{{\cal Q},\lambda_{\mu \nu}\}$, for some $\lambda_{\mu \nu}$. It was proved for any BRST-exact operator $\mathcal{O}$ that the correlation function $\langle \{ \mathcal{Q}, \mathcal{O} \} \rangle$ vanishes and the partition function is also independent of the metric and the physical parameters encoded in the Lagrangian. Thus the correlation functions are topological invariants. There are several examples of these kind of theories. In particular, the theories that we are interested in are the Donaldson-Witten and the Seiberg-Witten ones. From the physical point of view these theories come from a suitable twist to the Lorentz group of the ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories with a compact Lie group (for definiteness we will use $SU(2)$ though its generalization to higher dimensional groups is not difficult). The supercharges also are affected by the twist which gives rise to our ${\cal Q}$ transforming as a scalar in the new assignation of the representations of spacetime global symmetries. In the path integral formalism the Donaldson-Witten polynomials are given by correlation functions in the Euclidean signature $$\langle {\cal O} \rangle = \int \mathcal{D} {\cal X} \exp\big(- L_{DW} / e^2 \big) {\cal O},$$ where $L_{DW}$ is the Donaldson-Witten Lagrangian, $e$ is the coupling constant, the $\mathcal{D} {\cal X}$ represent the measure of the fields in the theory which includes a non-abelian gauge $A^a_\mu(x)$, scalar $\phi(x)$, fermionic $\psi(x)$ and ghost (anti-ghost) fields, all of them taking values in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Fields $(A^a_\mu(x),\psi(x),\phi(x))$ (with associated ghost numbers $U=(0,1,2)$) constitutes a fermionic BRST multiplet. We note that there is a nice mathematical interpretation of the mentioned ingredients of the theory. For instance, the fields will represent differential forms on the moduli space of the theory, the ghost number of the fields corresponds with the degree of these differential forms and the BRST charge ${\cal Q}$, which changes the ghost number in a unit, can be regarded as the exterior derivative. It is possible to see that the change of the correlation functions with respect to the coupling constant $e$ is ${\cal Q}$-exact. Due to the property mentioned above $\langle \{{\cal Q},V\}\rangle=0$, for some $V$, the correlation functions are independent of $e$. Consequently they can be computed in the semi-classical regime when $e$ is small and they can be evaluated by the stationary phase method. The path integration in the space ${\cal C} = {\cal B}/{\cal G}$ (of all gauge connections ${\cal B}$ modulo gauge transformations ${\cal G}$) localizes precisely in the space of gauge fields satisfying the instanton equation (anti-Self-dual Yang-Mills equations): $\widetilde{F}_{\mu \nu}= - F_{\mu \nu}$ i.e. the instanton moduli space $\mathcal{M}_D$ of dimension $d(\mathcal{M}_D ) = 8 p_1 (E) - \frac{3}{2} (\chi + \sigma))$ [@AHS] . Here $\chi$ and $\sigma$ are the Euler characteristic and the signature of $M$ respectively. It is worth mentioning that in general ${\cal M}_D$ has singularities which are associated with the reducible connections or the zero size instantons (small instantons). If one considers four manifolds with $b_2^+(M)>1$ the moduli space ${\cal M}_D$ behaves as an smooth, orientable and compact manifold [@Donaldson; @DK]. But for general $b_2^+(M)$ it is more involved. Thus, in general, they are usually neglected by assuming that the only zero modes come from the gauge connection $A^a_\mu(x)$ and its BRST partner $\psi_\mu^a(x)$. Scalar field $\phi^a(x)$ has zero modes in the singularities and this would lead to a modification of the observables. The Donaldson map $H_p(M) \to H^{4-p}({\cal M}_D)$ ($p=0,\dots ,4$) is given by $\gamma_p \mapsto \int_{\gamma_p} c_2({\cal P})$, where ${\cal P}$ is the universal bundle over $M \times {\cal M}_D \subset M \times {\cal B}/{\cal G}$ and $c_2$ is the second Chern class of ${\cal P}$. For the gauge group $SU(2)$, the observables are $$\label{obs} \mathcal{O}^{\gamma_p} \equiv \int_{\gamma_p} W_{\gamma_p} ,$$ where $\gamma_p$ is a $p$-homology cycle of $M$ and $W_{\gamma_p}$ is a $p$-form over $M$ given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{forms} \label{eq:2} W_{\gamma_0}(x) = \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} \rm{Tr} \phi^2\, \ \ \ \ \ W_{\gamma_1} = \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} {\rm Tr} \big( \phi \wedge \psi \big),\nonumber \\ W_{\gamma_2} = \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} {\rm Tr}\big(- i \psi \wedge \psi + \phi F\big), \ \ \ \ \ W_{\gamma_3} = \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} {\rm Tr}\big(\psi \wedge F\big), \ \ \ \ \ W_{\gamma_4} = \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} {\rm Tr} \big(F \wedge F\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{\gamma_0}(x)$ is, by construction, a Lorentz and ${\cal Q}$ invariant operator. These observables have ghost number $U=(4,3,2,1,0)$ respectively and they are constructed as descendants which can be obtained from the relation $$d W_{\gamma_p} = \{ {\cal Q}, W_{\gamma_{p+1}} \} . \label{descendent}$$ This construction establishes an isomorphism between the BRST cohomology $H^*_{BRST}({\cal Q})$ and the de Rham cohomology $H^*_{dR}(M)$. One can check that ${\cal O}^{\gamma_p}$ is BRST-invariant (BRST-closed) $$\{ {\cal Q}, \mathcal{O}^{\gamma_p} \} = \int_{\gamma_p} \{ {\cal Q}, W_{\gamma_p} \} = \int_{\gamma_p} d W_{\gamma_{p-1}} = 0 . \label{ecuaciondiez}$$ For that reason the BRST commutator of $\mathcal{O}^{\gamma_p}$ only depends of the homology class of $\gamma_p$. Indeed, suppose that $\gamma_p = \partial \beta_{p+1}$, then we get (BRST-exact) $$\mathcal{O}^{\gamma_p} = \int_{\gamma_p} W_{\gamma_p} = \int_{\beta_{p+1}} d W_{\gamma_p} = \int_{\beta_{p+1}} \{ {\cal Q} , W_{\gamma_{p+1}} \} = \{ {\cal Q}, \int_{\beta_{p+1}} W_{\gamma_{p+1}} \} . \label{ecuaciononce}$$ Then the correlation functions are written as $$\begin{aligned} \big\langle \mathcal{O}^{\gamma_{p_1}} \cdots \mathcal{O}^{\gamma_{p_r}} \big\rangle & = & \bigg\langle \prod_{j=1}^r \int_{{\gamma}_{p_j}} W_{{\gamma}_{p_j}} \bigg\rangle \nonumber \\ & = & \int \mathcal{D} \mathcal{X} \exp(-L_{DW}/e^2) \prod_{j=1}^r \int_{\gamma_{p_j}} W_{\gamma_{p_j}} . \label{eq:inv1}\end{aligned}$$ These are the Donaldson-Witten invariants in the path integral representation. They are invariants of the smooth structure of $M$. For simply connected manifolds $\pi_1(M)=0$ the relevant cycles are of the dimensions $p = 0$, $2$ and $4$. Consider a simply connected four-manifold $M$. The correlation functions of $r$ observables ${\cal O}_{\Sigma_1}, \dots ,{\cal O}_{\Sigma_r}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \big\langle \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_1}(x_1) \cdots \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_r}(x_r) \big\rangle & = & \bigg\langle \prod_{j=1}^r \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_j}(x_j) \bigg\rangle \nonumber \\ & = & \int \mathcal{D} \mathcal{X} \exp(-L_{DW}/e^2) \prod_{j=1}^r \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_j}(x_j), \label{eq:in}\end{aligned}$$ where we have considered only $r$ arbitrary 2-cycles i.e. $\gamma_{2_j}=\Sigma_j$ with $j=1,\dots,r$. Since $\mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_j}(x_j)$ has ghost number $U=2$, the above correlation function has $U=2r$. In terms of the zero modes one can write each $\mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_j}(x_j)= \Phi_{i_1 i_2}(a_i) \psi^{i_1} \psi^{i_2}$, which absorbs two zero modes and consequently in the weak coupling limit we have $$\big\langle \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_1}(x_1) \cdots \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_r}(x_r) \big\rangle = \int_{{\cal M}_D} \Phi_{\Sigma_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \Phi_{\Sigma_r}. \label{mapsso}$$ Thus we have $\Sigma \in H_2(M) \to \Phi_\Sigma \in H^2({\cal M}_D)$ and Eq.(\[mapsso\]) becomes: $$\big\langle \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_1}(x_1) \cdots \mathcal{O}_{\Sigma_r}(x_r) \big\rangle = \#(H_{\Sigma_1} \cap \cdots \cap H_{\Sigma_r}), \label{intersectionNo}$$ where $H_{\Sigma_j}$ is the Poincaré dual to $\Phi_{\Sigma_j}$ and represents a $(d({\cal M}_D)-2)$-homology cycle of the instanton moduli space ${\cal M}_D$. Equation (\[intersectionNo\]) is interpreted as the intersection number of these homology cycles in the moduli space. The topological invariance is not evident from the Eq. (\[eq:inv1\]). However the above construction has a natural interpretation in terms of equivariant cohomology [@Kanno:1988wm]. Moreover Atiyah and Jeffrey [@AJ] showed that this expression can be reinterpreted in terms of the Euler class of a suitable infinite dimensional vector bundle in the Mathai-Quillen formalism [@MQ]. This construction requires a real vector bundle ${\cal E}$ over the quotient space ${\cal C}$ of the space of all connections ${\cal B}$ modulo gauge transformations ${\cal G}$. This bundle is such that the fibres are the space of sections $\Gamma(\Lambda^{2,+} \otimes {\rm ad}(P))$. Here $P$ is the SU(2)-principal bundle over $M$ with gauge connection $A^a_\mu(x)$. Moreover a section $s$ of ${\cal E}$ is given by $s=-F^+$, i.e. the locus $s^{-1}(0)$ is precisely the anti-self-dual moduli space ${\cal M}_D \subset {\cal C}$. The Euler class $e({\cal E})$ is the pullback $s^*\Phi({\cal E})$ of the Thom class $\Phi({\cal E})$ of ${\cal E}$, under the section $s$. If $d({\cal C})$ is the dimension of ${\cal C}$, the work of Mathai-Quillen [@MQ] allows to gave a gaussian representative for the associated Thom class given by $e_{s,\nabla} ({\cal E}) = \exp [ - {1 \over e^2} |s|^2 + \cdots],$ (which is given by a $2m$ differentiable form on ${\cal C}$) such that the Euler class is given by $$\int_{ {\cal C}} e_{s,\nabla} ({\cal E}) \wedge \alpha, \label{eulerc}$$ where $\alpha$ is an appropriate differential form of co-dimension $2m$ i.e. $\alpha \in H^{d({\cal C})-2m}({\cal C})$. This Euler class is of course independent on the connection $\nabla$ used in this construction. Euler class (\[eulerc\]), for an appropriate $\alpha$, represents the Donaldson-Witten invariants (\[eq:inv1\]). 2truecm Donaldson-Witten Invariants for Flows ===================================== In this section we study the Donaldson-Witten invariants when there exist flows associated to a $p$-vector field over the spacetime manifold $M$ equipped with an invariant probability measure $\mu$ (normalized such that $\int_M \mu =1$) and a non-singular $p$-vector field ${\bf Y}_p= Y_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge Y_p$ where $Y_i=Y^\mu_i \partial_\mu$ with $\mu=1,\dots,4$ and $i=1, \cdots , p$. We require that the probability measure $\mu_{T,p}$ be invariant under ${\bf Y}_p$ for every $p$. Thus, the global information is encoded in the set of triplets $\{(M,{\cal F}_p,\mu_{T,p}), \ p=0,\dots,4\}$, where ${\cal F}_p$ is the foliation generated by the $p$-vector field ${\bf Y}_p$. Each triplet $(M,{\cal F}_p,\mu_{T,p})$ determines an asymptotic $p$-cycle that we denote as $\widetilde{\gamma}_p$. Now we define the generalized Lie derivative ${\cal L}_{{\bf Y}_p}$ for $p$-vectors which is a graded operator defined as follows $${\cal L}_{{\bf Y}_p} \omega = [d,i_{{\bf Y}_p}] \omega = d (i_{{\bf Y}_p} \omega ) + (-1)^{\deg d \cdot \deg {i_Y}} i_{{\bf Y}_p} (d \omega),$$ being $[d,i_{{\bf Y}_p}]$ a graded commutator and $\omega$ is a $p$-form. For further details on the formalism of multi-vector field see [@vaisman; @Holm]. Here there are two possibilities: - The homology groups associated to the orbits of the $p$-vector fields ${\bf Y}_p$’s are trivial therefore they will not give relevant information of the four-manifold, however we can use these trivial asymptotic homology cycles to describe some particular interesting configurations of flows. This case corresponds to the situations found in Refs. [@VV; @GarciaCompean:2009zh]. In particular if $\omega$ is the volume form invariant under ${\bf Y}_p$ for every $p$, the last term of the previous equation is zero, then the Lie derivative ${\cal L}_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p = d (i_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p )$, the term $i_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p$ looks like the expression from the Schwartzman theorem at the end of Sec. 2. In order for $i_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p$ to be a cohomology class it needs to be closed. This requirement is established by the following equation $$\label{freediv} {\cal L}_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p =0.$$ If this condition implies $d (i_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p) =0$ i.e. $i_{{\bf Y}_p} \mu_p$ is closed then this element defines an element of the $(n-p)$ cohomology group. - The other possibility corresponds to the case when the $\widetilde{\gamma}_p$ are orbits of the flow generated by the $p$-vector fields ${\bf Y}_p$ for each value of $p$. These cycles are non-trivial. In this case it gives rise to a generalization of the four-manifold invariants as the measure $\mu$ is supported in the whole manifold $M$. In the present paper we will focus mainly on this second possibility. The Definition of Observables ----------------------------- Now we will introduce flows over $M$, and promote its homology cycles to asymptotic cycles. We define the asymptotic observable for a $p$-vector fields ($p=1, \ldots, 4$) according to the expression $$\widetilde{\cal O}_{{\bf Y}_p}(\mu_p) = \int_{\widetilde{\gamma}_p} W_{\gamma_p}:= \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_p}(W_{\gamma_p})\mu_p(x) ,$$ where $\mu_p$ is the volume form of $M$ invariant under ${\bf Y}_p$ and $i_{{\bf Y}_p}(W_{\gamma_p})$ denotes the contraction and ${\rm Tr}$ is the trace of the adjoint representation of the gauge group. We can think of the observable as an average winding number of the asymptotic cycle. The observables are related to the asymptotic cycles then they carry information about the flow whether it is trivial or not. Let ${\bf Y}_1 ,\ldots , {\bf Y}_4$ be $p$-vector fields ($p=1, \ldots , 4$) and together with the expressions $(\ref{obs})$ and $(\ref{forms})$ we define the asymptotic observable as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:f1} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{ {\bf Y}_0}(\mu_0) \equiv {\cal O}^{\gamma_0}(x)= {1\over 8 \pi^2}{\rm Tr}\phi^2,\\ \label{onett} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{ {\bf Y}_1}(\mu_1) = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_1}(\phi \psi) \,\mu_1,\\ \label{eq:f2} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_2}(\mu_2) = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_2}(-i \psi \wedge \psi + \phi F) \, \mu_2,\\ \label{eq:f3} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_3}(\mu_3) = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_3} (\psi \wedge F) \, \mu_3,\\ \label{eq:f4} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_4}(\mu_4) = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_4}{(F \wedge F)} \, \mu_4.\end{aligned}$$ It is an easy matter to check that these asymptotic observables $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_p}(\mu_p)$ are ${\cal Q}$-invariant $$\begin{aligned} \{ {\cal Q} , \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{ {\bf Y}_{p+1} }(\mu_{p+1}) \}& = &\{ {\cal Q} , \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_{p+1}}(W_{\gamma_{p+1}}) \mu_{p+1} \} \nonumber \\ & = & \int_M \{{\cal Q}, i_{{\bf Y}_{p+1}} (W_{\gamma_{p+1}}) \} \mu_{p+1} \nonumber \\ & = & \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_{p+1}} (d W_{\gamma_p}) \mu_{p+1} = 0 . \label{veinticinco}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the fact that the measure is invariant under the flow i.e. these observables are closed in the de Rham sense (see theorem 2A from Ref. [@SH]) and the fact that the BRST charge ${\cal Q}$ commutes with the contraction operation $i_{{\bf Y}_p}$. Then these asymptotic observables are BRST invariant, therefore they will give rise to topological invariants of dynamical system through a generalization of the Donaldson-Witten invariants. Moreover we observe that the problem arising in the Jones-Witten case [@VV], which distinguishes strongly the abelian and non-abelian cases is absent here and for the present case, the non-abelian case can be treated exhaustively. Even if the theory is non-abelian, our observables are Lie algebra-valued $p$-forms and the group and space-time information decouples. For the gauge group SU$(N)$ with Lie algebra su$(N)$ we take for instance $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_2}(\mu_2) = \int_{M} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} {\rm Tr} i_{{\bf Y}_2} (-i\psi \wedge \psi + \phi F) \ \mu_2 \nonumber \\ = \int_{M} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} {\rm Tr} \{ i_{{\bf Y}_2}(-i \psi^a \wedge \psi^b + \phi^a F^b ) t_a t_b \} \ \mu_2 ,\end{aligned}$$ where if $t_a$ and $t_b$ are generators of su$(2)$ they satisfy the normalization condition: ${\rm Tr}( t_a t_b ) = {1\over 2} \delta_{a b}$. Then last expression takes the following form $$\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_2}(\mu_2) = \int_{M} \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_2} (-i \psi^a \wedge \psi^a + \phi^a F^a ) \ \mu_2 .$$ We will use the following notation for $r$ components of $p$-cycles of different dimension. The observables will be denoted by $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j})$, where $p_j$ take values $1, \ldots,4$, $j=1,\dots ,r$ and such that they satisfy $\sum_{p,j} p_j = \rm{d} (\mathcal{M}_D)$, which is the dimension of the moduli space of instantons. Donaldson-Witten Invariants of four-manifolds for Flows ------------------------------------------------------- For an oriented manifold $M$ with $p_j$-vectors fields ${\bf Y}_{p_j}$, with probability invariant measure $\mu_{p_j}$, the $r$-point correlation functions (Donaldson-Witten invariants) for flows ${\bf Y}_{p_j}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \bigg\langle\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} (\mu_{p_1}) \cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}} (\mu_{p_r})\bigg\rangle = \int \mathcal{D} \mathcal{X} \exp (- L_{DW}/e^2 ) \prod_{j=1}^r \int_M \, i_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}}(W_{\gamma_{p_j}}) \mu_{p_j}(x) . \nonumber \\ \label{eccf}\end{aligned}$$ This expression is reduced to the ordinary Donaldson-Witten invariants $(\ref{eq:inv1})$, when the measure is supported on the cycles. One can think of this set of measures $\{\mu_{p_j}\}$ as Dirac measures on the set of $p-j$-cycles $\{ \widetilde{\gamma}_{p_j}\}$. If we consider the invariant probability measure $\mu_p = \sum_{j}^r \mu_{p_j}$, where each $\mu_{p_j}$ is supported on $\widetilde{\gamma}_{p_j}$ and they are uniformly distributed with respect the coordinates of $\{ \widetilde{\gamma}_{p_j}\}$. In other words $\mu_{p_j}$ is supported on $\gamma_{p_j}$ and it coincides with the normalized area form of the surface $\gamma_{p_j}$. We need to normalize in order to have $\mu$ a probability measure. We want to remark that the underlying $p_j$-fields ${\bf Y}_{p_j}$ will be considered here just as spectator fields. That is, they are background fields that are not of dynamical nature and don’t represent additional degrees of freedom of the underlying theory. Thus, they don’t contribute to the measure $\mathcal{D} \mathcal{X}$, to the Lagrangian $L_{DW}$ nor to the counting of zero modes and consequently they do not lead to a modification of the dimension of the moduli space of instantons[^5]. There will be an influence of these $p_j$-vector fields to our systems modifying mainly the structure of the observables of the theory. The structure of the vacuum also remains unchanged i.e. the mass gap and the chiral symmetry breaking are still playing an important role in the definition of invariants. For the moment we will consider an arbitrary operator $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j})$ with $p_j \geq 1$ (because in the case $p_j=0$ there is not a flow). Now we proceed to perform the integral over the non-zero modes, as in the case without flows. We assume that the only zero modes correspond to the gauge field $A_\mu$ and those associated to $\psi_\mu$. Denote this observable by $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j}) = \widetilde\Phi_{i_1 \cdots i_n}(a_i,{\bf Y}_{p_j}) \psi^{i_1} \ldots \psi^{i_n}$, where $a$’s denotes the zero modes of the gauge field and $\psi$’s are the zero modes of the fermionic field, $\widetilde\Phi (a_i, {\bf Y}_{p_j})$ is a function that only depends on the zero modes of the gauge field and contains the information about the flow. As in the standard case the partition function is zero, the integrals which are non-zero are of the form $(\ref{eccf})$, where $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}$ absorb the zero modes. Performing the functional integration over the non-zero modes in the weak coupling limit we get $\widetilde\Phi_{i_1 \cdots i_n}(a_i,{\bf Y}_{p_j})$ is an skew-symmetric tensor then $\mathcal{\widetilde O}$ can be regarded as a $n=d({\cal M}_D)$-form in $\mathcal{M}_D$. Consequently the correlation functions of one observable $\widetilde{\cal O}$ reads $$\begin{aligned} \bigg\langle \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j})\bigg\rangle & = & \int_{\mathcal{M}_D} da_1 \ldots da_n d\psi^1 \ldots d\psi^n \widetilde{\Phi}_{i_1 \cdots i_n}(a_i,{\bf Y}_{p_j}) \psi^{i_1} \ldots \psi^{i_n} \nonumber \\& = & \int_{\mathcal{M}_D} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{d({\cal M}_D)}},\end{aligned}$$ where we integrate out the $a_i$’s and obtain a $n$-form $\widetilde{\Phi}$ defined in the moduli space ${\cal M}_D$. If one considers a product of observables $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}} = \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} (\mu_{p_1}) \cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}} (\mu_{p_r})$ with $\sum_{p,j} p_j = n= d({\cal M}_D)$ and $p_j$ being the number of zero modes of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j})$ then, in analogy to Ref. [@GarciaCompean:2009zh] one obtains: $$\bigg\langle\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} (\mu_{p_1}) \cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}} (\mu_{p_r})\bigg\rangle = \int_{{\cal M}_D} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} \wedge \cdots \wedge \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}}. \label{integralmoduli}$$ These correlation functions are the asymptotic Donaldson-Witten invariants and they are invariants of the triplet $(M,\mathcal F, \mu)$. In order to compute the observables we integrate out the zero modes. This is completely analogous to the case without flows because the measure of the path integral does not include the ${\bf Y}'s$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:fnew} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{0}} = \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} {\rm Tr} \langle \phi \rangle^2,\\ \label{eq:1p} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_1}(\langle \phi \rangle \psi) \mu_1,\\ \label{eq:f2p} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{2}} = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_2}(-i \psi \wedge \psi + \langle \phi \rangle F) \mu_2,\\ \label{eq:f3p} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{3}} = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{4 \pi^2}i_{{\bf Y}_3}(\psi \wedge F) \mu_3,\\ \label{eq:f4p} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{4}} = \int_M {\rm Tr} \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} i_{{\bf Y}_4} (F \wedge F) \mu_4.\end{aligned}$$ Now we define the intersection number in a way analogous to the case without flows. For the simply connected case $(\pi_1 (M) = 0)$, we have that the important observables are those associated with cycles of dimension $0$, $2$ and $4$[^6]. In general a $p_j$-cycle has associated an operator (form) with ghost number $U= 4 - p_j$, corresponding to the Donaldson map $\mu_D :H_p (M) \to H^{4-p} (\mathcal{M}_D)$. In Ref. [@WTQ] Witten constructed this map, interpreted as intersection number of cycles in the four manifold $M$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{donaldsoninvs} \nonumber \bigg\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2_1}} (\mu_{2_1})(x_1) \cdots \widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2_r}} (\mu_{2_r})(x_r)\bigg\rangle & = & \int_{{\cal M}_D} \nu_{{\bf Y}_{2_1}} \wedge \cdots \wedge \nu_{{\bf Y}_{2_r}} \\ & = & \# \big( H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_{2_1}}} \cap \dots \cap H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_{2_r}}} \big) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_{2_r}}}$ is the Poincaré dual of codimension 2. If the observables $\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2_j}}$ are denoted by $\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{j}}$ and $\mu_{2_j}$ is denoted by $\mu_{j}$, then the equation ($\ref{donaldsoninvs}$) represents the asymptotic intersection linking numbers of the $2$-flows in the moduli space ${\cal M}_D$ determined by the integration of differential two-forms $\nu_j$’s on ${\cal M}_D$ depending on the set of 2-vector fields $\{{\bf Y}_j\}_{j=1, \dots ,r}$ with $r=d/2$. In terms of the asymptotic cycles Eq. ($\ref{donaldsoninvs}$) represents the asymptotic intersection number of $r$ asymptotic homology 2-cycles $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{ {\bf Y}_{j}}$ in $M$. Donaldson-Witten invariants (\[eq:inv1\]) are defined for $b^+_2(M) >1$. It is very interesting to know what is the analog condition for defining the existence of the corresponding asymptotic invariants for foliations. The analog of the wall-crossing that does exist in the Donaldson case for $b_2^+(M)=1$, will be also of interest in the context of foliations. We leave this question for future work. Asymptotic Intersection Numbers ------------------------------- In this subsection we use the dynamics of strongly coupled supersymmetric gauge theories. In particular we use some features as: the existence of a mass gap, the cluster decomposition and a structure of the vacua degeneracy consisting of a finite number of discrete states obtained after a chiral symmetry breaking due to gaugino condensation. We proceed to find an interpretation of the intersection number for asymptotic cycles described in Eq. (\[donaldsoninvs\]) with the aid of the mentioned features. In order to do that we are going to compute the 2-point correlation function of a pair of the observables $\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu)$ at different points $$\bigg\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu_1)(x_1)\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2}} (\mu_2)(x_2)\bigg\rangle = \# \big( H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1}} \cap H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_2}}\big), \label{intersection}$$ where the $x_i$’s are points on $M$ and $\# \big( H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1}} \cap H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_2}}\big)$ represents the asymptotic intersection number of the asymptotic cycles $ \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1}$ and $ \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_2}$. As in the standard case without flows the one point correlation function $\big\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}} (\mu)(x)\big\rangle$ is also zero, for the same reason that in the standard case. In $M=\IR^4$ it vanishes by Lorentz invariance with the measure invariant under the flow, this yields $$\big\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}} (\mu)(x)\big\rangle = \int_{\widetilde{\Sigma}} d\sigma^{mn} \langle Z_{mn} \rangle$$ $$= \int_M \langle i_{\bf Y}(Z) \rangle \mu = \int_M \langle Y^{mn}Z_{mn} \rangle \mu.$$ As the ${\bf Y}'$s are not dynamical fields their expectation values is given by $Y^{mn}\langle Z_{mn} \rangle$ and as $\langle Z_{mn} \rangle$ vanishes by Lorentz invariance then consequently $\big\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}}(\mu)(x)\big\rangle$ also vanishes in flat spacetime. However for a general four-manifold in a theory with a mass gap (it is known that ${\cal N}=2$ gauge field theories in four dimensions don’t have a mass gap, however we assume, following Witten [@MINIMAL], that is indeed the case[^7]), the expectation value of the operator $Z_{mn} Y^{mn}$ is expanded, as in [@MINIMAL] in terms of local invariants of the Riemannian geometry of $M$ $$\big\langle Z_{mn}(x) Y^{mn}(x)\big\rangle = D_m R D_n D_s D^s R \cdot Y^{mn} \pm \cdots$$ Under the metric scaling $g \to tg$ with $t$ positive, the volume form $\mu$ scales as $t^4$, then $\big\langle Z_{mn}(x) Y^{mn}(x)\big\rangle$ should scale faster than $1/t^4$. This is precisely achieved by the mass in the case we have flows. Thus, in general $\big\langle \int_{M} i_{\bf Y}(Z) \, \mu \big\rangle$ vanishes as $t \to \infty$. Now we want to compute $$\bigg\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu_1)(x_1)\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2}} (\mu_2)(x_2)\bigg\rangle = \int_{{M}_1 \times {M}_2} G_{{\bf Y}_1 , {\bf Y}_2}(x_1,x_2) \ \mu_1(x_1) \ \mu_2(x_2), \label{internumb}$$ where $$G_{{\bf Y}_1 , {\bf Y}_2}(x_1,x_2) = \big\langle i_{{\bf Y}_1}(Z)(x_1) \cdot i_{{\bf Y}_2}(Z)(x_2) \big\rangle .$$ Considering the properties of $i_{X_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge X_p}$, one can see that the next formula holds $$\label{derivation} i_{X_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge X_p} B_p \wedge \mu_n - (-1)^{{p \over 2}(3+p)} B_p \wedge i_{X_p \wedge \cdots \wedge X_1}\mu_n=0,$$ where $B_p$ is any $p$-form. After some work it is easy to see that using the previous equation we have $$\bigg\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu_1)(x_1)\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2}} (\mu_2)(x_2)\bigg\rangle = \int_{M_1 \times M_2} (\Theta_{{\bf Y}_1} \wedge Z)(x_1) \wedge (\Theta_{{\bf Y}_2} \wedge Z)(x_2) \cdot \delta (x_1-x_2)$$ where $\Theta_{{\bf Y}_1}=i_{{\bf Y}_1}(\mu_1)$ and $\Theta_{{\bf Y}_2}=i_{{\bf Y}_2}(\mu_2)$ are the Poincaré dual to $\widetilde{\Sigma}_1$ and $\widetilde{\Sigma}_2$ respectively. This is a double form [@dRham] and consequently $G_{{\bf Y}_1 , {\bf Y}_2}(x_1,x_2)$ is proportional to $\delta(x_1-x_2)$ and the only non-vanishing contributions come from the points $x_1=x_2$. Equivalently one can follow a dimensional analysis with $g \to tg$, with $t \to \infty$. For $x_1 \not= x_2$, $\big\langle i_{{\bf Y}_1} (Z (x_1))\, i_{{\bf Y}_2} (Z (x_2)) \big\rangle$ vanishes faster than $1/t^8$. The only possible non-vanishing contribution is localized around $x_1=x_2$ as $t\to \infty$. These are precisely the intersection points of the asymptotic cycles. That is reduced to the transversely intersection of the flows in finitely many points. Thus we have $$\bigg\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu_1)(x_1)\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2}} (\mu_2)(x_2)\bigg\rangle = \eta \cdot \# \big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_2}) \cdot \langle 1 \rangle , \label{intersecdos}$$ where $\eta$ is a constant, $\langle 1 \rangle = \exp(a\chi(M) + b\sigma(M))$ with $a,b$ being constants and $\chi(M)$ and $\sigma(M)$ the Euler characteristic and signature of $M$ respectively. In analogy with the definition of asymptotic linking number we define the asymptotic intersection number of two $2$-flows generated by the 2-vector fields ${\bf Y}_1$ and ${\bf Y}_2$. Thus $\big\langle\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu_1)(x_1)\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{2}} (\mu_2)(x_2)\big\rangle$ can be interpreted as the average intersection number. Let $\{ \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1}, \dots ,\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_r}\}$ be a set of $r$ arbitrary asymptotic homology 2-cycles. With the aid of cluster decomposition property for a vacua consisting of only one state, Eq. (\[intersecdos\]) can be used to write the generating functional of the correlation functions of observables associated to $r$ 2-cycles $$\bigg\langle\ \exp \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a \widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{a}} (\mu_a)\bigg) \bigg\rangle = \exp\bigg({\eta \over 2} \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \# \big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) \bigg) \cdot \langle 1 \rangle.$$ This is given in terms of the pairwise intersection between the corresponding asymptotic cycles. If one incorporates the operators $\widetilde{\cal O}$ and take into account that the vacua consist of a finite set ${\cal S}$ of discrete states it can be modified as follows $$\bigg\langle\ \exp \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a \widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_{a}} (\mu_a) + \lambda \widetilde{\cal O}\bigg) \bigg\rangle = \sum_{\rho\in {\cal S}} C_\rho\exp\bigg({\eta_\rho \over 2} \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \# \big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) + \lambda \langle {\cal O} \rangle_\rho \bigg),$$ where $C_\rho$ is a constant including the gravitational contribution of the curvature invariants $\chi(M)$ and $\sigma(M)$ coming from $<1>$. When the gauge group is SU(2) the chiral symmetry breaking tells that the set ${\cal S}$ is precisely $\IZ_2$. Thus the above formula consists of two terms. Donaldson-Witten Invariants for Kähler Manifolds with Flows =========================================================== In this section we discuss the Donaldson invariants on a Kähler $4$-manifold $M$. We follow closely Ref. [@MINIMAL], from where we take the notation and conventions. We use the dynamics of strong coupling ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions in the infrared. In particular, the perturbation of the ${\cal N}=2$ theory by adding a mass term[^8] breaks supersymmetry leaving a theory with a remnant ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry. As we mentioned before, the properties of strong coupled gauge theories (confinement, mass gap and chiral symmetry breaking) are an important subject in order to compute the invariants of Kähler manifolds admitting a non-trivial canonical class in $H^{(2,0)}(M)\not=0$ [^9]. We consider in addition a series of non-singular smooth flows generated by 2-vector fields ${\bf X}$ and ${\bf Y}$ over $M$. We want to describe how Donaldson-Witten invariants of Kähler manifolds will be modified in the presence of these flows[^10]. The theory on $\IR^4$ in euclidean coordinates $(y^1,\dots,y^4)$ with $z_1=y^1+iy^2$ and $z_2=y^3+iy^4$, suggests that the theory written in terms of ${\cal N}=1$ multiplets implies that the observables $Z$ are given by $$Z^{(2,0)}= \psi \psi + \overline{\omega} \overline{B}B, \ \ \ \ Z^{(1,1)}= \lambda \psi + BF, \ \ \ \ Z^{(0,2)}= \lambda \lambda, \label{observa}$$ where $\overline{\omega}$ is an anti-holomorphic 2-form. These observables are BRST-invariant with respect to the remnant supercharge $Q_1$ (after the supersymmetry breaking). This structure of observables comes from decomposition of a ${\cal N}=2$ vector multiplet in terms of ${\cal N}=1$ gauge multiplet $(A_m,\lambda)$ and a complex matter multiplet given by the scalar superfield $\Phi=(B,\psi).$ Here $A_m$ is a gauge field, $B$ is a complex scalar field and $\lambda$ and $\psi$ are spinor fields, all of them in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The observables $Z^{(1,1)}$ and $Z^{(0,2)}$ come from the mentioned decomposition. However the presence of the term $\overline{\omega} \overline{B}B$ in $Z^{(2,0)}$ is a direct manifestation of the mass term that is added to the ${\cal N}=2$ Lagrangian in order to break supersymmetry. The introduction of a mass term in $\IR^4$ reads $$\Delta L = - m \int d^4x d^2 \theta {\rm Tr} \Phi^2 - \ {\rm h.c.}, \label{massone}$$ where the volume form is $d^4 x d^2 \theta = d^2 z d^2 \overline{z} d^2 \theta$. This term preserves only $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry. It was proved in [@MINIMAL] that this perturbation $\Delta L$ to the Lagrangian is of the form: $\sum_a \alpha_a I(\Sigma_a) + \{ Q_1, \cdot \}$. The canonical divisor $C \subset M$ is defined as the zero locus of $\omega$. Thus, in general on a curved Kähler manifold with $H^{(2,0)}(M)\not=0$ the perturbed Lagrangian $\Delta L$ can be rewritten in terms of $\omega$ being a non-zero holomorphic form in $H^{(2,0)}(M)$ such that it vanishes on $C$. Consequently, the mass term vanishes precisely in the zeros of $\omega$ over the divisor (global cosmic strings)[^11]. Assume that ${C}=\bigcup_y {C}_y$, where ${C}_y$ is a Riemann surface for each $y$ such that $\omega$ has at most simple zeroes on $C_y$. One would estimate the contribution of the divisor (cosmic string) to the Donaldson-Witten invariants by considering the intersections ${\Sigma} \cap C_y \not= \emptyset$. In the intersection (which is assumed to be transverse) points $P$ one can insert operators $V_y(P)$. Thus, if $\#(\Sigma \cap C_y)$ is the intersection number of $\Sigma$ and $C_y$ is given by $$\# (\Sigma \cap C_y ) = \int_{M} \theta_\Sigma \wedge \theta_{C_y}, \label{intCwS}$$ where $\theta_\Sigma$ is the Poincaré dual of $\Sigma$ and $\theta_{C_y}$ is the Poincaré dual of $C_y$. Then the operators ${I}(\Sigma)$ must be replaced by $\sum_y \#({\Sigma} \cap C_y)V_y$. Here $V_y=V_y(P)$ is a local operator inserted in the intersection points $P$’s between $\Sigma$ and $C_y$. For the theory on the worldsheet (cosmic string) $C$ it is assumed that it has a mass gap and a chiral symmetry breaking with vacuum degeneracy determined by $\IZ_2$. Fermionic zero modes on the divisor lead also to a non-vanishing anomaly inside the theory on $C_y$ which should cancel by other trapped fields along the string. Thus these chiral fermions contributes to the path integral measure by a factor $t_y=(-1)^{d \varepsilon_y}$ where $\varepsilon_y=0, 1$ and $d$ is the dimension of the gauge group. Gathering all together in Ref. [@MINIMAL] it was found that the Donaldson-Witten invariant is of the form $$\bigg{\langle} {\exp} \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a {I}(\Sigma) + {\lambda} {\cal O}\bigg) \bigg \rangle$$ $$= 2^{{1\over 4}(7\chi + 11 \sigma)}{\exp} \bigg( {1\over 2} \sum_{a,b} {\alpha}_a {\alpha}_b \#({\Sigma}_a \cap {\Sigma}_b) + 2 {\lambda} \bigg) \cdot \prod_y \bigg(e^{{\phi}_y} + {t}_y e^{-{\phi}_y}\bigg)$$ $$+ i^{\Delta}2^{1+{1\over 4}(7\chi + 11 \sigma)}{\exp} \bigg( -{1\over 2} \sum_{a,b} {\alpha}_a {\alpha}_b \#({\Sigma}_a \cap {\Sigma}_b) - 2 {\lambda} \bigg) \cdot \prod_y \bigg(e^{-{\phi}_y} + {t}_y e^{{\phi}_y}\bigg), \label{dwinvariantsforK}$$ where $${\phi}_y = \sum_a {\alpha}_a \#({\Sigma}_a\cap C_y)$$ and $\Delta = {1 \over 2} d({\cal M}_D)$. The invariants (\[dwinvariantsforK\]) can be further generalized in the case the divisor components $C_y$ have singularities. Also the consideration of higher dimensional gauge groups leads to interesting generalizations. Both extensions were discussed in Ref. [@MINIMAL]. In summary, in the process of the obtention of (\[dwinvariantsforK\]) there were made a series of physical considerations. It was assumed cluster decomposition with a set of vacuum states, mass gap, chiral symmetry breaking, the smooth breaking of supersymmetry by the introduction of a mass term in the matter multiplet. All these assumptions are reasonable except the mass gap. It is well known that supersymmetric ${\cal N}=2$ Yang-Mills theory don’t have a mass gap. However this assumption make sense as one adds terms in the Lagrangian of the original ${\cal N}=2$ theory which leaves only one unbroken supersymmetry. The theory is ${\cal N}=1$, the mass gap is allowed and it gives precisely the necessary ingredient to interpret (\[dwinvariantsforK\]) as the Donaldson-Witten invariants of Kähler manifolds. This is the subject of the following subsection. Asymptotic Observables in Kähler Manifolds ------------------------------------------ Before we proceed with the case of Kähler manifolds we make some considerations of general character about the asymptotic intersection of two asymptotic cycles. When a complex structure is defined in $M$, every form and vector field can be in general decomposed in a holomorphic, mixed and anti-holomorphic parts. Let $(z^n,{z}^{\overline{n}})$ be complex coordinates on $M$ and $\{{dz^n, d{z}^{\overline{n}}}\}$ a basis for the cotangent space $T_x^\ast M$ and $\{{\partial_n, \partial_{\overline{n}}}\}$ a basis for the tangent space $T_x M$ at the point $x$. Then we can decompose our observable as [@Park:1993fy]: $$Z = Z^{(0,2)} + Z^{(1,1)} + Z^{(2,0)},$$ where in complex coordinates it looks like $Z^{(0,2)}= Z_{mn} dz^{m} \wedge dz^{n}$, $Z^{(1,1)} = Z_{m \overline{n}} dz^{n} \wedge dz^{\overline{n}}$ and $Z^{(2,0)} = Z_{\overline{m} \overline{n}} dz^{\overline{m}} \wedge dz^{\overline{n}}$. In general every element corresponds to the decomposition of $\Omega^p (M) =\oplus_{p=r+s} \Omega^{(r,s)} (M)$, where $r$ and $s$ stands for the degrees of the corresponding holomorphic and anti-holomorphic components. One has a direct sum decomposition of $p$-vector fields $\mathcal{H}^p (M) = \oplus_{p=r+s} \mathcal{H}^{(r,s)} (M)$. Thus for $p=2$: $${\bf Y} = {\bf Y}^{(0,2)} + {\bf Y}^{(1,1)} + {\bf Y}^{(2,0)},$$ where ${\bf Y}^{(0,2)} = Y^{mn} \partial_{{m}} \wedge \partial_{{n}}$, ${\bf Y}^{(1,1)} = Y^{m \overline{n}} \partial_{n} \wedge \partial_{\overline{n}}$ and ${\bf Y}^{(2,0)} =Y^{\overline{m} \overline{n}} \partial_{\overline{m}} \wedge \partial_{\overline{n}}$. Now a $2$-vector field can be constructed from vector fields as ${\bf Y} = Y_{1} \wedge Y_{2}$, where each $Y_{i}$ (for $i=1,2$) is a vector field. Each $Y_i$ can be decomposed as the sum of a holomorphic and a anti-holomorphic part as follows, $Y_{i}=Y_{i}^{m} \partial_{m} + Y_{i}^{\overline{m}} \partial_{\overline{m}}$ then the $2$-vector field ${\bf Y}$ takes the form $${\bf Y} = Y_{1}^{m} Y_{2}^{n} \partial_{m} \wedge \partial_{n} +( Y_{1}^{m} Y_{2}^{\overline{n}}- Y_{1}^{\overline{n}} Y_{2}^{m}) \partial_{m} \wedge \partial_{\overline{n}} + Y_{1}^{\overline{m}} Y_{2}^{\overline{n}} \partial_{\overline{m}} \wedge \partial_{\overline{n}}.$$ Thus we can calculate the contraction of the $2$-vector field ${\bf Y}$ and the observable $Z$. By the orthogonality relations between the basis, the asymptotic observable takes the following form $$\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}}(\mu) = \int_{M} \left[i_{{\bf Y}^{(0,2)}}(Z^{(0,2)}) + i_{{\bf Y}^{(1,1)}} (Z^{(1,1)}) + i_{{\bf Y}^{(2,0)}} (Z^{(2,0)}) \right] \mu$$ $$\label{kobsoy} = \int_{M} \left[ Z_{mn} \cdot Y^{mn} + Z_{m \overline{n}} \cdot Y^{m \overline{n}} + Z_{\overline{m} \overline{n}} \cdot Y^{\overline{m}\overline{n}} \right] \mu.$$ If the 2-vector fields are coming from the product of vector fields we have $$\label{kobs} \widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}}(\mu) = \int_{M} \left[ Z_{mn} \cdot Y_1^{m} Y_{2}^{n} + Z_{m \overline{n}} \cdot ( Y_{1}^{m} Y_{2}^{\overline{n}}- Y_{1}^{\overline{n}} Y_{2}^{m}) + Z_{\overline{m} \overline{n}} \cdot Y_{1}^{\overline{m}} Y_{2}^{\overline{n}} \right] \mu.$$ Moreover we can decompose the asymptotic observables into three different parts, one associated to a completely holomorphic part, one to a completely anti-holomorphic part and one to the mixed component. For physical reasons [@MINIMAL] there are only three type of relevant observables. These are given by: - The usual observable $\widetilde{I}(\Sigma)$ that contributes to the asymptotic intersection number (\[internumb\]) is given by: $\int_M i_{{\bf Y}^{(2,0)}} (Z^{(2,0)}) \mu + {\rm h.c.}$, with $Z^{(2,0)}$ given in (\[observa\]). - The observable $I(\omega)= \int_\Sigma \omega$ arises from a non-vanishing mass term which breaks supersymmetry (from ${\cal N}=2$ to ${\cal N}=1$). The asymptotic version is written as $\int_M i_{{\bf Y}^{(2,0)}} (\omega^{(2,0)}) \mu + {\rm h.c.}$ and it contributes to the asymptotic intersection number (\[intCwS\]). - Near intersection points of $\Sigma$ and $C_y$, where it is assumed to be inserted an operator $V(P)$ gives a term of the form $I(\theta)= \int_M \theta \wedge Z$. The natural form that couples to the asymptotic canonical divisor $\widetilde{C}_y$ is given by the first Chern class $J=c_1(\widetilde{C}_y)$ and it is a 2-form of type $(1,1)$. It can be associated to a vector field ${\bf X}^{(1,1)}$. Thus we have that the observable is given by $\int_M i_{{\bf X}^{(1,1)}} (J) \mu$. Invariants for Kähler Manifolds -------------------------------- Let $\widetilde{C}$ be the disjoint union of a finite number of $\widetilde{C}_y$, where $\widetilde{C}_y$ is an asymptotic Riemann surface for each $y$ with simple zeroes. This asymptotic cycle can be defined in terms a free divergence 2-vector field ${\bf X}$ and it is given by: $$\widetilde{C}_y({\bf X}) = \int_M i_{{\bf X}} (J) \mu,$$ where $J=c_1(C_y)$ and ${\bf X}\in {\cal H}^{(1,1)}$. One can estimate the contribution of the divisor (cosmic string) to the Donaldson-Witten invariants of $M$ with flows. The contribution of the intersections $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{\bf Y} \cap \widetilde{C}_y \not= \emptyset$ can be computed as follows. The operators $\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}}(\mu)(x)$, inserted on the canonical divisor contribute precisely to the intersections of the cycles $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ with the canonical divisor $\widetilde{C}_y$ multiplied by a local operator $V(P)$. Thus it should make the replacement: $$\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}} (\mu)(x) \to \sum_y \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{\bf Y} \cap \widetilde{C}_y)V_y + {\rm terms \ involving \ intersections \ of \ \Sigma's} .$$ The expectation values in the vacua of operators $V(P)$ are fixed by normalization. Thus the main contribution comes from $\#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{\bf Y} \cap \widetilde{C}_y)$ which is given by the intersection number of two flows, one of them associated to the $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ and the other one to the asymptotic canonical divisor $\widetilde{C}_y$ $$\# (\widetilde{\Sigma}_{\bf Y} \cap \widetilde{C}_y ) = \int_{M_1 \times M_2} (Z\wedge \Theta_{\bf Y})(x_1) \wedge (J \wedge \Theta_{\bf X})(x_2) \cdot \delta(x_1-x_2), \label{intCwStwo}$$ where $\Theta_{\bf Y} = i_{{\bf Y}} (\mu)$ and $\Theta_{\bf X}=i_{{\bf X}}(\mu)$ are the Poincaré duals of $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{\bf Y}$ and $\widetilde{C}_y$ respectively. Here the measure $\mu$ is also invariant under the flow ${\bf X}$ generating the canonical divisor. Gathering all together the previous considerations we have a form for the Donaldson-Witten invariants for Kähler manifolds with canonical divisor: $$\bigg{\langle} {\exp} \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a \widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}} (\mu) + {\lambda} {\cal O}\bigg) \bigg \rangle$$ $$= 2^{{1\over 4}(7\chi + 11 \sigma)}{\exp} \bigg( {1\over 2} \sum_{a,b} {\alpha}_a {\alpha}_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) + 2 {\lambda} \bigg) \cdot \prod_y \bigg(e^{\widetilde{\phi}_y} + {t}_y e^{-\widetilde{\phi}_y}\bigg)$$ $$+ i^{\Delta}2^{1+{1\over 4}(7\chi + 11 \sigma)}{\exp} \bigg( -{1\over 2} \sum_{a,b} {\alpha}_a {\alpha}_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) - 2 {\lambda} \bigg) \cdot \prod_y \bigg(e^{-\widetilde{\phi}_y} + {t}_y e^{\widetilde{\phi}_y}\bigg).$$ where $\widetilde{\phi}_y$ is given by Eq. (\[intCwStwo\]) and $\Delta = {1 \over 2} d({\cal M}_D)$. Finally, it is worth mentioning that one can generalize these expressions for more general Kähler manifolds with canonical divisors that don’t have simple zeros. Further generalizations to non-simply connected manifolds, with $\pi_1(M) \not= 0$ and for higher dimensional gauge groups the reader can see, for instance [@Argyres:1994xh]. Examples -------- 1. [**Flows on hyper-Kähler manifolds with [$H^{(2,0)}(M) \not= 0$]{}.**]{} We start with $r$ divergence-free $2$-vector fields $Y_a$ with $a=1,\ldots, r$ on a 4-torus ${\bf T}^4$. Then the asymptotic invariants associated to every $2$-vector field can be computed through the correlation functions of a product of operators $\widetilde{I}({\bf Y}_a) = \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_a}(Z^{(2,0)}) \mu_a + {\rm h.c} = \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_a}(\lambda \psi + \overline{\omega}\overline{B}B) \mu_a + {\rm h.c.}$. Thus to this configurations of flows we get the following invariant by using the Hodge structure of the torus: $h^{1,0}=2$, $h^{2,0}=1$. The invariant is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{kahleronetwo} \bigg\langle \exp \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a \tilde I (Y_a) + \lambda \mathcal{O} \bigg) \bigg\rangle & = \nonumber \exp \bigg( \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) + 2 \lambda \bigg) \notag \\ &+ \exp \bigg( -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) - 2 \lambda \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ where $\#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b})$ is the asymptotic intersection number. Thus we find that $\#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b})$ is given by Eq. (\[intersecdos\]). In the specific case of ${\bf T}^4$ we have 2 cycles of dimension two, one holomorphic and the other anti-holomorphic. The vector fields ${\bf Y}_a$ are wrapped on these homology cycles. There is one-dimensional homology cycles and one can introduce vector fields whose orbits coincide with these cycles. One can construct asymptotic invariants associated with them and compute their contribution to the correlation functions. But we are not interested in this addition in the present paper. However it is interesting to remark that 2-vector fields can be constructed from the wedge product of two of these vector fields and we have constructed observables by using (\[kobs\]). Thus we find that our invariant can be computed by using Eq. (\[internumb\]). For the case of K3, where $h^{1,0}=0$, $h^{2,0}=1$, we don’t have nonsingular vector fields (since the Euler characteristic is 24). However we have only intrinsic 2-vector fields. Thus there will be not 2-vector fields constructed from 1-vector fields as in the previous example. In this case the invariant is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{kahler} \bigg\langle \exp \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a \tilde I (Y_a) + \lambda \mathcal{O} \bigg) \bigg\rangle & = \nonumber \notag C \bigg[\exp \bigg( \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) + 2 \lambda \bigg)\\ & - \exp \bigg( -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}) - 2 \lambda \bigg)\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ where $C=1/4$. The asymptotic intersection number is also given only by Eq. (\[intersecdos\]) and the sum involves also normal and asymptotic self-intersection numbers. 2. [**Hilbert Modular surfaces**]{} [@VderGeer]. Let $\H\subset \C$ denote the upper half-plane with the Poincaré metric. Let $K:=\Q(\sqrt{2})$ be the totally real quadratic number field obtained by adding $\sqrt2$ to $\Q$. The ring of integers $\Z(\sqrt2)$ is the ring of real numbers of the form $m+n\sqrt2$, $\,m,n \in\Z$. Let $\sigma$ be the nontrivial Galois automorphism of $K$ given explicitly by $\sigma(a+b\sqrt{2})=a-b\sqrt{2}$, $\,\,a, b\in\Q$. Let us consider the group $\Gamma:=PSL(2,\Z(\sqrt2))$. Let $\bar\sigma:\Gamma\to \Gamma$ be the induced automorphism on $\Gamma$. $\Gamma$ acts properly and discontinuously on $\H\times\H$ as follows: $\gamma(z,w)=(\gamma(z),\sigma(\gamma)(w))$. The quotient is an orbifold of dimension four which is not compact but it has finite volume (with respect to the induced metric coming from the product metric on $\H \times\H$). The ends (cusps) of Hilbert modular surfaces of real quadratic number fields are manifolds which are of form $M^3\times [0,\infty)$ where $M^3$ is a compact solvable 3-manifold which fibers over the circle with fibre a torus $\mathbb T^2$. The number of such ends is equal to the class number of the field [@VderGeer]. For $\Q(\sqrt2)$ there is only one cusp and $M^3$ is the mapping torus of the automorphism of the 2-torus induced by the matrix $A=\begin{pmatrix} 2&1\\ 1&1 \end{pmatrix}$. Thus $M^3$ fibers over the circle. In fact, the sugbroup $\Lambda\subset\Gamma$ consisting of affine transformations of the form $z\mapsto(1+\sqrt2)^{r}z+m+n\sqrt2$, $\,r,m,n \in\Z$ is the semidirect product $\Z\ltimes_A(\Z\times\Z)$ which is the solvable fundamental group of $M^3$. The universal cover of $M^3$ is a solvable simply connected 3-dimensional Lie group whose Lie algebra is generated by three left-invariant vector fields ${\bf X}$, ${\bf Y}$ and ${\bf Z}$ whose Lie brackets satisfy $[{\bf X},{\bf Y}]=a{\bf Y}$, $[{\bf X},{\bf Z}]=-a{\bf Z}$ and $[{\bf Y},{\bf Z}]=0$, for some constant $a>0$. The commuting vector fields ${\bf Y}$ and ${\bf Z}$ descend to vector fields in $M^3$ which are tangent to the torus fibers of the fibration of $M^3$ over the circle. The flow generated by ${\bf X}$ is an Anosov flow. The vector fields ${\bf Y}$ and ${\bf Z}$ generate two flows tangent to 1-dimensional foliations $L_1$ and $L_2$. These flows are homologous to zero and the Arnold’s self-linking number of both is zero. By a theorem of Selberg [@Selberg] $\Gamma$ contains a finite index subgroup $\tilde\Gamma$ which acts freely on $\H\times\H$. The quotient manifold $M^4(\tilde\Gamma):=\tilde\Gamma/\H\times\H$ is a non compact manifold of finite volume with a finite number of cusps depending upon the Selberg subgroup. The action of $PSL(2,\Z(\sqrt2))$ preserves the natural foliations of $\H \times \H$ whose leaves are, respectively, of the form $\H\times\{w\}$ and $\{z\}\times\H$. These foliations descend to $M^4(\tilde\Gamma)$ to a pair of 2-dimensional foliations ${\mathcal F}_{horizontal}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{vertical}$ which are mutually transverse and each has dense leaves. Furthermore, since the action of $\Gamma$ is by isometries, the foliations ${\mathcal F}_{horizontal}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{vertical}$ are transversally Riemannian and thus both have natural transverse measures. Now we can do two things to obtain examples of 4-manifolds with (possibly singular) foliations. - We can compactify $M^4(\tilde\Gamma)$ à la Hirzebruch [@Hirzebruch] by adding one point at infinity for each cusp. The resulting space is an algebraic surface with singularities at the cusps and the link of each singularity is the corresponding solvmanifold. After desingularizing one obtains a smooth algebraic surface which is therefore a Kähler surface. The foliations ${\mathcal F}_{horizontal}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{vertical}$ lift to the desingularized manifold to foliations with singularities at the cusps. There are important relations of these constructions with $K3$ surfaces [@FM]. - One can “cut” the manifold at each cusp, to obtain a compact manifold with boundary and each component of the boundary is a solvmanifold described before. In other words, we remove a conic open neighborhood of each cusp whose boundary is the corresponding solvmanifold at the cusp. Now we can take the double to obtain a compact closed manifold with a pair of transversally Riemannian foliations with dense leaves (since in the double the foliations can be glued differentiably). Both foliations meet transversally the solvmanifolds and determine two flows in them. For the case $K=\Q(\sqrt2)$ we obtain a compact 4-manifold with two transversally Riemannian foliations which meet the solvmanifold in the foliations $L_1$ and $L_2$ above. Therefore: [*each of the foliations ${\mathcal F}_{horizontal}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{vertical}$ has self-intersection zero*]{} (since $L_1$ and $L_2$ have self intersection zero). Of course one can construct examples as above using any totally real quadratic field and the group $PSL(2,{\mathfrak{O}}_K)$, where ${\mathfrak{O}}_K$ is the ring of integers of $K$. 3. [**Elliptic K3 surfaces end elliptic surfaces**]{}. Let $S$ be an elliptic surface with Kodaira fibration $\pi:S\to \Sigma_g$, where $\Sigma_g$ is an algebraic curve of genus $g$. The fibres are elliptic curves except for a finite number of singular fibres which are rational curves. The fibration provides us with a singular foliation as mentioned in the remark above. There is a canonical choice for a transverse measure $\mu$ which is obtained from the Poincaré metric via the uniformization theorem applied to $\Sigma_g$: if $\tau$ is a 2-disk which is transversal to the regular part of the foliation its measure is the hyperbolic area of $\pi(\tau)$. Then we can apply our results to the triple $(S, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$. One modification of elliptic surfaces can be obtained by the so-called [*logarithmic transformation*]{}. Using logarithmic transformation one can change the Kodaira dimension and turn an algebraic surface into a non algebraic surface. Particular cases of elliptic surfaces are the $K$3 surfaces, Enriques surfaces and the Dolgachev surfaces. We recall that Dolgachev $X_p$ surfaces depend on an integer $p$ were used by Donaldson to obtain the first examples $X_2$ and $X_3$ of manifolds which are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic [@FM], [@DK]. From the above two questions arise: - How do our invariants change after performing a logarithmic transformation on an elliptic surface? - Can we detect exotic differentiable structures by our invariants? 4. [**Symplectic 4-manifolds and Lefschetz fibrations and pencils**]{}. By a result of Donaldson [@pencil] every symplectic 4-manifold admits a Lefschetz fibration and these fibrations are an essential tool for the study of symplectic 4-manifolds. As the previous example, one has a triple $(M^4, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is the (possibly singular) foliation determined by the Lefschetz fibration and $\mu$ is a transverse measure coming from a choice of an area form from a Riemannian metric on the base surface. The question is how to compute our invariants and how can they be used to study symplectic manifolds. Survey on Seiberg-Witten Invariants =================================== Another example of the theories which can be constructed through the Mathai-Quillen formalism is the cohomological field theory describing Seiberg-Witten monopoles [@MONO]. The geometric data consists of the square root of the (determinant) line bundle $L^{1/2}$ over a four-manifold $M$ with an abelian gauge connection $A$ with curvature $F_A=dA$. We have also the tensor product $S^\pm \otimes L^{1/2}$ of $L^{1/2}$ with the spin bundle $S^\pm$, which exist whenever $M$ is a spin manifold i.e. $w_2(M)=0$ (for more details on the spin structure see, [@SPIN; @SPINSALAMON]). This tensor product is even well defined if $M$ is not a spin manifold. In addition we have a section $\psi_\alpha \in \Gamma(S^+ \otimes L^{1/2})$. The Seiberg-Witten equations are $$F^+_{\alpha \beta} = - {i \over 2} \overline{\psi}_{(\alpha}\psi_{\beta)}, \ \ \ \ \ \ D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}\psi^\alpha =0,$$ where $F^+$ is the self-dual part of the curvature $F_A$. Here $\alpha,\beta$ are spinorial indices instead of vector ones $\mu$ and they are related by $A_\mu = \sigma_\mu^{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}A_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}$. The moduli space ${\cal M}_{SW}$ of solutions to the Seiberg-Witten equations will be denoted as ${\cal M}_{SW} \subset {\cal A} \times \Gamma(S^+ \otimes L^{1/2})/{\cal G}$, where ${\cal A}$ is the space of abelian connections on $L^{1/2}$ and ${\cal G}$ is the gauge group of the $U(1)$-bundle, i.e. ${\cal G}= {\rm Map}(M,U(1))$. This moduli problem can be described in terms of the Mathai-Quillen construction. In this case the vector bundle is also trivial ${\cal V}= {\cal M} \times {\cal F}$, where ${\cal F}$ is the fibre. For the monopole case ${\cal F}= \Lambda^{2,+}(M) \otimes \Gamma(S^- \otimes L^{1/2})$. The section $s$ is given by $$s(A,\psi)= \bigg({1 \over \sqrt{2}}\big(F^+_{\alpha \beta} + {i \over 2} \overline{\psi}_{(\alpha}\psi_{\beta)}\big), D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} \psi^\alpha \bigg),$$ where $D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} \psi_\beta = \sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} (\partial_\mu + i A_\mu)\psi_\beta$. The zero section determines precisely the Seiberg-Witten equations. The dimension $d({\cal M}_{SW})$ of the moduli space ${\cal M}_{SW}$ can be obtained from an index theorem $$d({\cal M}_{SW}) = \lambda^2 - {2 \chi + 3 \sigma \over 4},$$ where $\lambda = {1 \over 2} c_1(L)$ (being $c_1(L)$ the first Chern class), $\chi$ and $\sigma$ are the Euler characteristic and the signature of $M$ respectively. The Mathai-Quillen construction [@MQ] provides with a set of fields $A_\mu$, $\psi_\mu$, $\phi$, $\chi_{\mu \nu}$, $H_{\mu \nu}$, $\eta$, $\psi_\alpha$, $\mu_\alpha$, $v_{\dot{\alpha}}$ and $h_{\dot{\alpha}}$ of different ghost number. This set of fields will be denoted for short as ${\cal X}$. The Lagrangian can be read off from the exponential of the Thom class and is given by [@book1; @Labastida:1995bs] $$L_{SW} = \int_M e \bigg(g^{\mu \nu} D_\mu \overline{\psi}^\alpha D_\nu \psi_\alpha + {1 \over 4} R \overline{\psi}^\alpha \psi_\alpha + {1 \over 2} F^{+ \alpha \beta} F^+_{\alpha \beta} - {1 \over 8} \overline{\psi}^{(\alpha} \psi^{\beta)} \overline{\psi}_{(\alpha} \psi_{\beta)} \bigg)$$ $$+ i \int_M \bigg( \lambda \wedge * d^*d \phi - {1 \over \sqrt{2}} \chi \wedge * \rho^+ d \psi \bigg) + \int_M \bigg[ i \phi \lambda \overline{\psi}^{\alpha} \psi_{\alpha} + {1 \over 2 \sqrt{2}} \chi^{\alpha \beta} (\overline{\psi}_{(\alpha} \mu_{\beta)} + \overline{\mu}_{(\alpha} \psi_{\beta)})$$ $$- {i \over 2}(v^{\dot{\alpha}} D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} \mu^\alpha - \mu^{\alpha} D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} v^{\dot{\alpha}}) - {i \over2} [\overline{\psi}^\alpha \psi_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} v^{\dot{\alpha}}] + {1\over 2} \eta (\overline{\mu}^\alpha \psi_\alpha) - \overline{\psi}^\alpha \mu_\alpha) + {i \over 4} \phi \overline{v}^{\dot{\alpha}} v_{\dot{\alpha}} - \lambda \overline{\mu}^\alpha \mu_\alpha \bigg].$$ The observables are products of BRST invariant operators which are cohomologically non-trivial $$\label{ebrst} d \Theta^n_p = \{ {\cal Q},\Theta_{p+1}^n \}.$$ The ${\cal Q}$-invariant operators are [@Labastida:1995bs] $${\cal O}^{\gamma_0}_n = \Theta_0^n(x)$$ $${\cal O}^{\gamma_1}_n = \int_{\gamma_1} \Theta_1^n, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\cal O}_n^{\gamma_2} = \int_{\gamma_2} \Theta_2^n$$ $$\label{obsw} {\cal O}_n^{\gamma_3} = \int_{\gamma_3} \Theta_3^n, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\cal O}_n^{\gamma_4} = \int_{M} \Theta_4^n,$$ where $$\Theta_0^n = \left( \begin{array}{cc} n \\ 0 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^n, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Theta_1^n = \left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 1 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^{n-1} \psi,$$ $$\Theta_2^n = \left( \begin{array}{cc} n \\ 2 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^{n-2} \psi \wedge \psi + \left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 1 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^{n-1} \psi \wedge F,$$ $$\Theta_3^n = \left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 3 \\ \end{array} \right)\phi^{n-3} \psi \wedge \psi \wedge \psi + 2\left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 2 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^{n-2} \psi \wedge F,$$ $$\label{formsw} \Theta_4^n = \left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 4 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^{n-4} \psi \wedge \psi \wedge \psi \wedge \psi + 3 \left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 3 \\ \end{array} \right)\phi^{n-3} \psi \wedge \psi \wedge F + \left( \begin{array}{cc} n\\ 2 \\ \end{array} \right) \phi^{n-2} F \wedge F.$$ Here $\Theta_0^n(x)$ is constructed with a gauge and ${\cal Q}$ invariant field $\phi$. All other observables are descendants obtained from it [@Labastida:1995bs]. As in the Donaldson-Witten case the construction establishes an isomorphism between the BRST cohomology $H^*_{BRST}({\cal Q})$ and the de Rham cohomology $H^*_{dR}(M)$. To be more precise the analogue to the Donaldson map is: $\delta_{SW}: H_p(M) \to H^{2-p}({\cal M}_{SW})$ given in terms of the first Chern class of ${\cal V}$. The observables (\[obsw\]) are BRST invariant (BRST closed) and the BRST commutator only depends of the homology class. This can be shown by following a similar procedure as we did in the Donaldson case (see Eqs. (\[ecuaciondiez\]) and (\[ecuaciononce\])). The correlation functions of $r$ operators are written as $$\begin{aligned} \big\langle \mathcal{O}_n^{\gamma_{p_1}} \cdots \mathcal{O}_n^{\gamma_{p_r}} \big\rangle & = & \bigg\langle \prod_{j=1}^r \int_{{\gamma}_{p_j}} \Theta^n_{p_j} \bigg\rangle \nonumber \\ & = & \int \mathcal{D} \mathcal{X} \exp(-L_{SW}/e^2) \prod_{j=1}^r \int_{\gamma_{p_j}} \Theta^n_{p_j} . \label{eq:inv13}\end{aligned}$$ These are the Seiberg-Witten invariants in the path integral representation [@book1; @Labastida:1995bs]. They are topological invariants and also invariants of the smooth structure of $M$. After integration over the non-zero modes one has: $$\begin{aligned} \big\langle \mathcal{O}_1^{\gamma_{p_1}} \cdots \mathcal{O}_r^{\gamma_{p_r}} \big\rangle & = & \bigg\langle \prod_{j=1}^r \int_{{\gamma}_{p_j}} \Theta^n_{p_j} \bigg\rangle \nonumber \\ & = & \int_{{\cal M}_{SW}} \nu_{p_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \nu_{p_r}, \label{eq:inevitabletwo}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu_{p_j}= \delta_{SW}(\gamma_{p_j})$. The possible values of $p_j$ are $0,1,2$. Thus, for $p_j =1,2$, we can rewrite the previous equation as $$\big\langle \mathcal{O}_1^{\gamma_{1}} \cdots \mathcal{O}_r^{\gamma_{1}} \cdot \mathcal{O}_1^{\gamma_{2}} \cdots \mathcal{O}_{d/2}^{\gamma_{2}}\big\rangle = \int_{{\cal M}_{SW}} \nu_{{1}_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \nu_{{1}_r} \wedge \phi_\Sigma^{d/2}, \label{swinv}$$ where $\phi_\Sigma$ are 2-forms on the SW moduli space. For simply connected manifolds $\pi_1(M)=0$ the relevant cycles are of dimension $p=2$. The Seiberg-Witten invariants can be also written in terms of differential forms in the moduli space ${\cal M}_{SW}$ in the form [@book1; @Labastida:1995bs] $$\big\langle \mathcal{O}_1^{\gamma_{2}} \cdots \mathcal{O}_{d/2}^{\gamma_{2}} \big\rangle = \int_{{\cal M}_{SW}}\phi_\Sigma^{d/2} . \label{eq:inevitableon}$$ Seiberg-Witten Invariants for Flows =================================== In order to incorporate flows in the Seiberg-Witten theory we define $$\label{eq:asin} \widetilde{\cal O}_{{\bf Y}_p}(\mu) = \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_p}(\Theta^n_p)\mu_p(x) ,$$ where $\mu_p$ is the invariant volume form. We can interpret the integral as the averaged asymptotic cycles on $M$ by the Schwartzman theorem [@SH], $i_{{\bf Y}_p} (\mu)$ is a closed $(4-p)$-form, from which we will obtain a asymptotic $p$-cycle $\widetilde{\gamma}_p$ by Poincaré duality (an element of the $H_p(M,\mathbb{R})$). Let ${\bf Y}_p$ be $p$-vector fields with $p=0,1,2$, then the expression $(\ref{eq:asin})$ defines the asymptotic observables as $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}^n_{ {\bf Y}_1}(\mu_1) = \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_1} (\Theta^n_1) \,\mu_1,\ \ \ \ \ \ \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}^n_{{\bf Y}_2}(\mu_2) = \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_2} (\Theta^n_2) \, \mu_2, \label{swobservablesflow}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta^n_p$ are given by (\[formsw\]). Follow the procedure we did in Eq. (\[veinticinco\]), it is an easy matter to check that these asymptotic observables $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_p}(\mu_p)$ are ${\cal Q}$-invariant (BRST). For an oriented manifold $M$ with $p_j$-vectors fields ${\bf Y}_{p_j}$ ($p_j=0,1,2$), with $\sum_{j = 1}^r p_j = \rm{d} (\mathcal{M}_{SW})$ and probability invariant measure, the $r$-point correlation functions for the flow generated ${\bf Y}_{p_j}$ and $\mu_{p_j}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned} \bigg\langle\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}^n_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} (\mu_{p_1}) \cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}^n_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}} (\mu_{p_r})\bigg\rangle = \int (\mathcal{D} \mathcal{X}) \exp (- {L}_{SW}/e^2 ) \prod_{j=1}^r \int_M i_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\Theta^n_{p_j}) \mu_{p_j} . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ This expression is reduced to the ordinary Seiberg-Witten invariants $(\ref{eq:inevitabletwo})$, when the measure is supported on the cycles. This means if $\mu_p = \sum_{j=1}^r \mu_{p_j}$ where each $\mu_p$ is distributed uniformly over the cycles of $M$. Similarly to the Donaldson case let us assume that the only zero modes correspond to the abelian gauge field $A_\mu$ and its BRST-like companion $\psi_\mu$. Following a similar procedure as in the Donaldson case to compute the partition function we get $$\begin{aligned} \bigg\langle \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j}) \bigg\rangle & = & \int_\mathcal{M_{SW}} da_1 \ldots da_n d\psi^1 \ldots d\psi^n \widetilde{\Phi}_{i_1 \cdots i_n}(a_i,{\bf Y}_{p_j}) \psi^{i_1} \ldots \psi^{i_n} \nonumber \\& = & \int_\mathcal{M_{SW}} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{d({\cal M})}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j}) = \widetilde\Phi_{i_1 \cdots i_n}(a_i,{\bf Y}_{p_j}) \psi^{i_1} \ldots \psi^{i_n}$, $a$’s are the zero modes of the gauge field and $\psi$’s are the zero modes of the fermionic field and $\widetilde\Phi (a, {\bf Y}_{p_j})$ is a function that only depends of the zero modes of the gauge field and contains the information of the flow. We integrate out $a_i$’s and obtain a $n$-form $\widetilde{\Phi}$ defined in the moduli space. Now suppose that $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}} = \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} (\mu_{p_1}) \cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}} (\mu_{p_r})$ with $\sum_{p,j} p_j = n= d({\cal M}_{SW})$ and $p_j$ is the number of zero modes of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_j}} (\mu_{p_j})$. These functions define forms in the moduli space in the following way $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \bigg\langle\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} (\mu_{p_1}) \cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}} (\mu_{p_r})\bigg\rangle & = & \int_{{\mathcal{M}}_{SW}} \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} \wedge \cdots \wedge \widetilde{\Phi}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}}\\ & = & \int_{{\cal M}_{SW}} \widetilde{\nu}_{{\bf Y}_{p_1}} \wedge \cdots \wedge \widetilde{\nu}_{{\bf Y}_{p_r}}.\end{aligned}$$ In the simply connected case $(\pi_1 (M) = 0)$, the important observables are those associated with cycles of zero dimension $\gamma_0$ and of dimension two $\gamma_2$. In general a $k_\gamma$-cycle has associated an operator (form) with ghost number $U= 2 - k_\gamma$, this is the analog of the Donaldson map $H_k (M) \to H^{2-k} (\mathcal{M}_{SW})$. Finally it is easy to see that for $k=2$ the product of $r$ operators yields $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \bigg\langle\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} (\mu_1)\cdots \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}_{{\bf Y}_{d/2}} (\mu_{d/2})\bigg\rangle & = & \int_{{\cal M}_{SW}} \widetilde{\nu}_{{\bf Y}_{1}} \wedge \cdots \wedge \widetilde{\nu}_{{\bf Y}_{d/2}}\\ & = & \# \left(H_{ \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_{1}}} \cap \ldots \cap H_{\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_{d/2}}} \right), \label{swinvariants}\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed the notation ${\bf Y}_{2_j} = {\bf Y}_{j}$ and $\mu_{2_j}=\mu_j$ for asymptotic 2-cycles. These ideas can be generalized by considering a twisted version of the Yang-Mills theory with non-abelian gauge group and this leads to non-abelian monopole equations [@Labastida:1995zj; @Labastida:1995gp]. We consider the general case, when $M$ is not Spin but a Spin$_c$ manifold. For one hypermultiplet the equations for a non-abelian connection $A_\mu$ coupled to a spinor $M_{\alpha} \in \Gamma(S^+ \otimes L^{1/2} \otimes E)$, where $S^+$ is the spin bundle, $L^{1/2}$ is the determinant line bundle of the Spin$_c$ structure and $E$ is the vector bundle associated to a principal $G$-bundle via some representation of the gauge group. Then the equations for the moduli space are given by $$F^{+ a}_{\dot\alpha \dot\beta} + 4 i \overline{M}_{(\dot\alpha} (T^a) M_{\dot\beta)} = 0, \ \ \ \ \ (\nabla^{\alpha \dot\alpha}_E \overline{M}_{\dot\alpha}) = 0,$$ $T^a$ are the generators of the Lie algebra, $\nabla^{\alpha \dot\alpha}_E$ is the Dirac operator constructed with the covariant derivative with respect to the gauge connection $A_\mu$. Thus it is possible to extend the set of observables (\[swobservablesflow\]) for the non-abelian case. Similar computations can be done for obtaining the Seiberg-Witten invariants associated to non-abelian monopoles [@Labastida:1995zj] for the case of compact Kähler manifolds following Ref. [@Labastida:1995gp] and making a similar procedure as described in Sec. 5.2. Relation to Donaldson Invariants -------------------------------- The computation of Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten invariants for Kähler manifolds can be obtained by physical methods. The difference lies in the underlying physics of the dynamics of ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric gauge theories. For the Donaldson-Witten case it was needed to add a mass term to soft breaking supersymmetry. This introduces a non-trivial canonical divisor defined as the zero locus of the mass term. However for the Seiberg-Witten case this is not necessary. The underlying dynamics describing the strong coupling limit of the gauge theory was elucidated in [@SW] through the implementation of S-duality. The dual theory was used later by Witten in Ref. [@MONO] to find new invariants of four manifolds, the Seiberg-Witten invariants. In that paper it was found a relation between both invariants. This subsection contains the description of this relation when there are non-singular global flows on the manifold. The relevant ingredients are the operators $\widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_a}$ and ${\cal O}$ inserted in $M$. Then the Donaldson invariants take the following form $$\bigg{\langle} {\exp} \bigg( \sum_a \alpha_a \widetilde{I}_{{\bf Y}_a}(\mu_a) + \lambda {\cal O}\bigg) \bigg \rangle$$ $$= 2^{1+{1\over 4}(7\chi + 11 \sigma)} \bigg[{\exp} \bigg( {1\over 2} \widetilde{v}^2 + 2 \lambda \bigg) \sum_{\widetilde{x}} \widetilde{SW}({\widetilde{x}}) e^{\widetilde{v} \cdot \widetilde{x}} + i^{\Delta}{\exp} \bigg( -{1\over 2} \widetilde{v}^2 - 2 \lambda \bigg) \cdot \sum_{\widetilde{x}}\widetilde{SW}({\widetilde{x}})e^{-i\widetilde{v} \cdot \widetilde{x}}\bigg]$$ where $\alpha_a$ and $\lambda$ are complex numbers, $$\widetilde{v}^2 = \sum_{a,b} \alpha_a \alpha_b \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_b}),$$ $$\widetilde{v} \cdot \widetilde{x} = \sum_{a} \alpha_a \#(\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde x)$$ and $\widetilde{SW}$ is the asymptotic version of the Seiberg-Witten invariant (\[swinvariants\]). Here $\# (\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a} \cap \widetilde{x})$ is the asymptotic intersection number between $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a}$ and a $\widetilde{x}$ and it is given by $$\# (\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_a}\cap \widetilde{x} ) = \int_{M_1 \times M_2} (\Theta_2\wedge \eta_{{\bf Y}_a})(x_1) \wedge (x\wedge \eta_{\bf X})(x_2) \cdot \delta(x_1-x_2), \label{intCwSthree}$$ where $\eta_{{\bf Y}_a}$ and $\eta_{\bf X}$ are the Poicaré dual of $\widetilde{\Sigma}_a$ and $\widetilde{x}$. In the previous equations we have used the following definitions $x=- 2 c_1(L\otimes L) \in H^2(M,\mathbb{Z})$ and $\widetilde{x}_{{\bf X}} = \int_M i_{{\bf X}} (x) \mu$ with ${\bf X}$ being the 2-vector field wrapping $\widetilde{x}$. A Physical Interpretation ========================= In this paper we have assumed the existence of “diffused" cycles in a suitable four-manifold. Due their relevance in dynamical systems on simply-connected 4-manifolds we have considered asymptotic 2-cycles $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1}, \dots ,\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_r}$ together with a set of invariant probability measures $\mu = \mu_1 + \cdots + \mu_r$, with $\mu_i$ supported in $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_i}$ on $M$. The present section is devoted to interpret this system in terms of string theory. Thus one would wonder if these 2-cycles can be interpreted as closed string probes propagating on the underlying four-manifold (which would be compact or non-compact). For this issue there is a nice response through the computation of the scattering amplitudes of an axion at zero momentum with a NS5-brane in the heterotic string theory [@Harvey:1991hq]. In the present paper we follow this direction and we argue that Eq. (\[donaldsoninvs\]) is a consequence of these considerations. Let us consider a spacetime manifold $M^{1,9}$ provided with a set of Borel probability measures invariant under a non-singular smooth 2-flow generated by a 2-vector field $Y$. Moreover we take the following splitting $M^{1,9}= M^{1,5} \times M$, where $M^{1,5}$ is a flat Minkowski space and $M$ is the transverse space. We consider a NS fivebrane (NS5) as a solitonic object filling the space $M^{1,5}$. Thus the transverse space $M$ consists of a four-manifold parameterizing the positions of the NS5-brane. Our flow 2-orbit can be regarded as a closed string propagating on $M^{1,9}$ without necessarily being localized in a homology cycle of $M^{1,9}$. For the purposes of this paper we focus on a special situation by limiting the 2-flow to be defined only in the transverse space $M$ and supported in the whole $M$. Consequently the Borel measures will be defined only on $M$. In this case we can think of the 2-flow as an asymptotic cycle $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}}$) representing a “diffuse" closed string propagating in $M$ and viewing the NS5 as a scattering center. If the probability measures are totally on $M$ then the NS5-brane sector will remain unchanged and the moduli space of instantons remain the same. The effective action described in [@Harvey:1991hq] is a non-linear sigma model on the worldvolume of the NS5 brane $W$ and with target space the space ${\cal M}_N$. This latter space represents the space of static NS5 brane solutions and it is equal to the moduli space of $N$ Yang-Mills instantons ${\cal M}_N(M)$ over $M$. Thus the ground states correspond to cohomology classes on ${\cal M}_N(M)$. If we identify the “diffuse” heterotic closed string with the asymptotic 2-cycles on $M$ i.e. $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}}$, then the action is given by: $$S= \int_M i_{{\bf Y}} (B) \mu.$$ Then from the interacting terms coupling the $B$-field with the gauginos of the heterotic supergravity action we have $$\widetilde{O}_{ij,\bf Y}=\int_M i_{{\bf Y}} (Z_{ij}) \mu,$$ where $Z={\rm tr} (\delta_i A \wedge \delta_j A - \phi_{ij} F)$. Now we would like to consider multiple axion scattering with zero momentum. Then the transitions among the quantum ground states of the worldvolume $W$, for instance, from $|0\rangle$ to $|m\rangle$, induced by the scattering of $r$ axions with the NS5-branes is described by the scattering amplitude. The $r$ axions represent $r$ closed heterotic string wrapping the homology cycles $\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_1}, \dots ,\widetilde{\Sigma}_{{\bf Y}_r}$, associated with the 2-vector fields ${\bf Y}_1, \dots ,{\bf Y}_r$. Thus the scattering amplitude is given by $${\cal A}({\bf Y}_1, \cdots ,{\bf Y}_r) = \langle m| \widetilde{O}_{{\bf Y}_1}\cdots \widetilde{O}_{{\bf Y}_r} | 0 \rangle$$ $$= \int_{{\cal M}_N} \widetilde{O}_{{\bf Y}_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge \widetilde{O}_{{\bf Y}_r}.$$ Thus we have deduced eq. (\[donaldsoninvs\]) from string theory. Above, we assumed that the set of Borel measures are distributed along the space $M$. This is consistent with the fact we have in the transverse directions (along $M^{1,5}$) filled with the NS5-brane which is a solitonic object and consequently is very heavy in the perturbative regime and consequently they are very difficult to excite. S-duality between the heterotic and type I string interchanges NS5 by a D5-brane and axions by D1-branes [@Polchinski:1995df]. The self-dual gauge field on $M$ leads to the ADHM construction of instantons [@Witten:1995gx]. The interactions are now given by the Type I string action. It would be interesting to make a description of the asymptotic cycles within this context. 1truecm Final Remarks ============= In the present paper we look for the implementation of the procedure followed in Ref. [@VV] for Jones-Witten invariants, to compute invariants for flows in higher dimensional manifolds. In the this situation the relevant invariants of interest were the smooth invariants of four-manifolds i.e. the Donaldson-Witten and the Seiberg-Witten invariants. We were able to obtain these invariants when some flows generated by non-singular and non-divergence-free smooth $p$-vector fields are globally defined on the four-manifold. We assumed that the homology cycles of $M$ are described by the asymptotic cycles. We focus our work on simply-connected four-manifolds, thus the only relevant flows are the 2-flows, though the invariants can be defined for any other $p$-flows. This is the situation that leads to a generalization of invariants of four-manifolds with flows. In order to implement the above considerations we use the Witten cohomological field theory, whose observables are cohomology classes of $M$. In the presence of flows these observables were constructed as geometric currents underlying asymptotic cycles and foliations introduced by Ruelle and Sullivan [@RS] and Schwartzman [@SH]. Thus the asymptotic observables and their correlation functions give rise to new smooth invariants for four-manifolds with a dynamical system with an invariant probability measure. That is, they represent smooth invariants for foliations i.e. triples $(M,{\cal F},\mu)$. This was done for Donaldson-Witten invariants (\[donaldsoninvs\]) as well as for Seiberg-Witten invariants (\[swinvariants\]). Donaldson-Witten invariants are also obtained for the case of Kähler manifolds with flows and some examples were described in Sec. 5.3. Finally, we attempt to give a physical interpretation in terms of string theory. We used the procedure outlined in Ref. [@Harvey:1991hq] to obtain the invariants (\[donaldsoninvs\]) as scattering amplitudes of $r$ axions at the zero momentum with $N$ coincident NS5-branes in the heterotic string theory. These axions are of special character and they represent $r$ 2-flows wrapping $r$ homology 2-cycles of $M$. We gave only general remarks on this subject and a further detailed analysis must be performed. This includes the incorporation of S-duality between the heterotic and Type I string theory [@Polchinski:1995df] and the uses of this structure [@Witten:1995gx] to construct an ADHM construction of instantons with flows. It would be interesting to include flows in terms of proper dynamical fields such as is the case in string theory such as the NS $B$-field and the RR fields and make similar consideration as the present paper, but this time, in terms of specific interactions of the flow degrees of freedom. In this case it is possible to compute the back reaction of the fields of the theory to the flow. There is a number of possible further generalizations of our work. One of them is the extension of asymptotic invariants to quantum cohomology [@TSM; @MM; @Kontsevich:1994qz], by considering asymptotic cycles in the target space of a topological non-linear sigma model of types $A$ or $B$ [@MM]. Of special interest is the possibility to define an asymptotic version of the Rozansky-Witten invariants [@Rozansky:1996bq]. This is due to the fact that their construction involves a topological sigma model on a 3-manifold and target space being an hyper-Kähler manifold. The theory leads to link-invariants on the 3-manifold with underlying structure group labeled by the hyper-Kähler structure. We would like to establish a relation with the results obtained in Ref. [@VV]. Another possibility is the consideration of flows generated by $p$-vector fields on supermanifolds. The analysis involves the computation of correlation functions with even and odd operators. This will constitute a supersymmetric extension of the work considered in the present paper. One more possible direction constitutes the implementation of the procedure to the computation of correlation functions of observables in the eight-dimensional generalization of the cohomological field theory [@Baulieu:1997jx; @Acharya:1997jn]. Some of these issues are already under current investigation and will be reported elsewhere. 2truecm **Acknowledgments** We would like to thank the referee for carefully reading our manuscript and for giving us very important suggestions. The work of H. G.-C. is supported in part by the CONACyT grant 128761. The work of R.S. was supported by a CONACyT graduate fellowship. The work of A.V. was partially supported by CONACyT grant number 129280 and DGAPA-PAPIIT, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1truecm [99]{} E. Witten, ‘Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial’’, Commun. Math. Phys. **121**, 351 (1989). E. Witten, “Fivebranes and knots,”arXiv:1101.3216 \[hep-th\]. S.K. Donaldson, “Polynomial invariants for smooth 4-manifolds,” Topology [**29**]{} (1990) 257. S.K. Donaldson and P.B. Kronheimer, [*The Geometry of four-manifolds*]{}, Oxford University Press, New York 1990. E. Witten, “Topological quantum field theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. **117**, 353-386 (1988). E. Witten, “Topological gravity,” Phys. Lett.  B [**206**]{}, 601 (1988); J. M. F. Labastida, M. Pernici and E. Witten, “Topological gravity in two-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys.  B [**310**]{}, 611 (1988); E. Witten, “On the structure of the topological phase of two-dimensional gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**340**]{}, 281 (1990). K.G. O’Grady, “Donaldson polynomials for $K3$ surfaces”, J. Diff. Geom. **35** (1992) 415-427. P.B. Kronheimer and T.S. Mrowka, “Recurrence relations and asymptotics for four-manifold invariants”, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. [**30**]{} (1994) 215; “Embedded surfaces and the structure of Donaldson polynomial invariants”, J. Diff. Geom. [**41**]{} (1995) 573. E. Witten, “Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on a four-manifold”, J. Math. Phys. **35** (10) 5101-5135 (1994). N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condesation, and confinement in ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory”, Nucl. Phys. B **426**, 19 (1994); erratum, ibid. B **430**, 485 (1994); “Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric QCD”, Nucl. Phys. B **431**, 484 (1994). E. Witten, “Monopoles and four manifolds”, Math. Res. Lett. **1** 769 (1994). J.M. Labastida and M. Mariño, [*Topological quantum field theory and four manifolds*]{}, Springer Verlag (2005). E. Witten, “Topological sigma models,” Commun. Math. Phys.  [**118**]{}, 411 (1988). E. Witten, “Mirror manifolds and topological field theory,” arXiv:hep-th/9112056. M. Mariño, [*Chern-Simons theory, matrix models, and topological strings*]{}, Oxford, UK: Clarendon (2005) 197 p. V.I. Arnold and B.A. Khesin, [*Topological methods in hydrodynamics*]{}, Springer Verlag (1998). S. Schwartzman, “Asymptotic cycles”, Ann. Math. **66**(2), 270-284 (1957). S. Schwartzman, “Higher dimensional asymptotic cycles,” Canad. J. Math. **55**(3), 636-648 (2003). D. Ruelle and D. Sullivan, “Currents, flows and diffeomorphisms,” Topology **14** 319-327 (1975). D. Sullivan, “Cycles for the dynamical study of foliated manifolds and complex manifolds,” Invent. Math. **36** 225-255 (1976). S. Schwartzman, “Asymptotic cycles on non-compact spaces”, Bull. London Math. Soc. **29**, 350-352 (1997). A. Verjovsky, R. Vila Freyer, “The Jones-Witten invariant for flows on a 3-Dimensional manifold”, Commun. Math. Phys. **163** 73-88 (1994). H. García-Compeán and R. Santos-Silva, “Link invariants for flows in higher dimensions,” J. Math. Phys. [**51**]{}, 063506 (2010). J. A. Harvey and A. Strominger, “String theory and the Donaldson polynomial,” Commun. Math. Phys.  [**151**]{}, 221 (1993). G. de Rham, [*Differentiable manifolds: forms, currents, harmonic Forms*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984. A.  Candel, L.  Conlon, *Foliations I*, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, **23**. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000. J. Plante, [*Foliations with measure preserving holonomy*]{}, Annals of Math. Second Series, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Sep., 1975), pp. 327-361. M.F. Atiyah, N.J. Hitchin and I.M. Singer, “Self-duality in four-dimensional Riemannian geometry”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**362**]{} (1978) 425. H. Kanno, “Weyl algebra structure and geometrical meaning of BRST transformation in topological quantum field theory,” Z. Phys.  C [**43**]{}, 477 (1989). M. F. Atiyah, L. Jeffrey, “Topological Lagrangians and cohomology”, J. Geom. Phys. **7** (1) (1990) 120. V. Mathai and D. Quillen, “Superconnectons, Thom classes and equivariant differential forms”, Topology **25** (1986) 85. I. Vaisman, [*Lectures on the geometry of Poisson manifolds*]{}, (Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1994). M. Holm, “New insights in brane and Kaluza-Klein theory through almost product structures", arXiv:hep-th/9812168v1. J. S. Park, “${\cal N}=2$ topological Yang-Mills theory on compact Kahler surfaces,” Commun. Math. Phys.  [**163**]{}, 113 (1994). P. C. Argyres and A. E. Faraggi, “The vacuum structure and spectrum of ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric $SU(n)$ gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**74**]{}, 3931 (1995). G. van der Geer, *Hilbert modular surfaces*. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. **3**, 16. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. A. Selberg, *On discontinuous groups in higher-dimensional symmetric spaces*. Contributions to function theory (internat. Colloq. Function Theory, Bombay, 1960) pp. 147–164. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay. F. Hirzebruch, “Hilbert modular surfaces”, Enseignement Math. (**19**) No.2 (1973), pag. 183–281. R. Friedman, J. Morgan, *Smooth four-manifolds and complex surfaces*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (**3**), 27. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. S. K.  Donaldson, “Lefschetz pencils on symplectic manifolds,” J. Diff. Geom. 53 (1999), no. 2, 205–236. H.B. Lawson and M.-Louise Michelsohn, *Spin geometry*, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989), Math. Series No. 39. D. Salamon, *Spin geometry and Seiberg-Witten invariants*, University of Warwick (1995). J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, “A topological Lagrangian for monopoles on four manifolds,” Phys. Lett.  B [**351**]{}, 146 (1995). J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, “Non-abelian monopoles on four manifolds,” Nucl. Phys.  B [**448**]{}, 373 (1995). J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, “Polynomial invariants for $SU(2)$ monopoles,” Nucl. Phys.  B [**456**]{}, 633 (1995). J. Polchinski and E. Witten, “Evidence for heterotic - type I string duality,” Nucl. Phys.  B [**460**]{}, 525 (1996). E. Witten, “Small instantons in string theory,” Nucl. Phys.  B [**460**]{}, 541 (1996). M. Kontsevich and Yu. Manin, “Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry,” Commun. Math. Phys.  [**164**]{}, 525 (1994). L. Rozansky and E. Witten, “Hyper-Kähler geometry and invariants of three-manifolds,” Selecta Math.  [**3**]{}, 401 (1997). L. Baulieu, H. Kanno and I. M. Singer, “Special quantum field theories in eight and other dimensions,” Commun. Math. Phys.  [**194**]{}, 149 (1998). B. S. Acharya, J. M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, B. J. Spence and M. O’Loughlin, “Euclidean D-branes and higher-dimensional gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys.  B [**514**]{}, 583 (1998). [^1]: e-mail address: [compean@fis.cinvestav.mx]{} [^2]: e-mail address: [rsantos@fis.cinvestav.mx]{} [^3]: e-mail address: [alberto@matcuer.unam.mx]{} [^4]: A submanifold is said to be small if it is contained in a single flow box. [^5]: Thus we compute the effect of these spectator vector fields on the invariants. At this stage it is not possible to compute the back reaction of all dynamical fields to ${\bf Y}_{p_j}$. [^6]: 0 and 4 cycles are related by Hodge duality, so we will consider one of them, say 0-cycles. [^7]: In the process of obtaining invariants of smooth manifolds from physical theories, the dynamics of these theories is an important guide. However the topological invariants are independent on the metric and the coupling constant one can compute these invariants in the limit where the theory is under control. The assumption of a mass gap for ${\cal N}=2$ theories is justified as it allows to compute invariants for some four-manifolds. However it is observed that the own theory tell us that one has to consider the full dynamics (including the supersymmetry breaking) in order to find the right invariants. [^8]: The mass term consist of a quadratic term of a scalar superfield in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. [^9]: The condition of the existence of a canonical class is related to $b_2^+(M)$ by $b_2^+(M)= 2 {\rm dim}H^{(2,0)}(M)+1$. Thus, the condition $H^{(2,0)}(M)\not=0$ is equivalent to the familiar one $b_2^+(M)>1$. [^10]: Remember that the 2-vector fields ${\bf X}$ and ${\bf Y}$ are not dynamical and they do not contribute to the Feynman integral to compute correlation functions. The analysis of zero modes is also unchanged and the dimension of the moduli space of instantons remains the same. The only change will be reflected in the definition of the observables. [^11]: This cosmic string indeed captures chiral fermion zero modes of the field $\psi$ which propagates on the canonical divisor $C$.

--- abstract: 'The totally asymmetric exclusion process (TASEP) with periodic boundaries is considered as traffic flow model. The large-L approximation of the stationary state is used for the derivation of the time-headway distribution (an important microscopic characteristics of traffic flow) for the model with generalized update (genTASEP) in both, forward- and backward-sequential representation. The usually used updates, fully-parallel and regular forward- and backward-sequential, are analysed as special cases of the genTASEP. It is shown that only for those cases, the time-headway distribution is determined by the flow regardless to the density. The qualitative comparison of the results with traffic data demonstrates that the genTASEP with backward order and attractive interaction evinces similar properties of time-headway distribution as the real traffic sample.' address: 'Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Trojanova 13, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic' author: - 'P. Hrabák' - 'M. Krbálek' bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: 'Time-headway distribution for periodic totally asymmetric exclusion process with various updates' --- Totally asymmetric exclusion process, time-headway distribution, generalized ordered-sequential update. Introduction ============ Despite its simplicity, the TASEP exhibits some essential aspects of collective motion, and therefore can be considered as one of the simplest models of traffic flow [@ChoSanSch2000PR; @SchChoNis2010]. Dynamics of the model is however highly influenced by the used updating procedure. More complicated updates are investigated in order to capture some features of pedestrian dynamics or traffic flow [@RajSanSchSch1998JSP; @WolSchSch2006JPA; @AppCivHil2011JSM; @AppCivHil2011JSMb; @DerPogPovPri2012JSM]. The influence of the updates on model dynamics is a motivation for detailed investigation of microscopic traffic-flow characteristics as the time-headway distribution and its dependence on considered updates. The time-headway distribution is a generic characteristics influenced mainly by the density of vehicles or particles. Therefore, the TASEP with periodic boundaries preserving the overall density is considered in this article. According to our knowledge, the time-headway distribution has been so far investigated only for the TASEP with fully-parallel update in [@ChoPasSin1998EPJB; @GhoMajCho1998PRE], since it corresponds to the Nagel-Schreckenberg model [@NagSch1992JP; @Sch1999EPJ]. A preliminary study of the distribution for continuous-time dynamics is presented in [@HraKrb2011Procedia]. In this article, we aim to extend the time-headway studies by the analytical derivation of the distribution for the TASEP with generalized update (genTASEP) introduced in [@DerPogPovPri2012JSM]. The regular ordered updates and the parallel update are considered as special cases of the genTASEP. The time-headway distribution for TASEP is investigated in stationary state. The TASEP steady-state solution can be elegantly obtained by means of the Matrix Product Ansatz [@RajSanSchSch1998JSP; @DerEvaHakPas1993JoPA; @BlyEva2007JoPA], which has been used for the distance-headway study near the boundaries in [@KrbHra2011JoPA]. The distance-headway distribution for fully-parallel TASEP has been derived by means of car-oriented mean field approximation in [@SchSch1997JoPA] or by means of the (2,1)-cluster approximation [@AvrKoh1992PRA; @SchSchNagIto1995PRE]. In this article an alternative method is used for the derivation of the steady-state distribution: the appropriate mapping to the mass transport model, which has been investigated in [@ZiaEvaMaj2004JSM; @EvaMajZia2004JoPA] as a generalization of zero-range process [@EvaHan2005JoPA]. The large-$L$ approximation of the stationary state is then used for the derivation of headway distribution. Without any doubt, the headway distribution is important microscopic characteristics of traffic flow reflecting the repulsive interaction between vehicles. Essential aspects of the headway distribution are described in [@SchChoNis2010; @May1990; @Treiber2013]. In this article we use traffic data measured on the Dutch highway A9 in 2002 as a reference data sample, which has been used for extensive study of distance-headway distribution in [@Krb2007JoPA] as well. The distribution is typically evaluated with respect to traffic density $\varrho$, therefore we consider one-parametric families of probability density functions $\{\wp(\,.\,;\varrho)\,;\, \varrho\in[0,\varrho_{c}]\}$ and $\{f(\,.\,;\varrho)\,;\, \varrho\in[0,\varrho_{c}]\}$, where $\varrho_{c}$ is the density corresponding to the maximal occupancy of the road. Here $\wp(\,.\,;\varrho)$ stands for the distribution of distance-gap $\Delta x$ between the bumpers of two consecutive vehicles, and $f(\,.\,;\varrho)$ is the distribution of time-headway $\Delta t$ between the passages of two consecutive vehicles through given cross-section. To capture the essence of repulsive forces between vehicles it is convenient to scale the headway to mean value equal to one (see [@Krb2007JoPA; @KrbHel2004PhysicaA; @KrbSebWag2001PRE]). The distribution of the scaled-headway $\Delta t/\langle\Delta t\rangle_\varrho$ will be denoted by $\bar{f}(\,\cdot\,;\varrho)$. The histograms of the empirical probability density functions $f_\mathrm{emp}(t;\varrho)$ and $\bar{f}_\mathrm{emp}(s;\varrho)$ for various intervals of density $\varrho$ \[veh/km\] are visualized in Figure \[fig:THrealDATA\]. ![Empirical time-headway distribution (left) and scaled-headway distribution (right) for different density regions $\varrho$ \[veh/km\]. The sub-plot visualizes average flow $J$ corresponding to given density region (squares) with empirical flow-density diagram in the background. Visualized data are extracted from the measurement on the Dutch freeway A9 in 2002.[]{data-label="fig:THrealDATA"}](Figure1left_THrealDATA "fig:") ![Empirical time-headway distribution (left) and scaled-headway distribution (right) for different density regions $\varrho$ \[veh/km\]. The sub-plot visualizes average flow $J$ corresponding to given density region (squares) with empirical flow-density diagram in the background. Visualized data are extracted from the measurement on the Dutch freeway A9 in 2002.[]{data-label="fig:THrealDATA"}](Figure1right_THrealDATAscaled "fig:") Analyzing headway distributions measured on Dutch freeway we can (in agreement with [@May1990 Section 2.1] and [@SchChoNis2010 Section 6.8]) observe following aspects: - The time-headway modus is always less than the median, which is less then the mean. With increasing flow, these statistics converge towards each other. - With increasing flow, the mean value and the variance of the time-headway is decreasing. - The modus of the distribution corresponding to densities higher then maximal-flow density is shifted towards higher values in comparison with the distribution corresponding to lower density and similar flow. - The variance of the scaled-headway distribution is decreasing with respect to $\varrho$ (similarly as in the case of distance-headways [@Krb2007JoPA] and multiheadways [@Krb2013JoPA]). TASEP and Considered Updates ============================ Let $\mathbb{L}=\left\{0, 1, \dots, L-1\right\}$ be a linear lattice consisting of $L$ equivalent sites. The periodicity of the lattice is expressed in the sense that for each $x,y\in\mathbb{L}$ it holds $x+y:=(x+y \bmod L)$. There are $N$ indistinguishable particles moving along the lattice $\mathbb{L}$ by hopping from one site to the neighbouring site. Particles follow the *exclusion rule*, i.e, every site can be occupied by at most one particle. In the following we understand by the density $\varrho$ the average occupation of a site given by $\varrho=N/L$. As the density $\varrho\in[0,1]$ will often be used as the system parameter, it is implicitly supposed that the number of particles is given by $N=\lfloor\varrho L\rfloor$. In TASEP a particle sitting in the site $x$ hops to the neighbouring site $x+1$ with probability $p\in(0,1]$, if the target site is empty. Those hops are driven by updates listed below. In this article we consider fully-parallel, forward-sequential, and backward-sequential update according to the nomenclature in [@RajSanSchSch1998JSP] as special cases of the generalized update [@DerPogPovPri2012JSM]. [*Fully-parallel update*]{}: All sites are updated simultaneously during one algorithm step. If convenient, this update will be indicated by the parallel sign $\parallel$. In the case of [fully-parallel]{} update the jump of a particle can be considered as an exchange of the particle and the neighbouring empty site (hole). Therefore, the motion of particles in the system with density $\varrho$ corresponds to the motion of holes with density $\sigma=1-\varrho$ in opposite direction. This is referred to as the [*particle-hole symmetry*]{}. Similarly evinces the particle-hole symmetry the random-sequential and continuous-time update. [*Ordered-sequential update*]{}: The sites are updated sequentially according to given order, i.e., we consider site-oriented definition of the updates. We focus on the backward and forward update, i.e., sites are updated in the decreasing or increasing order respectively. If convenient, these updates will be indicated by the left ($\leftarrow$) or right ($\rightarrow$) arrows sign respectively. The backward-sequential update can (and should) be understand in the way that exactly $k$ particles from a block of $n$ particles will move by one site forward with probabilities $$\label{eq:pkn} p(k|n)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} (1-p)p^k & k< n\,,\\ p^n & k=n\,. \end{array}\right.$$ Analogically, in the forward-sequential case a particle having exactly $n$ empty sites in front of it hops $k$ sites forward with probability $p(k|n)$ defined by . [*Generalized update*]{}: This update has been introduced in [@DerPogPovPri2012JSM] and further investigated in [@DerPovPri2015PRE]. Originally, the sites are updated in backward order. The first particle in a block hops to the neighbouring site with probability $p$ as usual, but further particles in the block hop with a modified probability $p\gamma$, where $\gamma\in[0,1/p]$ is a parameter influencing the repulsion ($\gamma<1$) or attraction ($\gamma>1$) of particles. Here we note that in the original article, the parameter of the generalized order is $\delta=\gamma-1\in[-1,1/p-1]$. This update can again be understood in the way that exactly $k$ particles from a block of $n$ particles will move by one site forward with probabilities $$\label{eq:gpkn} p(k|n)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1-p & k=0\,,\\ p(p\gamma)^{k-1}(1-p\gamma) & 0<k< n\,,\\ p(p\gamma)^{n-1} & k=n\,. \end{array}\right.$$ Similarly, we can define a forward variant of such update enabling a particle to hop $k$ sites forward with probability . It is worth noting that the forward- and backward-sequential updates evinces a dualism in motion of particles and holes, i.e., the motion of particles with density $\varrho$ in forward update corresponds to the backward-update-driven motion of holes with density $1-\varrho$ in opposite direction and vice versa. From the dynamics it is obvious that the fully parallel update is a special case of the generalized update with $\gamma=0$. Similarly, the backward-sequential update is a generalized update with $\gamma=1$. From these reasons it is sufficient to consider only the generalized update. For readability reasons we use the notation $q=1-p$ and $\sigma=1-\varrho$. Stationary State ================ The TASEP driven by above mentioned updates can be considered as Markov process (for more detail about Markov processes see e.g. [@Bremaud]) with finite state space $X_L=\{0,1\}^L$. Every state $\boldsymbol{\tau}\in X$ is a vector $\boldsymbol{\tau} =(\tau_0,\dots,\tau_{L-1})$, where $\tau_x=0$ if the site is empty and $\tau_x=1$ if the site is occupied. Let the process $\big(\boldsymbol{\tau}(t), t\in T\big)$ be defined on the canonical trajectory probability space $\left((X_L)^T, \mathcal{B}((X_L)^T), \Pr\right)$, where $T=\{k\mid k\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ represents discrete-time set , $\mathcal{B}$ denotes the Borel sigma field, and $\Pr$ is the canonical probability measure. Let us denote by $$W(\boldsymbol{\tau}\to\boldsymbol{\tau}')=\Pr\left[\boldsymbol{\tau}(t+1)=\boldsymbol{\tau}'\mid\boldsymbol{\tau}(t)=\boldsymbol{\tau}\right]$$ the transition rates from state $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ to state $\boldsymbol{\tau}'$. The particle preserving dynamics and the periodic lattice imply that the number of particles $N$ is constant for each trajectory, therefore the state space $X_L$ decomposes into $N+1$ irreducible subspaces $$X_{L,N}=\left\{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in X \mid \textstyle{\sum_{x=0}^{L-1}}\,\tau_x=N \right\}\,,\quad N=0,1,\dots,L\,.$$ On each subspace $X_{L,N}$ we define the *stationary measure* $\mathcal{P}_{L,N}$ as the solution of the equation set $$\sum_{\boldsymbol\tau'\neq\boldsymbol\tau} W(\boldsymbol\tau\to\boldsymbol\tau')\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol\tau)= \sum_{\boldsymbol\tau'\neq\boldsymbol\tau} W(\boldsymbol\tau'\to\boldsymbol\tau)\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol\tau')\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\tau}\in X_{L,N}\,.$$ Let us further define the *cluster probability* measure $\mathcal{P}_{L,N}^n$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $n\leq L$, as $$\mathcal{P}_{L,N}^n(s_1,s_2,\dots,s_n)=\mathcal{P}_{L,N}\left(\tau_{x+j}=s_j\,,\,j=1,2,\dots,n\right)\,,$$ where $x$ is an arbitrary site from $\mathbb{L}$, and $\mathcal{P}_{L,N}$ is the stationary measure on $X_{L,N}$. Note that the cluster probability is well defined since the periodic lattice consists of equivalent sites and therefore the measure $\mathcal{P}_{L,N}$ is translation invariant. Furthermore, in relation to the density $\varrho$ it holds $\mathcal{P}_{L,\lfloor\varrho L\rfloor}^{1}(1)=\varrho$, $\mathcal{P}_{L,\lfloor\varrho L\rfloor}^{1}(0)=\sigma$. As common we will use the large $L$ approximation of the stationary measure. By the large $L$ approximation we understand the approximation of cluster probabilities by their limits $$\mathcal{P}_{L,\lfloor\varrho L\rfloor}^{n}(s_1,\dots,s_n)\approx\lim_{L\to+\infty}\mathcal{P}_{L,\lfloor\varrho L\rfloor}^{n}(s_1,\dots,s_n)=:\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}^{n}(s_1,\dots,s_n)\,,$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, if the limits exist. The large $L$ approximation measures $\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}^n$ can be considered as measures of the process defined on the infinite line. For details concerning the convergence of the large $L$ approximation to the infinite line measure see book [@Liggett], article [@GroSchSpo2003JSP] and references therein. In further text we will use following notation for the conditional probabilities: $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}(\underline{s_1}s_2\dots s_n\mid s_1)&:=&\mathcal{P}(\tau_{x+j}=s_j, j=1,\dots,n\mid \tau_{x+1}=s_1)=\nonumber\\ &=&\mathcal{P}^{n}(s_1,\dots,s_n)/\mathcal{P}^{1}(s_1)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In this notation we can express the probability that there are exactly $d$ empty cells between two consecutive particles as $$\wp(d;\varrho)=\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}(\underline{1}\overbrace{0\dots0}^d 1\mid 1)=\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}^n(1\overbrace{0\dots0}^d 1)/\varrho\,,\quad d\geq0\,.$$ The distribution $\wp(\cdot;\varrho)$ is referred to as the distance-headway distribution. Let us in the following consider the lattice to be sufficiently large and let us use the large $L$ approximations $\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}$ for $\varrho\in(0,1)$. In such case it holds $$\sum_{d=0}^{+\infty}\wp(d;\varrho)=1\,,\quad\sum_{d=0}^{+\infty}(d+1)\wp(d;\varrho)=\frac{1}{\varrho}\,.$$ To obtain the stationary measure $\mathcal{P}_\varrho$, it is convenient to map the generalized TASEP on the mass transport process [@ZiaEvaMaj2004JSM; @EvaMajZia2004JoPA], for which the stationary distribution is known. The derivation can be found in the \[app:ssd\]. For the backward sequential update then follows that $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}_{\leftarrow,\varrho}(\underline{0}\overbrace{1,\dots,1}^{n}0\mid 0)&=&\phi(n;\varrho)= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1-z/\sigma & n=0\,,\\ z^2/(\varrho\sigma)(1-z/\varrho)^{n-1} & n\geq1\,, \end{array}\right.\\ \wp_\leftarrow(d;\varrho)&=&\phi(n;\sigma)= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1-z/\varrho & n=0\,,\\ z^2/(\varrho\sigma)(1-z/\sigma)^{n-1} & n\geq1\,, \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$z=z(\varrho,\gamma,p)=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-4\varrho\sigma A(p,\gamma)}}{2A(p,\gamma)}\,,\quad A(p,\gamma)=\frac{p(1-\gamma)}{1-p\gamma}\,,$$ is one of the roots of the quadratic equation $$\label{eq:z} A(p,\gamma)z^2-z+\varrho\sigma=0\,.$$ For the flow $J$ then holds $$\label{eq:J} J_{\leftarrow}(\varrho;p,\gamma)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\mathcal{P}_{\leftarrow,\varrho}^{n+1}(\overbrace{1\dots1}^{n}0)p(p\gamma)^{n-1}=\frac{pz}{1-p\gamma(1-z/\varrho)}\,.$$ Time-Headway Distribution for Parallel Updates ============================================== This section extends the derivation of the time-headway distribution for fully-parallel update [@ChoPasSin1998EPJB; @GhoMajCho1998PRE] by the derivation of the time-headway distribution for generalized update. In the following we will use the duality of forward and backward update procedure. For technical reasons, the derivation is performed for the forward variant of the update. The transformation to the backward variant is straightforward by switching the symbols $\varrho$ and $\sigma$. Let us denote by $k_\mathrm{in}^{\alpha}(x)$ the time (in steps of the algorithm) at which the particle $\alpha$ enters the site $x$ and by $k_\mathrm{out}^{\alpha}(x)$ the time at which the particle $\alpha$ hops out of the site $x$. Let site $x=0$ be the reference site for time-headway measurement. Let us further consider two consecutive particles, which will be referred to as the *leading particle* (abbr. LP) and the *following particle* (abbr. FP). The aim of following calculations is to derive the distribution of the time interval $\Delta k=k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{FP}(0)-k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{LP}(0)$. The *time-headway distribution* is defined by means of the *time-headway probabilities* $f(k)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, where $f(k;\varrho)=\Pr(\Delta k=k\mid\varrho)$. The own derivation of the time-headway distribution is provided in \[app:thd\]. The final formula for the forward variant of the genTASEP model for $p\in(0,1)$, $\gamma\in[0,1/p)$, and $\varrho\in(0,1)$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:fkfinfor} f_{\to}(k;\varrho,p,\gamma) &=& \frac{pz}{\sigma-z}\frac{1}{1-\omega}\left(1-\frac{pz}{\sigma}\frac{1}{1-\omega}\right)^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &+&\frac{pz}{\varrho-z}(1-\omega)\left(1-\frac{pz}{\varrho}\right)^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &-&\left[\frac{pz}{\sigma-z}(1+\omega)+\frac{pz}{\varrho-z}(1-\omega)\right]q^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &-&p^2\frac{1-p\gamma}{1-p}q^{k-1}(k-1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega=\omega(\varrho,p,\gamma)=1-p\gamma(1-z/\sigma)$ and $$z=z(\varrho,\gamma,p)=\left(1-\sqrt{1-4\varrho\sigma\frac{p(1-\gamma)}{1-p\gamma}}\right)\left(\frac{2p(1-\gamma)}{1-p\gamma}\right)^{-1}\,.$$ The time-headway distribution for backward variant of the genTASEP is then $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:fkfinbac} f_{\leftarrow}(k;\varrho,p,\gamma) &=& \frac{pz}{\varrho-z}\frac{1}{1-\bar{\omega}}\left(1-\frac{pz}{\varrho}\frac{1}{1-\bar{\omega}}\right)^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &+&\frac{pz}{\sigma-z}(1-\bar{\omega})\left(1-\frac{pz}{\sigma}\right)^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &-&\left[\frac{pz}{\varrho-z}(1+\bar{\omega})+\frac{pz}{\sigma-z}(1-\bar{\omega})\right]q^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &-&p^2\frac{1-p\gamma}{1-p}q^{k-1}(k-1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\omega}=\bar{\omega}(\varrho,p,\gamma)=1-p\gamma(1-z/\varrho)$. Putting $\gamma=0$ we obtain the known formula for parallel update $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:fkpar} f_{\parallel}(k;\varrho,p)&=&f_{\to}(k;\varrho,p,0)=f_{\leftarrow}(k;\varrho,p,0)=\nonumber\\ &=& \frac{py}{\sigma-z}\left(1-\frac{py}{\sigma}\right)^{k-1} + \frac{py}{\varrho-y}\left(1-\frac{py}{\varrho}\right)^{k-1}\nonumber\\ &-&\left[\frac{py}{\sigma-z}+\frac{py}{\varrho-z}\right]q^{k-1} - p^2 q^{k-2}(k-1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $y=y(\varrho,p)=z(\varrho,p,0)$. Similarly we can obtain the distribution for forward-sequential update with $\gamma=1$ resulting to $$\label{eq:forfk} f_{\rightarrow}(k;\varrho,p,1)= \frac{p\varrho}{q\sigma}\left(\frac{q}{1-p\sigma}\right)^k + \frac{p\sigma}{\varrho}(1-p\sigma)^k -\left[\frac{p\varrho}{q\sigma}+\frac{p\sigma}{\varrho}\right]q^k -p^2kq^{k-1}$$ The convergence of the time-headway distribution corresponding to finite lattice size $L<<\infty$ to the large $L$ approximation  is demonstrated in Figure \[fig:THforSIML\]. The histogram estimation $\hat{f}_{\to}^\mathrm{sim}$ of the probability density function $f_{\to}$ based on the computer simulation of the model with finite lattice size $L$ is displayed. We can observe that the formula  fits sufficiently the simulation data for $L=50$. ![Comparison of empirical probability density function $\hat{f}_{\to}^\mathrm{sim}$with the derived formula . Number of observations $n=2\cdot 10^5$, $\varrho=0.2$, $\gamma=1$, lattice length $L=10$ (left), $L=20$ (center), $L=50$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:THforSIML"}](Figure3_THforSIM) Let us for completeness present the time-headway distribution $f_{ct}(t;\varrho)$ for continuous time dynamics, which can be obtained from the fully-parallel update distribution by the limit $p\to0_+$ with the appropriate time scaling $t=pk$. The distribution function is $$F_{ct}(t;\varrho)=\lim_{p\to0_+}\sum_{k\leq t/p}f_{\parallel}(k;\varrho,p)\,,$$ which leads to probability density function $$\label{eq:ft} f_{ct}(t;\varrho)=\frac{\varrho}{\sigma}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-\varrho t}-\mathrm{e}^{-t}\right)+\frac{\sigma}{\varrho}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-\sigma t}-\mathrm{e}^{-t}\right)-t\mathrm{e}^{-t}\,,\quad t\geq0\,.$$ Mutual relations and correspondence =================================== A typical characteristics of the fully-parallel update is the particle-hole symmetry mentioned above. In processes with particle-hole symmetry the holes behave exactly like particles in system with complementary density $\sigma=1-\varrho$. This projects to the stationary distribution in the way that $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\forall(s_1,\dots,s_n)\in\{0,1\}^n$ it holds $$\label{eq:phs} \mathcal{P}_{\varrho}^{n}(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\mathcal{P}_{\sigma}^{n}(1-s_1,\dots,1-s_n)\,.$$ Furthermore, the symmetry in the hopping probabilities implies that the flow and time-headway distribution are symmetrical with respect to $\varrho$ as well, i.e., $$J(\varrho)=J(\sigma)\,,\qquad f(\cdot;\varrho)=f(\cdot;\sigma)\,.$$ There is a dualism between forward and backward dynamics (both regular and generalized) similar to the particle-hole symmetry. The motion of holes in forward update corresponds to the motion of particles in the backward update and vice versa. Therefore it holds $$\label{eq:fbdual} \mathcal{P}_{\rightarrow;\varrho}^{n}(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\mathcal{P}_{\leftarrow;\sigma}^{n}(1-s_1,\dots,1-s_n)\,, \quad J_{\rightarrow}(\varrho)=J_{\leftarrow}(\sigma)\,,\quad f_{\rightarrow}(\cdot;\varrho)=f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot;\sigma)\,.$$ The particle-hole symmetry for fully-parallel update can be illustrated by the fact that $$f_{\parallel}(k;\varrho,p)=f_{\rightarrow}(k;\varrho,p,0)=f_{\leftarrow}(k;\varrho,p,0)\,.$$ In this section we discuss under which conditions there can be found similar relation to  for $\gamma\neq0$, namely for which $\gamma$ it holds that $\forall\varrho_1,\varrho_2(0<\varrho_1<\varrho_{\mathrm{max}}<\varrho_2<1)$ $$\label{eq:Jtof} J(\varrho_1)=J(\varrho_2) \implies f(\cdot;\varrho_1)=f(\cdot;\varrho_2)\,.$$ Here we note that the opposite implication is always fulfilled since $J(\varrho)=(\mathbb{E}_{f(\cdot;\varrho)}\Delta t)^{-1}$, where $\mathbb{E}_f$ stands for the expectation value with respect to distribution $f$. The property  means that the time-headway distribution is fully determined by the flow regardless to the density. The flow $J$ defined by the equation  is a continuous function with respect to density $\varrho$ with one maximum $J_{\mathrm{max}}$ at $\varrho_{\mathrm{max}}$ and with $J(0)=0=J(1)$. Therefore $\forall \varrho_1\in(0,\varrho_{\mathrm{max}})$ there exists unique $\varrho_2\in(\varrho_{\mathrm{max}},1)$ for which $J(\varrho_1)=J(\varrho_2)$. E.g. in parallel dynamics $\varrho_2=1-\varrho_1$. Figure \[fig:fkgamma\] shows eight sub-plots of the probability density $f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot;\varrho,p,\gamma)$ for different values of $\gamma$. Each sub-plot contains the probability density for $\varrho=\varrho_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $\varrho_1, \varrho_2$ corresponding to the flow $J_{\mathrm{max}}/2$. ![The time-headway distribution $f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot,\varrho,p,\gamma)$ for $p=0.5$ and $\gamma\in\{0, 1/3, 2/3, 1, 5/4, 3/2, 7/4, 2-\epsilon\}$. Black dots ($\bullet$) correspond to the maximal flow density $\rho_\mathrm{max}$; $\rho_1<\rho_\mathrm{max}$ ($\square$) and $\rho_2>\rho_\mathrm{max}$ ($\bigcirc$) correspond to the flow $J_\mathrm{max}/2$.[]{data-label="fig:fkgamma"}](fkgamma){width="\textwidth"} Figure \[fig:df1f2\] shows the symmetrical $\chi^2$ distance $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ between $f_{\leftarrow}(k;\varrho_1,p,\gamma)$ and $f_{\leftarrow}(k;\varrho_2,p,\gamma)$ for $p=0.5$ with respect to $\gamma\in[0,2]$, where $$\label{eq:df1f2} d(f_1,f_2)=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\frac{[f_1(k)-f_2(k)]^2}{f_1(k)+f_2(k)}\,.$$ ![The visualisation for of the distance  between $f_1=f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot,\varrho_1,p,\gamma)$ and $f_2=f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot,\varrho_2,p,\gamma)$ for $p=0.5$ and $J(\varrho_1)=J(\varrho_2)=J_\mathrm{max}/2$.[]{data-label="fig:df1f2"}](df1f2){width=".8\textwidth"} From these graphs we may conclude that the implication  holds only for the fully parallel update $\gamma=0$ and regular backward- (or forward-) sequential update $\gamma=1$. Nevertheless, the difference of the distributions for repulsive dynamics, i.e., $\gamma\in(0,1)$, is very small. For the attractive dynamics with $\gamma>1$, the time-headway distribution is not even closely determined by the flow $J$, which is an interesting property in comparison to the real traffic data. Let us now focus on the cases, for which the implication  holds. In the case of fully-parallel update $\gamma=0$ the implication holds due to the particle hole symmetry. To prove the case of regular froward- or backward-sequential update we show a relation between the fully-parallel and ordered-sequential updates. We claim that for $p\in(0,1)$ there is a one-to-one mapping $b:(0,1)\to(0,1)$ such that for each $k=\{1,2,\dots\}$ it holds $$\label{eq:fkforbacpar} f_{\leftarrow}(k;1-\varrho)=f_{\rightarrow}(k;\varrho)=f_{\parallel}\left(k+1;b^{-1}(\varrho)\right)\,.$$ The first equality is fulfilled due to the dualism between forward and backward update. To prove the second equality it is sufficient to compare the formulas  and . Then we obtain that $$b(\varrho)=1-\frac{y}{\varrho}\,,\quad y=\left(1-\sqrt{1-4\varrho\sigma}\right)/2\,.$$ Then for each $\varrho_1<\varrho_{\rightarrow}^{\mathrm{max}}$ there exists unique $\varrho_{\parallel}=b^{-1}(\varrho_1)<\varrho_{\parallel}^{\mathrm{max}}=1/2$. The corresponding $\varrho_2>\varrho_{\rightarrow}^{\mathrm{max}}$ can be then found as $b(1-\varrho_{\parallel})$. All together we get $$\varrho_2=b\left(1-b^{-1}(\varrho_1)\right)\,.$$ This proves that in case of the sequential update the time-headway distribution is determined by the flow regardless to the density. Furthermore, the relation  implies that the regular backward- and forward-sequential update changes the behaviour of the fully parallel TASEP only by the scaling of the density via the bijection $b: \varrho_{\rightarrow}\mapsto\varrho_{\parallel}$. Due to  it is possible to relate the exact value of the flow $J$ for these updates with corresponding densities, since $$\mathbb{E}_{f_{\rightarrow}(\cdot;b(\varrho))}\Delta k=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}kf_{\rightarrow}(k;b(\varrho))=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}kf_{\parallel}(k+1;\varrho)=\mathbb{E}_{f_{\parallel}(\cdot;\varrho)}\Delta k-1$$ and therefore $$J_{\leftarrow}(1-b(\varrho))=J_{\rightarrow}(b(\varrho))=\frac{J_{\parallel}(\varrho)}{1-J_{\parallel}(\varrho)}\,.$$ This is analogical result as in [@EvaRajSpe1999JSP Section 5] for open boundaries. Conclusions =========== This paper provides analytical derivation of the time-headway distribution for TASEP with generalized update (genTASEP) in both, backward- and forward-sequential representation. We provide formulas  and  for the probability density function $f(k;\varrho,p,\gamma)$ for $p\in(0,1)$, $\varrho\in(0,1)$, and $\gamma\in[0,1/p)$. The limiting cases, i.e., $p=1$ and $\gamma=1/p$ can be obtained using the appropriate limit. Comparing the results for the fully-parallel ($\gamma=0$) and regular ordered-sequential update ($\gamma=1$), we have found out that there is a density-scaling bijection $b: \varrho_{\rightarrow}\mapsto\varrho_{\parallel}$, which relates the fully-parallel and regular ordered-sequential update via the relation . The reason for this correspondence lies in the fact that the hopping probability in sequential update does not depend on the position of the particle in the block, therefore the dynamics is the same even if we look at the state in the middle of the update. A consequence of this correspondence is the fact that in the cases $\gamma\in\{0,1\}$ the time-headway distribution is determined by the flow regardless, whether the system density is above or below the maximal flow density $\varrho_{\mathrm{max}}$. This determination breaks down for other values of the parameter $\gamma\notin\{0,1\}$. Nevertheless, the Figure \[fig:df1f2\] demonstrates that for repulsive values of $\gamma\in(0,1)$, the difference between the corresponding distributions is very low. Such a difference significantly increases with the attractive values of $\gamma\in(1,1/p)$. We can observe qualitatively similar behaviour to the traffic sample for the generalized backward-sequential update, originally introduced in [@DerPogPovPri2012JSM]. ![Illustration of the distribution $f_{\leftarrow(\cdot,\varrho,p,\gamma)}$ with $p=0.5$, $\gamma=1.5$. The densities are chosen to correspond with $J_{\mathrm{max}}/3$ and $J_{\mathrm{max}}\cdot 2/3$, as depicted in the fundamental diagram in the sub-figure.[]{data-label="fig:fkrho"}](fkrho){width=".5\textwidth"} Figure \[fig:fkrho\] shows two pairs of the time-headway distributions $f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot;\varrho_1)$, $f_{\leftarrow}(\cdot;\varrho_2)$ corresponding to the same flow. In general, we can see that the distribution corresponding to the density $\varrho_2>\varrho_{\mathrm{max}}$ (blue line) has lower variance and modus shifted more to the higher values of $k$ than the corresponding distribution for $\varrho_1<\varrho_{\mathrm{max}}$ (red line). Such characteristics has been observed in the real traffic data (compare with the Figure \[fig:THrealDATA\] and list of properties below it). This means that that the synchronized motion of particles in genTASEP mirrors in the time-headway distribution similarly to the real traffic. Therefore, a model based on the genTASEP can describe well the traffic sample even on the microscopic level characterized by the time-headway distribution. The derived formulas  and  can then serve as an additional calibration tool for finding appropriate values of $p$ and $\gamma$. To develop a comprehensive technique of the parameter estimation is a subject of further research. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported by the Czech Science foundation under the grant GAČR 15-15049S and the CTU grant SGS15/214/OHK4/3T/14. Steady state derivation {#app:ssd} ======================= For the steady state derivation we use the result of [@ZiaEvaMaj2004JSM] by mapping the TASEP with generalized update to appropriate mass transport process (abbr. MTP). Consider a mass transport process of $\tilde{N}$ particles on a lattice of $\tilde{L}$ sites with periodic boundaries and parallel dynamics. In every time step from each site $j$ containing $n_{j}$ particles hops $k_j\leq n_j$ particles to the neighbouring site with probability $\varphi(k_j|n_j)$. The stationary distribution $\Phi(\bf n)$ of such process can be written in a factorized form $$\Phi(n_1,\dots,n_{\tilde{L}})=Z({\tilde{L},\tilde{N}})^{-1}\prod_{j=1}^{\tilde{L}}\phi({n_{j}})$$ *if and only if* the cross ratio $$R(k,n)=\frac{\varphi(k+1|n+2)\varphi(k|n)}{\varphi(k+1|n+1)\varphi(k|n+1)}$$ for $0\leq k\leq n$ with $\varphi(0|0)=1$ does not depend on $k$, i.e., $R(n):=R(k,n)$. The one-site factors $\phi(n)$ are then in the form $$\phi(n)=\phi(0)\left(\frac{\phi(1)}{\phi(0)}\right)^{n}\cdot\prod_{j=0}^{n-2}R(j)^{-n+j+1}\,\quad n\geq2\,.$$ Let us assume for simplicity that the one site factors $\phi(n)$ fulfil $$\label{eq:Aconst} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\phi(n)=1\quad {\rm and} \quad\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n\phi(n)=\tilde{\varrho}:=\frac{\tilde{N}}{\tilde{L}}\,.$$ This means that $\phi(n)$ are one site marginals of the product measure in the large $\tilde{L}$ approximation. The TASEP with generalized update can be mapped to the MTP with chipping function $$\varphi(k|n)=\begin{cases} 1-p& k=0\,,\\ p(p\gamma)^{k-1}(1-p\gamma)& 0<k<n\,,\\ p(p\gamma)^{n-1}& k=n\,, \end{cases}$$ for $n\geq1$ and $\varphi(0|0)=1$. Hence the factors $\phi(n)$ are $$\phi(n)=\phi(0)\left(\frac{\phi(1)}{\phi(0)}\right)^{n}\left(\frac{1-p}{1-p\gamma}\right)^{n-1}\,\quad n\geq2\,.$$ Using and little computational effort we obtain $${\phi(0)=1-\frac{z}{\sigma}\,,\qquad \phi(n)=\frac{z^{2}}{\varrho\sigma}\left(1-\frac{z}{\varrho}\right)^{n-1}\,,\quad n\geq1\,,}$$ where $$z=z(\rho,\gamma,p)=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-4\rho\sigma\frac{p(1-\gamma)}{1-p\gamma}}}{2\frac{p(1-\gamma)}{1-p\gamma}}$$ The mass transport process can be transformed to a process following the exclusion rule, if we associate the piles of the MTP with the clusters of particles, i.e., the pile of $n$ particles corresponds to a cluster of $n$ particles followed by an empty site as suggested e.g. in [@KauMahHarPRE2005]. Then we have $\tilde{L}=L-N$, $\tilde{N}=N$ and $$\label{eq:Arho} \tilde{\varrho}=\frac{\tilde{N}}{\tilde{L}}=\frac{N}{L-N}=\frac{\varrho}{1-\varrho}\,.$$ The stationary measure $\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}$ is then related to the one-site factors via $$\label{eq:Aphin} \phi(n)=\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}(0\overbrace{1\dots{1}}^{n}\underline{0}\mid \tau_{x}=0)\,.$$ To express any probability $\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}^n$ in the terms of $\phi(n)$ it is sufficient to use repeatedly the *Kolmogorov consitency conditions* (mentioned e.g. in [@AvrKoh1992PRA; @SchSchNagIto1995PRE]) $$\label{eq:kolmogorov} \mathcal{P}_{L,N}^{n}(s_1,s_2,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{\tau}\mathcal{P}_{L,N}^{n+1}(\tau,s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{\tau}\mathcal{P}_{L,N}^{n+1}(s_1,\dots,s_n,\tau)$$ for all $(s_1,\dots,s_n)\in\{0,1\}^n$. Hence we get the distance-headway distribution $$\label{eq:Awpphi} {\wp(d;\varrho)=\tfrac{\sigma}{\varrho}\big[1-\phi(0)\big]^{2}\phi(0)^{d-1}\,,\quad d\geq1\,,\quad \wp(0;\varrho)= 1-\tfrac{\sigma}{\varrho}[1-\phi(0)]\,.}$$ Another needed quantity is the [Minimal-gap-length]{} probability $$P(n;\varrho)=\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}(1\overbrace{0\dots\underline{0}}^{n}\mid 0)=\mathcal{P}_{\varrho}^{n+1}(1\overbrace{0\dots0}^{n})/\sigma\,,\quad n\geq1\,,$$ which is calculated as $$P(n;\varrho)=\frac{\varrho}{\sigma}\sum_{d=n}\wp(d;\varrho)=\frac{z}{\sigma}\left(1-\frac{z}{\sigma}\right)\,.$$ Time-headway derivation for genTASEP {#app:thd} ==================================== Let us consider the forward variant of genTASEP. Under this update, the LP can hop more sites forward during one time step, it is possible that it hops from the site 1 in the same step as it hopped for the site 0, i.e., $k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{LP}(0)=k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{LP}(1)$. This happens with the probability $$\omega:=p\gamma\mathcal{P}_{\varrho,\to}(\underline{0}0|0)=p\gamma\mathcal{P}_{\sigma,\leftarrow}(\underline{1}1|1)=p\gamma\wp_{\leftarrow}(0;\sigma)=p\gamma(1-z/\sigma)\,.$$ It is then convenient to calculate the time-headway probability as $$f(k)=\omega f(k\mid\tau_1=0)+(1-\omega)f(k\mid\tau_1=1)$$ Let us first deal with the probability $f(k\mid\tau_1=0)$. Knowing that the site 1 is already empty, we know that the FP sitting in site $-n$ has to hop $(n+1)$-times forward during exactly $k$ steps. Let $C(n,k)$ stand for the conditional probability, that a particle performs $n$ forward hops during exactly $k$ steps, given that there are at least $n$ empty sites ahead. Then it reads $$f(k\mid\tau_1=0)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}C(n+1,k)P(n)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}(1-\phi)\phi^{n-1}C(n+1,k)\,,$$ where we denote by $\phi:=1-z/\sigma$ for readability reasons. For $n,k\geq1$ it follows $$C(n,k)=p(p\gamma)^{n-1}q^{k-1}\sum_{a=0}^{\min\{n-1,k-1\}}{n-1 \choose a}{k-1 \choose a}\left(\frac{1-p\gamma}{q\gamma}\right)^a$$ The considered particle needs to perform $k-1$ stops (denote as $\times$) and $n$ jumps (denote as $\circ$). Furthermore, the $n$-th jump has to be performed after all $k-1$ stops. That means, there are $n-1+k-1$ that can be arbitrarily filled by $n-1$ symbols $\circ$ and $k-1$ symbols $\times$. Further, each pair $(\times\circ)$ in the sequence means that there is a hop performed with probability $p$. Similarly $(\circ\circ)$ means a hop with prob. $p\gamma$, $(\circ\times)$ a stop with prob. $1-p\gamma$, $(\times\times)$ a stop with prob. $1-p$. Let $n_{ab}$, $a,b\in\{\circ,\times\}$ denote the number of pairs $(ab)$ in the sequence. Fixing the number of pairs $n_{\times\circ}$, we get $n_{\circ\times}=n_{\times\circ}-1$, $n_{\circ\circ}=n-n_{\times\circ}$, and $n_{\times\times}=k-n_{\times\circ}$. Then $$C(n,k)=\sum_{n_{\times\circ}=1}^{\min\{n,k\}}D(n,k,n_{\times\circ})p^{n_{\times\circ}}(p\gamma)^{n-n_{\times\circ}}q^{k-n_{\times\circ}}(1-p\gamma)^{n_{\times\circ}-1}\,,$$ where $D(n,k,n_{\times\circ})$ stands for the number of sequences with $n_{\times\circ}$ pairs $({\times\circ})$. There are $n_{\times\circ}$ blocks of $n_{\times\times}$ symbols $(\times\times)$ and $n_{\times\circ}$ blocks of $n_{\circ\circ}$ pairs $(\circ\circ)$. The number of all possible sequences is then $$D(n,k,n_{\times\circ})={n_{\times\circ}+n_{\times\times}-1\choose n_{\times\circ}}{n_{\times\circ}+n_{\circ\circ}-1\choose n_{\times\circ}}\,.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} f(k\mid\tau_1=0)&=&\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}(1-\phi)\phi^{n-1}p(p\gamma)^{n}q^{k-1}\sum_{a=0}^{\min\{n,k-1\}}{n-1 \choose a}{k-1 \choose a}\left(\frac{1-p\gamma}{q\gamma}\right)^a\\ &=& (1-\phi)p^2\gamma q^{k-1}\sum_{a=1}^{k-1}{k-1 \choose a}\left(\frac{1-p\gamma}{q\gamma}\right)^a\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}{n\choose a}(p\gamma\phi)^{n-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we use the convention ${n\choose a}=0$ for $a>n$. For $a\geq1$ it reads $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}{n\choose a}x^{n-1}=\frac{x^{a-1}}{(1-x)^{a+1}}\,.$$ Using preceding lemma we obtain $$f(k\mid\tau_1=0)=\frac{p(1-\phi)}{\phi(1-p\gamma\phi)}B_1^{k-1}-\frac{p(1-\phi)}{\phi}q^{k-1}\,,$$ where $$B_1=\left(1-\frac{p(1-\phi)}{1-p\gamma\phi}\right)\,.$$ For the calculation of $f(k\mid\tau_1=1)$ it is convenient to decompose the time interval $\Delta k$ as $$\Delta k = k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{FP}(0)-k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{LP}(0) =\Delta k_{1}+\Delta k_{2}\,,$$ where $$\Delta k_{1} = k_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{FP}(0)-k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{LP}(0)\\$$ is the number of steps it takes the FP to enter the site 0 after LP left it at $k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{LP}(0)$ and $$\Delta k_{2} = k_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{FP}(0)-k_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{FP}(0)$$ is the number of steps it takes the FP to leave the site 0 after entering it at $k_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{FP}(0)$. The time line is schematically depicted in Figure \[fig:TimeLine\]. ![Mutual positions of events at $k_\mathrm{in/out}^\mathrm{LP/FP}(0/1)$ on the time line. Upper line with probability $v(k_1)$, lower line with probability $1-v(k_1)$.[]{data-label="fig:TimeLine"}](Figure2_timeline) Following the technique used in [@ChoPasSin1998EPJB] the probability $f(k\mid\tau_1=1;\varrho)$ can be calculated by means of the chain rule $$\label{eq:fkgen} f(k\mid\tau_1=1;\varrho)=\sum_{k_{1}=1}^{k}g(k_1;\varrho)h(k-k_1\mid k_1;\varrho)\,,$$ where $$g(k_1;\varrho)=\Pr(\Delta k_1=k_1\mid\varrho)\,,\qquad h(k_2\mid k_1;\varrho)=\Pr(\Delta k_2=k_2\mid \Delta k_1 =k_1;\varrho)\,.$$ Using similar consideration as in the case $f(k\mid\tau_1=0)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} g(k_1;\varrho)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}P(n;\varrho) C(n,k_1)=\frac{p(1-\phi)}{1-p\gamma\phi}B_1^{k_1-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Let further $\psi:=z/\varrho$. Then $$b=p\mathcal{P}_{\varrho,\to}(\underline{1}0|1)=p\mathcal{P}_{\sigma,\leftarrow}(\underline{0}1|0)=pz/\varrho=p\psi$$ stands for the probability that a particle hops to the neighbouring site within next step. Let us denote $B_2=(1-p\psi)$. The probability $v(k_1)$ that the site 1 will be emptied by LP before $k_1$-th step is $v(k_1)=1-B_2^{k_1-1}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} h(0\mid k_1)&=&v(k_1)p\gamma=p\gamma(1-B_2^{k_1-1})\\ h(k_2\mid k_1) &=& v(k_1)(1-p\gamma)C(1,k_2)+[1-v(k_1)]\sum_{\ell=0}^{k_2-1}b(1-b)^{\ell}C(1,k_2-\ell)\\ &=&(1-B_2^{k_1-1})pq^{k_2}\frac{1-p\gamma}{1-p}+B_2^{k_1-1}\frac{p\psi}{1-\psi}(B_2^{k_2}-q^{k_2})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned} f(k\mid 1)&=&p\gamma A_1B_1^{k-1}-p\gamma A_1(B_1B_2)^{k-1}\\ &+&\sum_{k_1=1}^{k-1}\left[\frac{p}{q}(1-p\gamma)A_1 q^{k-1}\left(\frac{B_1}{q}\right)^{k_1-1}+A_1A_2B_2^{k-1}B_1^{k_1-1}\right.\\ &-&\left.\frac{p}{q}(1-p\gamma)A_1 q^{k-1}\left(\frac{B_1B_2}{q}\right)^{k_1-1}-A_1A_2q^{k-1}\left(\frac{B_1B_2}{q}\right)^{k_1-1}\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$A_1=\frac{p(1-\phi)}{1-p\gamma\phi}\,,\qquad A_2=\frac{p\psi}{1-\psi}\,.$$ Here we notice that from the equation  it follows $$B_1B_2=\left(1-\frac{pz/\sigma}{1-p\gamma(1-pz/\sigma)}\right)\left(1-\frac{pz}{\varrho}\right)=q\,.$$ Then obtaining the result  is a question of technical computation. References {#references .unnumbered} ==========

--- abstract: '[We propose a new fast method to match factorization theorems applicable in different kinematical regions, such as the transverse-momentum-dependent and the collinear factorization theorems in Quantum Chromodynamics. At variance with well-known approaches relying on their simple addition and subsequent subtraction of double-counted contributions, ours simply builds on their weighting using the theory uncertainties deduced from the factorization theorems themselves. This allows us to estimate the unknown complete matched cross section from an inverse-error-weighted average. The method is simple and provides an evaluation of the theoretical uncertainty of the matched cross section associated with the uncertainties from the power corrections to the factorization theorems (additional uncertainties, such as the nonperturbative ones, should be added for a proper comparison with experimental data). Its usage is illustrated with several basic examples, such as $Z$ boson, $W$ boson, $H^0$ boson and Drell-Yan lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions, and compared to the state-of-the-art Collins-Soper-Sterman subtraction scheme. It is also not limited to the transverse-momentum spectrum, and can straightforwardly be extended to match any (un)polarized cross section differential in other variables, including multi-differential measurements. ]{}' address: - 'INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Via Bassi 6, 27100 Pavia, Italy' - | PRISMA Cluster of Excellence & Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics\ Johannes Gutenberg University, 55099 Mainz, Germany - 'IPNO, CNRS-IN2P3, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91406 Orsay Cedex, France' - | Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Cagliari and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari,\ Cittadella Universitaria, I-09042 Monserrato (CA), Italy - | Theory Center, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility\ 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606, USA author: - 'Miguel G. Echevarria' - Tomas Kasemets - 'Jean-Philippe Lansberg' - Cristian Pisano - Andrea Signori bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: 'Matching factorization theorems with an inverse-error weighting' --- Motivation {#s:motivation} ========== In processes with a hard scale $Q$ and a measured transverse momentum $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, for instance the mass and the transverse momentum of an electroweak boson produced in proton-proton collisions, the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-differential cross section can be expressed through two different factorization theorems. For small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\ll Q$, the transverse-momentum-dependent (TMD) factorization applies and the cross section is factorized in terms of TMD parton distribution/fragmentation functions (TMDs thereafter) [@Collins:2011zzd; @GarciaEchevarria:2011rb; @Echevarria:2012js]. The evolution of the TMDs resums the large logarithms of $Q/q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ [@Aybat:2011zv; @Echevarria:2012pw; @Echevarria:2014rua]. For large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q \gg m$, with $m$ a hadronic mass of the order of 1 GeV, there is only one hard scale in the process and the collinear factorization is the appropriate framework. The cross section is then written in terms of (collinear) parton distribution/fragmentation functions (PDFs/FFs). In order to describe the full $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ spectrum, the TMD and collinear factorization theorems must properly be matched in the intermediate region. Many recent works on TMD phenomenology and extractions of TMDs from data did not take into account the matching with fixed-order collinear calculations for increasing transverse momentum (see e.g. Refs. [@Scimemi:2017etj; @Bacchetta:2017gcc]). Such a matching is one of the compelling milestones for the next generation of TMD analyses and more generally for a thorough understanding of TMD observables [@Angeles-Martinez:2015sea]. In addition, it has recently been shown that the precisely measured transverse-momentum spectrum of $Z$ boson at the LHC does not completely agree with collinear-based NNLO computations[^1], hinting at possible higher-twist contributions at the per-cent level. Thus having a reliable estimation of the matching uncertainty from power corrections is very opportune. This work contributes to this effort by introducing a new approach, whose main features are its simplicity and its easy and fast implementation in phenomenological analyses (fits and/or Monte Carlo event generators). In addition, this scheme provides an automatic estimate of the theoretical uncertainty associated to the matching procedure. All these are crucial features in light of the computational demands of global TMD analyses and event generation for the next generation of experiments [@Dudek:2012vr; @Accardi:2012qut; @Brodsky:2012vg; @Blondel:2011fua]. As we will show, it yields compatible results with other mainstream approaches in the literature, such as the improved Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) scheme [@Collins:2016hqq] (see also Ref. [@Gamberg:2017jha]), which refines the original CSS subtraction approach [@Collins:1981uk; @Collins:1981uw; @Collins:1984kg; @Arnold:1990yk]. The latter, in simple terms, is based on adding the TMD-based resummed ($\cal W$) and collinear-based fixed-order ($\cal Z$) results, and then subtracting the double-counted contributions ($\cal A$). The improved CSS ([*iCSS*]{}) approach enforces the necessary cancellations for the subtraction method to work. Other methods have been introduced in the framework of soft-collinear effective theory by using profile functions for the resummation scales in order to obtain analogous cancellations to those in the [*iCSS*]{}method, see e.g. Refs. [@Ligeti:2008ac; @Abbate:2010xh; @Stewart:2013faa; @Neill:2015roa]. One can also find other schemes to match TMD and collinear frameworks, e.g. Refs. [@Berger:2004cc; @Nadolsky:2002jr; @Nadolsky:1999kb]. In the scheme we introduce, no cancellation between the TMD-based resummed contribution, $\cal W$, and the collinear-based fixed-order contribution, $\cal Z$, is needed. We simply avoid the double counting (and therewith the subtraction of $\cal A$) by weighting both contributions to the matched cross section, with the condition that the weights add up to unity. This renders the computation of the matched cross section very easy to implement. Clearly, the weights cannot be arbitrary and should ensure that, in their respective domains of applicability, the predictions of both factorization theorems are recovered. Both factorized expressions can be seen as approximations of the unknown, *true* theory, up to corrections expressed as ratios of the relevant scales (power corrections, in the following). In TMD factorization the power corrections scale as a power of $q_T/Q$, whereas in collinear factorization they scale as a power of $m/q_T$, up to further suppressed nonperturbative contributions [@Collins:2011zzd]. We simply implement an estimate of these uncertainties in the well-known formula of an inverse-error weighting –or inverse-variance weighted average– of two measurements to obtain our matched predictions. As such, it also automatically returns an evaluation of the corresponding matching uncertainty. The method we propose can straightforwardly be extended to match any (un)polarized cross section differential in other variables, including for instance event shapes, multi-differential measurements or double parton scattering with a measured transverse momentum [@Buffing:2017mqm]. This paper is organized as follows: in Sec. \[s:average\] we describe both factorization theorems for low and high transverse momenta, and how they are combined with the inverse-error-weighting method. In Sec. \[s:implementation\] we show through several examples ($Z$, $W$, $H^0$ and Drell-Yan lepton-pair production) how the method works. In Sec. \[s:comparison\] we compare the numerical results to the [*iCSS*]{}subtraction scheme. Finally, Sec. \[s:conclusions\] gathers the conclusions and briefly discusses the applicability of our method to other processes. The Inverse-Error Weighting Method {#s:average} ================================== The main idea behind the scheme we are proposing is to use the power corrections to the involved factorization theorems in order to directly determine to which extent the approximations can be trusted in different kinematic regions, and to use this in order to bridge the intermediate region obtaining the complete spectrum. In this context, an inverse-error weighting is conceptually the simplest method one could think of. Let us have a closer look at the TMD and collinear factorization theorems and their regions of validity, by considering a cross section $d\sigma$ differential in at least the transverse momentum $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ of an observed particle. For $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\ll Q$, the TMD factorization can reliably be applied and the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-differential cross section can generically be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{e:approximationsTMD} d\s(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q)\Big|_{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\ll Q} &= {\cal W}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) + \Bigg[{\cal O}\bigg(\frac{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{Q}\bigg)^a + {\cal O}\bigg(\frac{m}{Q}\bigg)^{a'} \Bigg]d\s(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\cal{W}$ is the TMD approximation of the cross section $d\s$, the scale $m$ is a hadronic mass scale on the order of 1 GeV and $Q$ is the hard scale in the process, for instance the invariant mass of the produced particle. As $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ increases, the accuracy of the TMD approximation decreases and the power corrections are increasingly relevant until the expansion breaks down as $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ approaches $Q$. On the contrary, for large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q \gg m$, the collinear factorization theorem applies and the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-differential cross section can generically be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{e:approximationsCOL} d\s(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q)\Big|_{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q \gg m} &= {\cal Z}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) + {\cal O}\bigg(\frac{m}{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}\bigg)^b d\s(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\cal Z$ is the collinear approximation of the full cross section $d\sigma$. $\cal Z$ is calculated at a fixed-order in the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$. For $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q \gg m$, $\cal Z$ is a good approximation of the full cross section, but as $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ decreases the accuracy of the collinear approximation diminishes, which finally breaks down as $q_T$ approaches $m$. Armed with both these factorization theorems, valid in different and (sometimes) overlapping regions, the full $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ spectrum can be constructed through a matching scheme. Such a scheme must make sure that the result agrees with $\cal{W}$ in the small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ region and with $\cal{Z}$ in the large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ region, and that there is a smooth transition in the intermediate region. As announced, in this paper we introduce a new scheme, the *inverse-error weighting* ([*InEW*]{} for short), where the power corrections to the factorization theorems are used to quantify the trustworthiness associated to the respective contributions, and thus employed to build a weighted average. The resulting matched differential cross section over the full range in $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ is given by $$\label{e:wav_sigma} \overline{d\sigma}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) = \omega_1 {\cal W}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) + \omega_2 {\cal Z}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) \,,$$ where the normalized weights for each of the two terms are $$\begin{aligned} \omega_1 & = \frac{\Delta {\mathcal{W}}^{-2}}{\Delta {\mathcal{W}}^{-2} + \Delta {\mathcal{Z}}^{-2} }\,, & \omega_2 & = \frac{\Delta {\mathcal{Z}}^{-2}}{\Delta {\mathcal{W}}^{-2} + \Delta {\mathcal{Z}}^{-2} }\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\D{\cal W}$ and $\D{\cal Z}$ being the uncertainties of both factorization theorems generated by their power corrections. The uncertainty on the matched cross section simply follows from the propagation of these (uncorrelated) theory uncertainties: $$\begin{aligned} \label{e:err_wav_sigma} \D\overline{d\s} &= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \D {\mathcal{W}}^{-2}+\D {\mathcal{Z}}^{-2} } } = \frac{\D_{\cal W} \D_{\cal Z}}{\sqrt{\D_{\cal W}^2+\D_{\cal Z}^2}} \, d\s \approx \frac{\D_{\cal W} \D_{\cal Z}}{\sqrt{\D_{\cal W}^2+\D_{\cal Z}^2}} \, \overline{d\s} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\D{\cal W},\D{\cal Z}\} = \{\D_{\cal W},\D_{\cal Z}\}d\s$, and in the last step we have replaced the unknown true cross section $d\s$ by its estimated value $\overline{d\s}$. We emphasize that the uncertainty on the matched cross-section, $\D\overline{d\s}$, is due *only* to the matching procedure, which in the [*InEW*]{} method comes from the power-corrections. In any phenomenological application one should also include, once the matched cross-section is obtained, all other sources of uncertainty, i.e. the ones related to higher perturbative orders and nonperturbative contributions. Following Eqs.  and , we numerically implement the uncertainties $\D_{\cal W}$ and $\D_{\cal Z}$ as $$\label{e:num_errors} \D_{\cal W} = \bigg(\frac{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{Q}\bigg)^{a} + \bigg(\frac{m}{Q}\bigg)^{a} \,, \qquad \D_{\cal Z} = \bigg(\frac{m}{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}\bigg)^{b} \Bigg(1+ \ln^2\le(\frac{m_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}\ri)\Bigg) \,.$$ As an Ansatz, we have taken $a=a^\prime$ and will discuss the impact of this choice at the end of Sec. \[s:implementation\]. In the region where $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ becomes different from $Q$, large logarithms will reduce the accuracy of the power counting which was done in the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q$ region. We have thus included a $\ln^2(m_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}/q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}})$ in $\D_{\cal Z}$, where the transverse mass is defined as $m_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}= \sqrt{Q^2 + q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}^2}$, which is the expected typical leading logarithm in the fixed-order calculations. This logarithm then allows us to have a more reliable estimation of the power corrections to the collinear result in the whole $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ range, and not only at $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q$. The values of the exponents $a$ and $b$ are given by the strength of the power corrections and depend on the details of the process and its factorization. In the case of unpolarized processes, the smallest values allowed by Lorentz symmetry are $a=2$ and $b=2$, since $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ is the only transverse vector that explicitly appears in the factorization theorems. This is consistent with what is found in Refs. [@Balitsky:2017flc; @Balitsky:2017gis] for the TMD factorization theorem, and in Refs. [@Qiu:1990xxa; @Qiu:1990xy] for the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-integrated collinear factorization theorem, which should also apply for the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-unintegrated when $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q$. We thus take $a=2$ and $b=2$ as the default choice for the numerical implementations. In order to obtain a more conservative estimation of the power corrections in the presence of large logarithmic corrections, the values of $a$ and $b$ could be reduced (see Sec. 13.12 in Ref. [@Collins:2011zzd]). Moreover, smaller values are expected for spin-asymmetry observables, where $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ is not the only explicit vector, but also a transverse spin vector $S_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ contributes to the cross section. Even though $a=1$ and $b=1$ might be an extreme choice, we have considered it to get first indications on the matching uncertainty in the polarized cases, which we plan to study in more detail in forthcoming publications. Summarizing, we obtain the differential cross section for the full $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ spectrum as the *weighted average*, Eq. , of the TMD and collinear approximations $\cal W$ and $\cal Z$ with their weights calculated as the inverse of the square of the power corrections to the factorized expressions, as in Eq. . The uncertainty of the matched result automatically follows from Eq. . Let us note that the derivation of the power corrections in both factorization theorems is only valid in and around their regions of validity. For example, for $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}> Q$ the power counting leading to the power corrections for the TMD cross section breaks down. In this region, however, the collinear-factorization theorem fully dominates the result and the matched result correctly reproduces the $\cal Z$-term and thereby the cross section (an analogous logic applies to small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$). Illustration of the method {#s:implementation} ========================== {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"}\ {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} In the following, we illustrate how the method works for the computation of the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ distribution of different electroweak bosons produced in proton-proton collisions at the LHC at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV. In particular, we will consider the following processes: - $Z/W$ boson production (Sec. \[ss:ZW\_prod\]) - Drell-Yan (DY) lepton-pair production (Sec. \[ss:DY\]) - $H^0$ boson production (Sec. \[ss:H\_prod\]). These processes are sensitive to either quark TMDs ($Z/W$ boson and DY production) or gluon TMDs ($H^0$ boson production), and allow us to illustrate the implementation of the matching scheme from low to high values of the hard scale. The cross sections differential with respect to the transverse momentum $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ of $Z/W$ boson and Drell-Yan production have been computed using the public code [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DYqT</span>]{}[^2] [@Bozzi:2008bb; @Bozzi:2010xn]. For $H^0$ boson production we have used the public code [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HqT</span>]{}[^3] [@deFlorian:2011xf]. We have worked with the highest perturbative accuracy implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DYqT</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HqT</span>]{}: NNLL (next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic) accuracy in the resummed contribution $\cal W$ (i.e. $\Gamma_{\text{cusp}} \sim {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$) and NLO (next-to-leading order) corrections (i.e. ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$) at large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ for the fixed-order contribution $\cal Z$. For collinear PDFs we have used the NNPDF3.0 set at NNLO with ${\alpha_s}(M_Z)=0.118$ [@Ball:2014uwa]. The treatment of the different $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ regions (where $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ is the Fourier-conjugated variable to the observed transverse momentum $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$) is identical in both [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HqT</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DYqT</span>]{}. The large $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ region is treated with the so-called [*complex $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$*]{} (or [*minimal*]{}) prescription, which avoids the Landau pole in the coupling constant by deforming the integration contour in the complex plane [@Laenen:2000de; @Kulesza:2002rh]. The small $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ region, instead, is treated by replacing the $\log (Q^2b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}^2)$ with $\log(Q^2b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}^2 + 1)$ [@Parisi:1979se; @Bozzi:2005wk], avoiding unjustified higher-order contributions. This is analogous to introducing a lower cutoff $b_{\text{min}}$ in $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ space [@Collins:2016hqq; @Signori:2016lvd; @Boer:2014tka; @Boer:2015uqa; @Collins:2016hqq]. We note that this cutoff is crucial in order to recover the integrated collinear factorization result upon integration over the transverse momentum. In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DYqT</span>]{}, the nonperturbative TMD part in the resummed term is implemented as a simple Gaussian smearing factor in $b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ space [@Bozzi:2008bb; @Bozzi:2010xn] $ \exp(S_{NP}) = \exp( -g_{NP}\, b_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}^2) $. Since we are interested in processes at different energy scales, we have included a logarithmic dependence of $g_{NP}$ on the invariant mass $Q$ of the produced state (see e.g. Ref. [@Bacchetta:2015ora]) to mimic more realistic values: $ g_{NP}(Q) = g_{NP}^0\, \ln({Q^2}/{Q_0^2}) $ with $Q_0=1$ GeV. Thus, we can write $ g_{NP}(Q) = g_{NP}(M_Z) {\ln\big(Q^2 \big)}/{\ln\big(M_Z^2 \big)}$. In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HqT</span>]{} an analogous smearing factor was introduced. For the gluon TMDs there is significantly less experimental input and thus phenomenological information (see however Ref. [@Lansberg:2017dzg]) and we have rescaled the nonperturbative parameter for quark TMDs by a Casimir scaling factor $C_A/C_F$ (see Sec. \[ss:H\_prod\]), where $C_A = N_c$, $C_F = (N_c^2-1)/2N_c$ and $N_c=3$ is the number of colors. Let us however note that such nonperturbative factors, which would be essential for a proper comparison with data, are not involved in the matching procedure. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DYqT</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HqT</span>]{} allowed us to separately compute the cross section at low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ ($\cal W$) and at high $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ ($\cal Z$) from which we have implemented the matching following our [*InEW*]{} method. These codes also allowed us to compute the asymptotic limit [@Arnold:1990yk; @Collins:1984kg; @Collins:2016hqq] of the resummed contribution ($\cal A$) which we will use for the comparison with [*iCSS*]{} method. The uncertainties in the following sections will purely be from the [*InEW*]{} matching scheme, namely induced by the estimation of the power corrections. Additional uncertainties due to scale variations, collinear-parton distributions and TMD nonperturbative uncertainties should be added for a fair comparison with data. We stress that this remark would apply to any (un)matched computations. We leave for a future publication the phenomenological study of the [*InEW*]{} scheme, where the uncertainties on the functional form and the parameters of the nonperturbative contribution will be considered (see e.g. Refs. [@Scimemi:2017etj; @Bacchetta:2017gcc] for recent phenomenological works). $Z/W$ boson production {#ss:ZW_prod} ---------------------- In this section we study $Z/W$ boson production. We work in the narrow width approximation and include the branching ratio into two leptons [@Bozzi:2008bb; @Bozzi:2010xn]. In Fig. \[f:xsections\] (top-left) we show the full transverse-momentum spectrum calculated with our [*InEW*]{} matching of the $\cal W$ and $\cal Z$-terms for $Z$-boson production. The nonperturbative parameter we used is $g_{NP}(M_Z)=0.8~\gev^{2}$ [@Kulesza:2002rh]. The central curve corresponds to $\overline{d\sigma}$ and the band to its variation by $\pm \Delta \overline{d\sigma}$ (see Eq.  and Eq. ). We also show the $\cal W$- and $\cal Z$-terms individually. The lower panels in Fig. \[f:xsections\] quantify the deviation[^4] of the $\cal W$- and $\cal Z$-terms with respect to the matched cross section, as well as its matching uncertainty. The $\cal Z$-term is ill behaved towards small values of the transverse momentum due to the presence of the large logarithms in $Q/q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, while the $\cal W$-term tends towards negative values for large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$. There is a quite broad intermediate region where both results are similar, and where both factorization theorems are on relatively stable ground. This makes the matching between the two theorems particularly simple, and well behaved. The cross section matched in the [*InEW*]{} scheme follows the resummed $\cal W$-term up to $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim 15$ GeV and then approaches the fixed-order $\cal Z$-term. The uncertainty from the power corrections is small in the large and very small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ regions, but increases in the region around the value of $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ where $\D_{\cal W}=\D_{\cal Z}$ (i.e. where both weights are close to $\tfrac{1}{2}$). The results for $W^+$ production are shown in Fig. \[f:xsections\] (top-center). The scale-dependent nonperturbative parameter is modified to $g_{NP}(M_W)\simeq 0.78~\gev^{2}$ by the change of the hard scale to the mass of the $W$ boson ($M_W=80.385$ GeV). The results for the matched cross section closely resemble those for the $Z$ boson, which is to be expected since both processes have a similar hard scale and probe quark and antiquark distributions. The transition point between the $\cal W$-term and the $\cal Z$-term has moved down to slightly lower $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, and the uncertainty is a little larger. The result for $W^-$ production is very similar, with just a different normalization for the differential cross section. Drell-Yan process {#ss:DY} ----------------- In this section we study Drell-Yan lepton-pair production, or more precisely, virtual-photon ($\g^\star$) production. The nonperturbative parameters are now given by $g_{NP}(4 \text{ GeV})\simeq 0.25~\gev^{2}$, $g_{NP}(12 \text{ GeV})\simeq 0.44~\gev^{2}$ and $g_{NP}(20 \text{ GeV})\simeq 0.53~\gev^{2}$. The results for the matched cross section for DY production are shown for the invariant masses $Q=4,12,20$ GeV in Fig. \[f:xsections\] (bottom). The values are chosen to complement the results for the heavy vector-boson and $H^0$ boson cross sections, and to demonstrate how the method performs at different scales. Let us start our discussion from the lowest scale, $Q = 4$ GeV. This value is chosen to demonstrate what happens when the hard scale is very low, and when the intermediate region, where both TMD and collinear factorizations are valid, collapses. The matched cross section follows the TMD result up to larger fractions of $Q$ than it did for heavy vector-boson production, starting to tend towards the collinear result around $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim Q/2$. For such low scales, power corrections are of course likely to be large. This is nicely reflected by the uncertainty band of the [*InEW*]{} matched result which reaches maximum values of around 30%. We note that significantly lowering the center of mass energy does not change the qualitative discussion of the matching method. Increasing the invariant mass of the produced boson, the uncertainty of the [*InEW*]{} scheme decreases and the transition between the two factorization theorems moves towards smaller fractions of $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}/ Q$. The region where the results of both theorems are relevant also occupies a smaller and smaller portion of the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ spectrum. At $Q=12$ GeV, the maximal uncertainty has decreased below 20% and, at $Q=20$ GeV, is less than 10%. $H^0$ boson production {#ss:H_prod} ---------------------- In this section we study $H^0$ boson production. The heavy-top effective theory is used to integrate out the top quark, resulting in a direct coupling between gluons and the $H^0$ boson. Unlike the previous processes, $H^0$ production directly probes gluon TMDs (see e.g. Refs. [@Boer:2010zf; @Qiu:2011ai; @Boer:2011kf; @Ma:2012hh; @Boer:2012bt; @Boer:2014lka; @Dunnen:2014eta; @Echevarria:2015uaa; @Dumitru:2015gaa; @Boer:2016xqr; @Boer:2016bfj; @Boer:2016fqd; @Lansberg:2017tlc; @Lansberg:2017dzg]). There is much less phenomenology and therefore knowledge about gluon TMDs than for quarks. As already mentioned in Sec. \[s:implementation\], in order to obtain a reasonable value for the nonperturbative parameter we use Casimir scaling. This results in $g_{NP}^g(125 \text{ GeV}) =$\ $(C_A/C_F)g_{NP}(125 \text{ GeV}) \simeq 1.93~\gev^{2}$. Fig. \[f:xsections\] (top-right) shows the matched cross section in the [*InEW*]{} scheme. It follows the $\cal W$-term up to $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim15$ GeV and then approaches the $\cal Z$-term. The uncertainty band is narrow, as power corrections are strongly suppressed in the entire spectrum. The small size of the power corrections in combination with the large difference between the two factorized approximations of the cross section is a challenge for the matching in the intermediate region. At $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim 15$ GeV, the power corrections $\Delta_{\cal W}$ and $\Delta_{\cal Z}$ are both below 0.05, but the $\cal Z$-term is 50% larger than the $\cal W$. This is, however, no longer surprising when taking into account the large uncertainty associated to the $H^0$ boson transverse-momentum spectrum coming from the scale variations [@Neill:2015roa]. It is therefore likely that higher-order corrections will bring the collinear and TMD results closer to each other, resulting in a smoother matching. Finally, let us note that we did not observe any relevant variations of the central value of the matched cross section when lowering the exponents from $a=b=2$ to $a=b=1$. However, as expected, the matching uncertainty significantly grows. For $Z$, $W^+$ and $H^0$ boson production cases, the uncertainty at its maximum is inflated 7-8 times, reaching $\sim15\%$ at $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim 15$ GeV and remaining larger than 5% from roughly 4 to 40 GeV. For the Drell-Yan case, whose transverse-spin-asymmetry study is a hot topic within the TMD community, the uncertainty rather inflates by a factor of 2 to 3 depending on the lepton-pair mass. On the other hand, the matching is quite stable under variations of the exponent $a'$ compared to $a$. For $a=a'$, the uncertainty associated with $a$ dominates down to very low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\sim$ 1 GeV, and therefore dominates the region where both TMD and collinear results are relevant. Lowering $a'$ leads to a slightly larger uncertainty in the low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ region and can, for low $Q$ Drell-Yan, shift the transition between the TMD and collinear results towards slightly lower $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$. However, we would like to note here that the exponents $a$, $a'$ and $b$ can be fixed for a given process by the order at which the different power corrections contribute. Comparison to CSS subtraction {#s:comparison} ============================= {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"}\ {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} In this section, we compare the matched-cross-section results in the [*InEW*]{} scheme with the results in the [*iCSS*]{}subtraction scheme of Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq]. We therefore briefly introduce the features of the [*iCSS*]{} method which are of relevance for our comparison, and refer to Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq] for a more detailed discussion. The widely used CSS method [@Collins:1981uk; @Collins:1981uw; @Collins:1984kg; @Arnold:1990yk] allows for a matching of the TMD result ($\cal W$) and the fixed-order result ($\cal Z$) in an additive way. Double counting is avoided by the subtraction of the asymptotic term ($\cal A$), i.e. the fixed-order expansion of the perturbative result of $\cal W$. For applications of the method in processes with a low hard-scale, see, e.g., Ref. [@Boglione:2014oea] for Semi-Inclusive Deep-Inelastic Scattering (SIDIS) and Chap. 8 in Ref. [@Signori:2016lvd] for $\eta_{b}$ production in proton-proton collisions. Applications in processes with a higher hard scale can be found in, e.g., Refs. [@Catani:2015vma; @Becher:2011xn; @Becher:2012yn; @Signori:2016lvd]. The method, although successful, runs into difficulties at small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, due to incomplete cancellations between the fixed-order and the asymptotic results, and also at large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, due to incomplete cancellations between the resummed and the asymptotic results. At low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ the problems are especially manifest when the hard scale Q is not large, namely when there is little or no overlap between the regions where the TMD and collinear factorization theorems are valid [@Boglione:2014oea; @Collins:2016hqq]. Recently, a solution to these issues has been proposed in Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq], the [*iCSS*]{} method. In order to enforce the required cancellations, the different terms in the cross section are multiplied by cutoff functions, damping them outside their region of validity. This solves the problem of the incomplete cancellations, but introduces a dependence both on the functional form of the cutoff functions and on the point in $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ where one switches on and off the different contributions. The cross section in the [*iCSS*]{} method is written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{e:app_iWY} d\sigma(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) &= {\cal W}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) + {\cal Y}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{e:WZAnew} {\cal W}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) &= {\cal W}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q)\, \L^{\cal W}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q; \eta, r) \,, {\nonumber}\\ {\cal Y}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) &= {\cal Z}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) - {\cal A}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) \,, {\nonumber}\\ {\cal Z}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) &= {\cal Z}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q)\, \L^{\cal Z}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}; \l, s) \,, {\nonumber}\\ {\cal A}_{\text{{\emph{iCSS}}}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) &= {\cal A}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q)\, \L^{\cal W}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q; \eta, r)\, \L^{\cal Z}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}; \l, s) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with the cutoff functions $$\begin{aligned} \L^{\cal W}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q; \eta,r) = \exp \bigg\{ -\bigg( \frac{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{\eta Q} \bigg)^r \bigg\} \,, {\nonumber}\\ \L^{\cal Z}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}};\lambda, s) = 1 - \exp \bigg\{ -\bigg( \frac{q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{\lambda} \bigg)^s \bigg\} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The parameters $\{\eta,\l\}$ control the value of $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ around which the cutoffs start, whereas the exponents $\{r,s\}$ control the steepness of these cutoffs[^5]. In simple terms, the damping function $\L^{\cal W}$ switches off both the $\cal W$-term and the $\cal A$-term at large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, while the damping function $\L^{\cal Z}$ switches off both the $\cal Z$-term and the $\cal A$-term at small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$. For intermediate $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, the three terms are kept. The values for these four parameters given in Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq] are $\{\eta,r\} = \{1/3, 8\}$ and $\{\l,s\} = \{2/3~\gev,4\}$. We have chosen a different default value for $\lambda$ ($\lambda=1$ GeV) for switching off the $\cal Z$ and $\cal A$ towards low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ values, in order for the cross section not to start deviating from the $\cal W$ towards too low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$. The variations of the parameters we perform however include also the default value of Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq]. To be able to compare with the [*iCSS*]{} approach we need to construct a way to estimate the matching uncertainty in the [*iCSS*]{} scheme, both due to the power corrections and to the parameters in the matching scheme. To do so, we note that the cross section in the [*iCSS*]{} method can be written as: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:piecewise} d\s(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}},Q) &= \begin{cases} {\cal W} + \D_{\cal W}d\s &\,,\quad q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\lesssim \l\\ {\cal W} + {\cal Z} - {\cal A} + \D_{\cal W}\D_{\cal Z}d\s &\,,\quad \l\lesssim q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\lesssim \eta Q\\ {\cal Z} + \D_{\cal Z}d\s &\,,\quad q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}\gtrsim \eta Q\\ \end{cases} \ , \end{aligned}$$ since the damping functions $\L^{\cal W}$ and $\L^{\cal Z}$ are devised as (almost) step functions. At small $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, since the cross section is effectively given by the $\cal W$-term, the power counting (relative) error will be $\D_{\cal W}$ (see [Eq. ]{}). At large $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, the cross section is effectively given by the $\cal Z$-term, and the power counting (relative) error will be $\D_{\cal Z}$ (see [Eq. ]{}). In the intermediate region the cross section is given by the subtraction of the double-counted contributions, and thus the power counting (relative) error is $\D_{\cal W} \D_{\cal Z}$ [@Collins:2016hqq]. We therefore estimate the error from subleading powers in the [*iCSS*]{} method (as a function of $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$) as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:iWYerror} \frac{1}{d\s}\D d\s\Big|_{{\emph{iCSS}}} &= \D_W \big[1-\L^{\cal Z}\big] + \D_W\D_Z \L^{\cal W}\L^{\cal Z} + \D_Z \big[1-\L^{\cal W}\big] \,.\end{aligned}$$ In addition to this uncertainty from the power corrections, we need to consider the uncertainty that comes from the variation of the matching parameters in the [*iCSS*]{} approach[^6]. In particular, we take the default values $\eta=1/3$ and $\l=1~\gev$ (different from the one proposed in Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq]) and vary them by 50%, i.e. $\eta\in[1/6,1/2]$ and $\l\in[0.5,1.5]~\gev$. We keep the exponents $\{r,s\}$ constant, since they have to be large enough to give almost step functions, and then their variation does not have any relevant impact. In the intermediate region, this method has a potential advantage over the [*InEW*]{} in terms of the formal power counting uncertainty, i.e. $\D_{\cal W}\D_{\cal Z}/(\D_{\cal W}^2 + \D_{\cal Z}^2)^{1/2}$ for [*InEW*]{} compared to $\D_{\cal W}\D_{\cal Z}$ for [*iCSS*]{} (where no variation of the matching parameters is included [@Collins:2016hqq] though). This is of value, in particular, in high-scale processes such as $Z$ boson production, where there is an overlap region where the approximations in both of the two factorization theorems are appropriate. When the hard scale of the process is reduced, the overlap of the two factorization theorems decreases. As this happens, the subtraction method no longer benefits from the power counting advantage, since the uncertainty from the matching parameters is large, as we now demonstrate. In Fig. \[f:compare\], we show the numerical differences between the [*InEW*]{} and the [*iCSS*]{} schemes for $Z$ boson production, $W^+$ boson production, $H^0$ boson production, and Drell-Yan lepton-pair production at $Q=4,12,20$ GeV. The total uncertainty for the [*iCSS*]{} approach shown in Fig. \[f:compare\] is obtained as the envelope of the uncertainty bands $d\s\pm\D d\s$, where each band corresponds to one of the mentioned choices of the matching parameters $\{\eta,\lambda\}$. We again note that the uncertainties shown in Fig. \[f:compare\] are only due to the different matching schemes, and do not include other effects such as the perturbative-scale variations and the nonperturbative contributions, which are common to both. Starting with the $Z$ and $W$ boson production and comparing the [*InEW*]{} results to those in the [*iCSS*]{} scheme, we can notice that where the uncertainty in the [*InEW*]{} method is the largest, the [*iCSS*]{} scheme produces a significantly smaller uncertainty. This is precisely due to the reduction of the power corrections obtained in the intermediate region when subtracting the asymptotic term $\cal A$. At the scale of the $Z$ boson mass, there is a significant overlap of the two regions where the two factorization theorems apply. However, we can also see that as we approach the regions of the matching points between the low and intermediate transverse momentum, or between the intermediate and high transverse momentum, the choice of the matching parameters has a large impact on the results. Unlike the [*InEW*]{} scheme, the [*iCSS*]{} follows more closely the $\cal W$-term up to larger values of $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$, but the extent to which this holds true has a strong dependence on the value of the largest matching point. This is clearly reflected in the size of the uncertainty in this region of transverse momentum. For both processes, the uncertainty band for the [*InEW*]{} method is symmetric around the central value, while the estimation of the uncertainty for the [*iCSS*]{} is asymmetric, originating mainly from the variation of the matching parameters. For DY at $Q=4$ GeV, the [*iCSS*]{} scheme runs into difficulties. There is no space left for the intermediate region, and the matching points $\lambda$ and $\eta Q$ are very close to each other. This leads to a very large uncertainty. This is not surprising considering that the main advantage of the method is in the power counting uncertainty in the intermediate region. Moreover, for our choice of the default values for the parameters, the central curve in the [*iCSS*]{} lies far away from the central curve in the [*InEW*]{} scheme at low and intermediate $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ values. The central curve in the [*iCSS*]{} scheme moves from the resummed to the fixed-order result at a lower transverse momentum than the central curve in the [*InEW*]{} scheme, the opposite to what we could see in $Z/W$ boson production. Let us now compare the [*InEW*]{} and [*iCSS*]{} schemes at $Q=12,20$ GeV, where there is more space for the intermediate region and the uncertainty in the [*iCSS*]{} scheme improves. The [*iCSS*]{} uncertainty at the larger transverse-momentum values is dominated by the variation of the matching point and remains of similar size regardless of the scale. A smaller (larger) variation of the associated parameter would of course lead to a smaller (larger) estimate of the associated uncertainty. For $H^0$ boson production, the advantage in the intermediate region of the [*iCSS*]{} scheme is clearly visible, with a very small uncertainty band for low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$. The larger dependence on the choice of the upper matching point is however still present. Both schemes produce results which are clearly outside their uncertainty bands for a large range of intermediate transverse momenta. At this point, we emphasize that for $H^0$ production there is a large uncertainty coming from the scale variations [@Neill:2015roa]. Therefore, the difference between the two methods will be drowned in the other uncertainties, given the currently available perturbative accuracy. At very low $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$ the [*iCSS*]{} rapidly starts to deviate from the resummed calculation, but this is difficult to interpret. Changing the values of the matching parameter associated with the transition between the low and intermediate region would fix this problem. A detailed optimization of the parameter choices in the [*iCSS*]{} scheme is, however, obviously outside the scope of the present work. Conclusions {#s:conclusions} =========== The implementation of the matching between the TMD and collinear factorization theorems, together with a reliable estimation of its uncertainty from power corrections, is one of the compelling milestones for the next generation of phenomenological analyses of $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-spectra. This work contributes to such an effort by introducing a new matching scheme: the *inverse-error weighting* ([*InEW*]{}). From the expected scaling of the power corrections for the TMD and collinear factorization theorems, we build a matched cross section via a weighted average, where the normalized weights are given by the inverse of the (square of the) power corrections. In the [*InEW*]{} scheme, no cancellation of double-counted contributions is needed, since the resummed and fixed-order results are *averaged*, and *not summed*. This makes the implementation of the cross-section matching in phenomenological analyses faster and more transparent, an important feature in light of the demands of global TMD analyses. Moreover, the [*InEW*]{} scheme yields compatible results with other mainstream approaches in the literature, such as the improved CSS scheme. We have illustrated the application of the [*InEW*]{} method with the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-spectra of $Z$ boson, $W$ boson, $H^0$ boson and Drell-Yan lepton-pair production at the LHC. However, the [*InEW*]{} scheme can be applied in a straightforward manner to any observable where a resummed and a fixed-order factorization theorems need to be matched in order to describe the full spectrum of a given variable, such as the $q_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}$-spectra with polarized beams, event shapes or multi-differential observables. We leave for the future the study of processes sensitive to (un)polarized TMD fragmentation functions, such as $e^+e^- \to h_1 h_2 X$ and SIDIS, and low-scale processes sensitive to (un)polarized gluon TMDs, such as pseudoscalar quarkonia produced at a future fixed-target experiment at the LHC (AFTER@LHC [@Brodsky:2012vg; @Lansberg:2012kf; @Boer:2012bt; @Kikola:2017hnp]) or even at the LHC [@Aaij:2014bga; @Butenschoen:2014dra; @Han:2014jya; @Zhang:2014ybe; @Feng:2015cba; @Lansberg:2017ozx], and the production of a pair of $J/\psi$ [@Lansberg:2017dzg]. [***Acknowledgements.***]{} We thank A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, J.C. Collins, P.J. Mulders, J. Qiu, T. Rogers, L. Massacrier, H.-S. Shao, J.X. Wang for useful discussions. MGE is supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 647981, 3DSPIN). The work of JPL is supported in part by the French CNRS via the LIA FCPPL (Quarkonium4AFTER) and the IN2P3 project TMD@NLO and via the COPIN-IN2P3 agreement. AS acknowledges support from U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-06OR23177, under which Jefferson Science Associates, LLC, manages and operates Jefferson Lab. TK acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the European Community under the “Ideas” program QWORK (contract 320389). [^1]: See <https://gsalam.web.cern.ch/gsalam/talks/repo/2016-03-SB+SLAC-SLAC-precision.pdf> [^2]: [http://pcteserver.mi.infn.it/$\sim$ferrera/research.html](http://pcteserver.mi.infn.it/~ferrera/research.html) [^3]: <http://theory.fi.infn.it/grazzini/codes.html> [^4]: By *deviation* we mean the percentage difference between two given curves. For the $\cal W$-term we plot $100\!\cdot\!({\cal W} - \overline{d\s})/\overline{d\s}$, and similarly for the rest. [^5]: The authors of Ref. [@Collins:2016hqq] also introduce a small-$b$ cutoff ($b_{\text{min}}$ prescription) in the $\cal W$-term, which has an effect as well in the way the asymptotic $\cal A$-term is calculated. [^6]: These should not be confused with the uncertainties from the perturbative-scale variations and the nonperturbative contributions.

--- abstract: | Successive toroïdal compactifications of a closed bosonic string are studied and some Lie groups solutions are derived.   author: - | N.Mebarki, A.Taleb, H.Aissaoui, N.Belaloui, M.Haouchine.\ Département de Physique Théorique,\ Institut de Physique, Constantine, ALGERIA.[^1] title: 'Successive Toroidal Compactifications Of A Closed Bosonic Strings.[^2]' --- tcilatex Introduction ============ Our present understanding of the observed fundamental interactions is encompassed, on the one hand, for the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions by the standard model and on the other hand for the gravitational interaction by Einstein’s classical theory of general relativity which, however, can not be consistently quantized. Although the success of some of the unified gauge theories (based on the point-like quantum fields concept), there are too many arbitrary parameters and some of the outstanding problems like the Higgs, spontanious symmetry breaking mechanism, Kobayachi Moskawa metrix etc... are still unsolved. The discovery in the summer of $1984$ by Green and Schwarz [@1] of the unique anomaly free open superstring has once again spurred an enormous interest in string theories as candidates for unified quantum theories of all interactions and matter. As opposed to point-like particles in ordinary field theories, the fundamental constituents of string theories are $1$-dimensional objects. A single classical relativistic string can vibrate in an infinite set of normal modes, which, when quantized correspond to an infinite set of states with arbitrary high masses and spins. These theories can be consistently quantized for one specific dimension of space-time only. This critical dimension is $26$ for the bosonic string (open or closed) and $10$ for the superstring [@2], [@3]. However, to keep contact with the real world, the extra space-time dimensions have to be compactified. It turns out that there are too many ways to do a such procedure and consequently, the four-dimensional low energy physics is not unique [@4]-[@12]. Thus, there is still no clear answer to the important problem of compactification and how contact can be made with a realistic phenomenology. In this paper, and as a toy model, we consider a closed bosonic string and study the effect of successive toroidal compactifications. In section $2$, we present general solutions resulted from various types of an even dimensional tori compactifications. In section $3$, we display our results and draw our conclusions. FORMALISM ========= The Nambu-Goto action of a closed bosonic string is given by[@2],[@3] : $$S=-\frac 1{2\pi \alpha ^{\prime }}\int d\tau d\sigma [(x\cdot x^{\prime })^2-% \stackrel{.}{x}^2\cdot x^{\prime 2}]$$ with : $$x^\mu (\sigma +\pi ,\tau )=x^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )$$ and $\sigma ,\tau $ are the dimensionless world-sheet parameters. Here $% \alpha ^{\prime }$ is the string scale and $x^{\prime \mu }$ (resp. $% \stackrel{.}{x}^\mu $) means $\frac{\partial x^\mu }{\partial \sigma }$ (resp. $\frac{\partial x^\mu }{\partial \tau }$). The general solution of the equation of motion (in the orthonormal gauge) $$\stackrel{..}{x^\mu }-x"^\mu =0$$ which satisfies the boundary condition (\[2\]) is : $$x^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=q^\mu +\alpha ^{\prime }p^\mu +\frac i2\stackunder{% n\neq 0}{\sum }\frac 1n[\alpha _n^\mu \exp -2in(\tau -\sigma )+\widetilde{% \alpha }_n^\mu \exp -2in(\tau +\sigma )]$$ where $q^\mu $ and $p^\mu $ are the string center of mass coordinates and the momentum respectively. After quantization, the critical dimension is fixed to $D=26$ and the physical states $\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$ are subject to the Virasoro conditions : $$\begin{aligned} L_n\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys} &=&\widetilde{L}_n\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}=0\qquad \qquad n\geq 1 \\ (L_0-\widetilde{L}_0)\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys} &=&0 \nonumber \\ (L_0+\widetilde{L}_0-\alpha (0))\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys} &=&0 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the Virasoro generators $L_n$ and $\widetilde{L}_n$ are given by : $$\begin{aligned} L_n &=&\frac 1{4\alpha ^{\prime }}\stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=-\infty }{\sum }}\alpha _{n-m}\alpha _m \\ \widetilde{L}_n &=&\frac 1{4\alpha ^{\prime }}\stackrel{+\infty }{% \stackunder{m=-\infty }{\sum }}\widetilde{\alpha }_{n-m}\widetilde{\alpha }_m \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ (here $\alpha (0)=2$). To get the mass spectrum, one has to apply the following mass operator $M^2$ $$M^2=4[N+\widetilde{N}-\alpha (0)]$$ on the physical states $\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$ (we have taken $% \frac 1{2\alpha ^{\prime }}=1$) with : $$N\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}=\widetilde{N}\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} N &=&\stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=-\infty }{\sum }}\alpha _{-n}^\mu \alpha _{n\mu } \\ \widetilde{N} &=&\stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=-\infty }{\sum }}% \widetilde{\alpha }_{-n}^\mu \widetilde{\alpha }_{n\mu } \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now, our compactification program consists of starting from the critical dimension $D=26$ and then truncating the extra dimensions successively through a various number of tori compactifications. We remained the reader that an $r-$dimensional torus $T^r$ is defined as the set $R/\Gamma $, where $\Gamma $ is an $r-$dimensional lattice generated by a basis $\{\overrightarrow{e_\alpha },\alpha =\overline{1,r}\}$. One can also define a dual lattice $\Gamma ^{*}$ as $$\Gamma ^{*}=\left\{ \overrightarrow{\beta }\in R^r/\forall \overrightarrow{% \gamma }\in \Gamma ,\overrightarrow{\beta }\cdot \overrightarrow{\gamma }% \qquad \text{is an integer }\right\}$$ with a dual basis $\{\overrightarrow{e_\alpha ^{*}},\alpha =\overline{1,r}\}$ such that $$\overrightarrow{e_\alpha ^{*}}\cdot \overrightarrow{e_\beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }$$ METHOD $N=1$ ------------ The first method consists of taking the left and right movers modes mixed. Thus, the compactified coordinates $x$ can be written as : $$x^i(\sigma ,\tau )=q^i+\alpha ^{\prime }p^i+\frac i2\stackunder{n\neq 0}{% \sum }\frac 1n[\alpha _n^i\exp -2in(\tau -\sigma )+\widetilde{\alpha }% _n^i\exp -2in(\tau +\sigma )]$$ For the compactified coordinates $x^I$ $(I=\overline{1,r})$ on an $r-$dimensional torus, one has to identify the points under the translation by $% 2\pi R_\alpha $ in the $\overrightarrow{e_\alpha }$ direction. Thus : $$x^I\simeq x^I+\frac \pi {\sqrt{2}}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r}{\sum }}% n_\alpha \cdot R_\alpha \cdot e_\alpha ^I\qquad (n\in Z)$$ where $r$ (resp.$R_\alpha $ ) is the torus dimension (resp. radius in the $% \alpha $ direction) and therefore one can write : $$x^I(\sigma ,\tau )=q^I+\alpha ^{\prime }p^I+2\ell ^I++\frac i2\stackunder{% n\neq 0}{\sum }\frac 1n[\alpha _n^I\exp -2in(\tau -\sigma )+\widetilde{% \alpha }_n^I\exp -2in(\tau +\sigma )]$$ with : $$p^I=\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r}{\sum }}\frac{m_\alpha }{R_\alpha }% \frac{e_\alpha ^{I*}}{\left\| e_\alpha ^{*}\right\| }\qquad \qquad (m_\alpha \in Z)$$ and $\ell $ are the winding numbers which have the following expression : $$\ell ^I=\stackunder{\beta =1}{\stackrel{r}{\sum }}m_\beta R_\beta \frac{% e_\beta ^I}{\left\| e_\beta \right\| }$$ Now, after $"n"$ compactification, the mass operator $M$ takes the form : $$M^2=4[N+\widetilde{N}-2\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{r}{\sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{% \stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}(\frac{(p^I)^2}4+\ell ^{I^2})]$$ (here $r_k$ is the dimension of the $k^{th}$ torus ($\stackunder{p=1}{% \stackrel{n}{\sum }}r_p=22$ )). with : $$N\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}=(\widetilde{N}+\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{% n}{\sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}\ell ^Ip^I)\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} N &=&\stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=1}{\sum }}\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n% }{\sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}\alpha _{-m}^i\alpha _m^i+% \stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=1}{\sum }}\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n}{% \sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}\alpha _{-m}^I\alpha _m^I \\ \widetilde{N} &=&\stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=1}{\sum }}\stackunder{k=1% }{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}\widetilde{% \alpha }_{-m}^i\widetilde{\alpha }_m^i+\stackrel{+\infty }{\stackunder{m=1}{% \sum }}\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{% \sum }}\widetilde{\alpha }_{-m}^I\widetilde{\alpha }_m^I \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with a self dual lattice and orthonormal basis, eqs.(\[16\]) and (\[17\]) become : $$\begin{aligned} M^2 &=&(N+\widetilde{N}-2)+\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{% I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}(\frac{m_\alpha ^2}{R_\alpha ^2}+4n_\alpha ^2R_\alpha ^2) \\ N\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys} &=&(\widetilde{N}+\stackunder{k=1}{% \stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{I=1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}n_\alpha m_\alpha )\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is to be noted that one can characterizes the quantum physical states $% \left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$ by the quantum numbers $n_\alpha $ and $% m_\alpha $. Now, it is easy to show, that for $R_\alpha =\frac 1{\sqrt{2}% }(\forall \alpha =\overline{1,r_p};p=\overline{1,n})$, the number of the vectorial physical massless states and the quantum numbers $n_\alpha $ and $% m_\alpha $ is (see APPENDIX A): $$\Omega =4\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}(r_p^2+11)$$ and $$\Sigma =2\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}r_p=44$$ respectively. However, for at least one $R_\alpha \neq \frac 1{\sqrt{2}}$, the number of the physical vectorial massless states becomes $44$. METHOD $N=2$: ------------- In this method the left and the right movers of the closed string $% x^I(\sigma -\tau )$ and $x^I(\sigma +\tau )$ respectively are treated independently. In this case, the compactified coordinates can be written as : $$\begin{aligned} x^I(\sigma -\tau ) &=&q^I+p^I(\tau -\sigma )+\frac i2\stackunder{n\neq 0}{% \sum }\frac 1n\alpha _n^I\exp -2in(\tau -\sigma ) \\ x^I(\sigma +\tau ) &=&\widetilde{q}^I+\widetilde{p}^I(\tau +\sigma )+\frac i2% \stackunder{n\neq 0}{\sum }\frac 1n\widetilde{\alpha }_n^I\exp -2in(\tau +\sigma )\end{aligned}$$ where the string center of mass momentum $p^I$ and $\widetilde{p}^I$ are given on the dual lattice $\Gamma ^{*}$ by : $$\begin{array}{c} p^I=\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r}{\sum }}\frac{m_\alpha }{R_\alpha }% \frac{e_\alpha ^{I*}}{\left\| e_\alpha ^{*}\right\| }\qquad \\ \widetilde{p}^I=\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r}{\sum }}\frac{\widetilde{m% }_\alpha }{R_\alpha }\frac{e_\alpha ^{I*}}{\left\| e_\alpha ^{*}\right\| }% \qquad \end{array} (m_\alpha \widetilde{m}_\alpha \in Z) \label{22}$$ It is to be noted that in this case, the winding numbers $\ell ^I$ and $% \widetilde{\ell }^I$ are related to the momenta $p^I$ and $\widetilde{p}^I$ by the relations : $$\begin{array}{l} \ell ^I=-\frac 12p^I \\ \widetilde{\ell }^I=\frac 12\widetilde{p}^I \end{array} \label{23}$$ this means that the lattice $\Gamma $ and its dual $\Gamma ^{*}$ have a non zero intersection. Now, the mass shell condition $(2-5-c)$ leads to the relation $$M^2=-p^{i2}=2(N+\widetilde{N}-4)+\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}% \stackunder{\beta ,\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}[\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }^{*}}{R_\alpha R_\beta }(m_\alpha m_\beta +\widetilde{m}_\alpha \widetilde{m% }_\beta )]$$ where $g_{\alpha \beta }^{*}$ is the dual lattice metric. Moreover, the Virasoro condition $(2-5-b)$ implies that : $$(N+\frac 14\stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\beta ,\alpha =1% }{\stackrel{r_k}{\sum }}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }^{*}}{R_\alpha R_\beta }% m_\alpha m_\beta )\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}=(\widetilde{N}+\frac 14% \stackunder{k=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\beta ,\alpha =1}{\stackrel{% r_k}{\sum }}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }^{*}}{R_\alpha R_\beta }\widetilde{m}% _\alpha \widetilde{m}_\beta )\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$$ It is important to mention that if $R_\alpha =\frac 1{\sqrt{2}}$, the massless vectorial states belong to the adjoint representation of the tensorial product $G\otimes G$, where $G$, is the simply laced Lie group of rank $r=22$ and with a Cartan matrix $g_{\alpha \beta }$. Now, if the lattice $\Gamma $ is even and integer i.e.: $$\begin{array}{c} \forall \overrightarrow{\beta },\overrightarrow{\gamma }\in \Gamma \longrightarrow \overrightarrow{\beta }\cdot \overrightarrow{\gamma }\qquad \text{is an integer.} \\ \forall \overrightarrow{\gamma }\in \Gamma \longrightarrow \overrightarrow{% \gamma ^2}\qquad \text{is integer and even.} \end{array}$$ the momenta $p^I$ and $\widetilde{p}^I$ are identified with the weight vectors of the Lie group $G$. Now, if we characterize the vectorial physical states by the quantum numbers $m_\alpha $ and $\widetilde{m}_\alpha $, we can show that for $R_\alpha ^2=R^2=$ an integer or half integer the number $% \Omega $ of these independent states is \[see APPENDIX B\] $$\Omega _2=44+\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\frac{2^{s_{p+1}}}{% (r_{p-}S_p)!Q_1!Q_2!....Q_{t_p}!} \label{26}$$ ($n$ is the number of successive compactifications) where for the $p^{th}$ compactification ; $r_p$ ,$S_p$ and $Q_{t_p}$ are the dimension of the compactified space, the number of the non zero quantum numbers ($m_\alpha $ and $n_\alpha $) and the degeneracy of the $t_p^{th}$ quantum number respectively. However, if at least one of the $R$ is not an integer or half an integer, the number, of the physical states becomes $\Omega _2^{\prime }=44$. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS : ========================= To get an idea and keep our results transparent, we have considered compactifications on an even dimensional tori. Tables $1$ and $2$ display various types of compactifications and the rank and order of the resulted Lie groups with both methods $1$ and $2$ with $R=\frac 1{\sqrt{2}}$and $1$ respectively. It is important to notice that the results depend on : a\) The choice of the method : In fact, it is clear from tables $1$ and $2$ that for the same type of compactification, the resulted Lie groups obtained with the first method are totally different from the second one. For example, a compactification on $% T^{22}$ gives with the first method the following possible Lie groups : $% SO(5)\otimes SO(60)\otimes U(12)$; $SO(58)\otimes SO(22)\otimes U(4)$; $% SO(14)\otimes SO(14)\otimes SO(61)$; $SO(56)\otimes SO(5)\otimes SO(29)$; $% SO(63)\otimes U(8)\otimes U(5)$; $SO(44)\otimes SO(44)$; $SO(58)\otimes SO(16)\otimes E7$. However, with the second method one gets : $SO(51)\otimes SO(36)\otimes U(1)$; $SO(36)\otimes SO(3)\otimes SO(51);$ $SO(45)\otimes SO(45)$. As a second example, the ten successive tori compactifications $% T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^4$ lead to no solutions for the first method and $% SO(11)\otimes SO(58)\otimes U(12);$ $SO(47)\otimes SO(40)\otimes U(1);$ $% SO(57)\otimes SO(24)\otimes U(4)$; $SO(59)\otimes SU(3)\otimes SO(14)$; $% SO(3)\otimes SO(37)\otimes SO(51)$; $SO(58)\otimes SO(11)\otimes U(5)$; $% SO(48)\otimes SO(36)\otimes G2$; $SO(58)\otimes SU(5)\otimes U(11)$ for the second one. b)Type and number of compactifications : Each type and number of successive compactifications gives different results. In fact, the type $T^2\otimes T^{20}$ (for example) leads to the following Lie groups : $SO(12)\otimes SO(28)\otimes SO(48)$; $SO(38)\otimes SO(42)\otimes U(4)$; $SO(8)\otimes SO(33)\otimes SO(49)$; $SO(55)\otimes U(2)\otimes U(15)$; $SO(48)\otimes SO(28)\otimes E6$; $SO(48)\otimes SO(26)\otimes E7$; However, the type $T^2\otimes T^2\otimes T^6\otimes T^{12} $ gives $SO(20)\otimes U(15)\otimes U(19);$ $SO(13)\otimes U(17)\otimes U(21) $; $SO(25)\otimes U(14)\otimes U(18)$. c)Tori radius : The results of the successive compactifications depend strongly on the choice of the radius of the compactified tori. For example the first method gives for $R=\frac 1{\sqrt{2}}(\forall \alpha =\overline{1,r};k=\overline{1,n% })$, a number of $44+2\stackrel{n}{\stackunder{k=1}{\sum }}r_k^2$ vectorial physical states which can form the irreducible representation of a Lie group. However, for at least $R\neq \frac 1{\sqrt{2}}$, this number is reduced to $44$ and leads to different Lie groups solutions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: ================ We are very grateful to Drs. M. Lagraa and M. Tahiri for fruitful discussions .   [99]{} M.B.Green and J.H.Schwarz, Phys.Lett.B 149 (1984) 117. J.Sherk, Rev.Mod.Phy. 47 (1975) 123. J.H Schwarz, Phys.Rep.C 89 (1982) 223. P.Candelas,G.T.Horowitz,A.Strominger and E.Witten,Nucl.Phys.B 258(1985)46. E.Witten,Phys.Lett.B 115 (1985) 151;Nucl.Phys.B 258 (1985)75. M.Dine,R.Rohm,N.Seiberg and E Witten,Phys.Lett.B 156 (1985)55. M.Dine and N.Seiberg,Phys.Rev.Lett.55 (1985)366. V.Kamplumovski, Phys.Rev.Lett.55 (1985)1036. A.Strominger and E.Witten,Comm.Math.Phys.101(1985)341. A.Strominger,Phys.Rev.Lett.55(1985)2547. J.Breit,B.Ovrut and G.Segie,Phys.Lett.158 B(1985)33. J.P.Derendinger,L.E.Ibanez and H.P.Nilles,Nucl.Phys.B 267(1986)365.   The possible physical vectorial states are : $\alpha _{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ ,$\widetilde{\alpha }_{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $,$\alpha _{-t}^i\stackrel{q}{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\widetilde{\alpha }% _{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle $, $\widetilde{\alpha }_{-t}^i\stackrel{q% }{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\alpha _{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle $, $% \widetilde{\alpha }_{-t}^i\stackrel{q}{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\widetilde{% \alpha }_{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle $ and $\alpha _{-t}^i\stackrel{q}{% \stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\alpha _{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle $ with $t$, $u$ and $q\in N^{*}$. For the states $\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}$ of the form $\alpha _{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ and $\widetilde{\alpha }% _{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ and by imposing $$M^2\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}=0 \tag{A-1}$$ and $$N\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys}=(\widetilde{N}+\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{% n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\sum }n_\alpha m_\alpha )\left| \psi \right\rangle _{phys} \tag{A-2}$$ one gets $$\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{% \sum }}(\frac{m_\alpha ^2}{4R_\alpha ^2}+n_\alpha ^2R_\alpha ^2)=2-t \tag{A-3}$$ and $$\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{% \sum }}n_\alpha m_\alpha =\pm t$$ where $n$ denotes the number of tori compactifications ( $+$ and $-$ signs are for the case $\alpha _{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ and $\widetilde{% \alpha }_{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $respectively). This implies that $t=1$ and $R=(2)^{-1/2}$ and one of the $n_\alpha $ and $m_\alpha $ are equal to $% \pm 1$ (For the others, $n_\alpha =m_\beta $ if $\alpha \#\beta $). Thus, the $4\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}r_p^2$ states can be written as: $\left| 1,0,...,0;1,0,...,0\right\rangle $,$\left| 0,1,0,...,0;0,1,0,...,0\right\rangle ,...,$ $\left| -1,0,...,0;-1,0,...,0\right\rangle $,$\left| 0,-1,0,...,0;0,-1,0....,0\right\rangle $ $\left| 1,0,...,0;-1,0,...,0\right\rangle $,$\left| 0,1,0,...,0;0,-1,0,...,0\right\rangle ,...,$\ and $\left| -1,0,...,0;1,0,...,0\right\rangle $,$\left| 0,-1,0,...,0;0,1,0,...,0\right\rangle $,..., It is worth to mention that the states of the form: $$\widetilde{\alpha }_{-t}^i\stackrel{q}{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\widetilde{% \alpha }_{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle \text{ and }\alpha _{-t}^i% \stackrel{q}{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\alpha _{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle$$ verifying eq.$(A-1)$ and $\left( A-2\right) $ can be easily shown to be equivalent to the states $\alpha _{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ and $% \widetilde{\alpha }_{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ respectively. For the states of the form $\alpha _{-t}^i\stackrel{q}{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}% \widetilde{\alpha }_{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle $, $\widetilde{\alpha }% _{-t}^i\stackrel{q}{\stackunder{s=1}{\prod }}\alpha _{-u_s}^{I_s}\left| 0\right\rangle $, the conditions $(A-2)$ and $(A-3)$ lead to : $$2-(t+u_1+u_2+...+u_q)=\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{% \alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{\sum }}(\frac{m_\alpha ^2}{4R_\alpha ^2}+n_\alpha ^2R_\alpha ^2)$$ and $$\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{% \sum }}n_\alpha m_\alpha =t-(u_1+u_2+...+u_q)$$ which implies that $n_\alpha =m_\alpha =0$ $(\alpha =\overline{1,r})$. Thus,the number of the physical states is $2\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{% \sum }}r_p=44$.     The number of massless vectorial states of the form $\alpha _{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ , $\widetilde{\alpha }_{-t}^i\left| 0\right\rangle $ with $% t\in N$ can be determined by solving the equations $$\begin{array}{c} m_\alpha =0\qquad \qquad \qquad \stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}% \stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{\sum }}\frac{m_\alpha ^2}{R_\alpha ^2}% =2 \\ \widetilde{m}_\alpha =0\qquad \qquad \qquad \stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{% \sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{n_p}{\sum }}\frac{\widetilde{m}% _\alpha ^2}{R_\alpha ^2}=2 \end{array} \tag{B-1}$$ respectively .Notice that in both cases the solution is the same .Setting $% R_\alpha =R$ $(\forall \alpha =\overline{1,r};p=\overline{1,n})$ we obtain: $$\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{% \sum }}m_\alpha ^2=2R^2=\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{% \alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{\sum }}\widetilde{m}_\alpha ^2 \tag{B-2}$$ Now,it is obvious that if $R^2$ is not an integer or half an integer, eqs.$% (B-1)$ and $(B-2)$ have no solutions. In what follows we denote by $s$ the number of the non zero $\widetilde{m}_\alpha $ ’s. As an example, for $% R=(2)^{3/2}$, eq.$(B-3)$ becomes $$\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{% \sum }}\widetilde{m}_\alpha ^2=16$$ which can be written as:\ a)$1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=16$\ b)$% 4+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=16$\ c)$4+4+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=16$\ d)$% 4+4+4+1+1+1+1=16$\ e)$4+4+4+4=16$\ f)$9+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=16$\ g)$% 9+4+1+1+1=16 $\ In this case, the values of s are respectively $% 16,13,10,7,4,8,5$. Now, if $R=1$ (case of our interest) one gets: $$\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\stackunder{\alpha =1}{\stackrel{r_p}{% \sum }}\widetilde{m}_\alpha ^2=2$$ which implies that $\left| \widetilde{m}_\alpha \right| =1$. So, the degeneracy $s$ of $\widetilde{m}_\alpha $ is equal to $2$. Thus the number $% \Omega $ of all possible physical states of the form $\left| 11,1,0,...,0\right\rangle $,$\left| 11,0,1,...,0\right\rangle ,$...etc is $$\Omega =\frac 12\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}r_p(r_p-1)=\stackunder{% p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\frac{r_p!}{2!(r_p-1)} \tag{B-3}$$ This result can be found in an equivalent way by taking $r$ number arranged in two and without repetition. Thus,the number of the different physical vectorial states $\Omega $ is: $$\Omega =\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\frac{2!C_{r_p}^2}{2!}=% \stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}\frac{r_p!}{2!(r_p-1)!} \tag{B-4}$$ Now, taking into account the positive and negative values of $\widetilde{m}% _\alpha $ amounts to multiplying the result by $2^2$. Hence, the total number, of states $\Omega _{tot}$ is: $$\Omega _{tot}=\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}2^2\frac{r_p!}{2!(r_p-2)!} \tag{B-5}$$ Then,it is clear that for a given $s$, eq.$(B-6)$ can be generalized to $$\Omega _{tot}=\stackunder{p=1}{\stackrel{n}{\sum }}2^{s_p}\frac{r_p!}{% (r_p-s_p)!\stackunder{q=1}{\stackrel{t_p}{\prod }}Q_q!}$$ where $Q_q$ (resp.$s_p$ ) is the degeneracy of the $q^{th}$ quantum number (resp. the number of the non zero quantum numbers $\widetilde{m}_\alpha $ ), $t_p$ is the number of the non identical quantum numbers among the $s$ ones for the $p^{th}$ compactification. The factor $\frac{r_p!}{(r_p-s_p)!}$ represents the number of the rearrangements of $r_p$ by $s_p$ numbers. i.e. $$A_{r_p}^{s_p}=s_p!C_{r_p}^{s_p}$$ However, if there are some identical non zero quantum numbers, one has to divide by the factor $\stackunder{q=1}{\stackrel{t_p}{\prod }}Q_q!$. Notice that the factor $2^{s_p}$, comes from the fact that $\widetilde{m}_\alpha $ can take both positive and negative values. [**TABLE CAPTION**]{} [**TABLE 1.**]{} display the rank and order of the Lie groups coming from various types of tori compactifications with the use of the first method and $R=\frac 1{\sqrt{2}}$. [**TABLE 2.**]{} the same as Table 1 but with the use of the second method and $R=1$. [**Table1:**]{}\ [**order**]{} -- -- --------------- 234212 174882 223644 123868 42172 29116 115046 79758 47806 29630 23742 46998 23254 15254 15126 12758 29408 12512 12832 89110 54640 32112 21400 11698 16820 11124 7732 64602 38898 23898 19074 21706 13970 11066 12530 9674 8250 45424 -- -- ------- 26866 18034 24612 12916 15990 9464 30662 18590 12598 10510 25910 19616 16458 23976 21848 28530 36180 [**Table2:**]{}\ [**order**]{} -- -- --------------- 9624428 6168104 6154058 1405082 568380 243836 3841396 1821254 656222 317942 189190 782618 305290 122554 111282 127674 425734 161392 91560 1283546 1041106 426592 186860 66458 156310 60072 37170 1356836 572866 228514 134170 224942 93598 51502 84654 48470 -- -- -------- 38934 790064 313838 170800 153804 76606 62226 49194 430974 178496 89848 68048 253958 130820 97954 187536 141310 198350 277918 [^1]: Permanent adress. [^2]: This work is supported by the Algerian Ministry of education and research under contract D2501/01/17/93.

--- abstract: 'Most of existing work learn sentiment-specific word representation for improving Twitter sentiment classification, which encoded both n-gram and distant supervised tweet sentiment information in learning process. They assume all words within a tweet have the same sentiment polarity as the whole tweet, which ignores the word its own sentiment polarity. To address this problem, we propose to learn sentiment-specific word embedding by exploiting both lexicon resource and distant supervised information. We develop a multi-level sentiment-enriched word embedding learning method, which uses parallel asymmetric neural network to model n-gram, word level sentiment and tweet level sentiment in learning process. Experiments on standard benchmarks show our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods.' author: - | Shufeng Xiong\ Pingdingshan University\ Pingdingshan, Henan, China\ bibliography: - 'mtnnsa.bib' title: 'Improving Twitter Sentiment Classification via Multi-Level Sentiment-Enriched Word Embeddings' --- Introduction ============ Twitter, which is one of the biggest micro-blog site on the internet, has emerged as an important source for online opinions and sentiment indexes. As a result of its massive, diverse, and rising user base, the containing opinion information in Twitter has been successfully used to many tasks, such as stock market movement prediction [@SiMukherjee-2023], political monitoring [@PlaHurtado-2031] and inferring public mood about social events [@BollenMao-2024]. Therefore, excellent sentiment classification performance, the ability to identify positive, negative, and neutral opinion, is fundamental. Researchers have proposed many approaches to improve Twitter classification performance [@DavidovTsur-2028; @BarbosaFeng-2033; @MukherjeeBhattacharyya-2030]. Especially, recent advance in deep neural network demonstrate the importance of representation learning of text, e.g., word level and document(sentence) level, for natural language processing tasks [@LeMikolov-1632; @CollobertWeston-1507; @TangQin-1755]. Traditional word embedding methods [@CollobertWeston-1507; @MikolovSutskever-1335] model the syntactic context information of words. Based on them, [@TangWei-1500] proposed Sentiment-Specific Word Embedding (SSWE) learning method for Twitter sentiment classification, which aims to tackle the problem that two word with opposite polarity and similar syntactic role for sentiment classification task. Following SSWE, [@RenZhang-2019] further proposed Topic and Sentiment-enriched Word Embedding (TSWE) model to learn topic-enriched word embedding, which considered the polysemous phenomenon of sentiment-baring words. However, existing work only exploit Twitter overall sentiment label for learning sentiment-specific word embedding, although there are many state-of-the-art sentiment lexicons [@HuLiu-2036; @WilsonWiebe-2035], which list common sentiment-baring words with its polarity. Existing work learn sentiment-specific word embedding by using distant supervised tweet polarity label based on traditional learning model. Actually, traditional methods learn word embedding based on a local context model. But, Twitter sentiment label belongs to global document level. For exploiting tweet sentiment label, [@Tang-1658] and [@RenZhang-2019] assume that each word in an opinioned context window indicates the sentiment polarity of the context, and local context has the same polarity as the global sentiment of tweet. In other words, they assigned the tweet level global polarity to its local context window without any adjustment. On the other hand, word sentiment polarity from lexicon is still another useful information for sentiment classification [@PangLee-1837; @Feldman-2037; @SocherPerelygin-1940]. Accordingly, a uniform framework to exploit multi-level sentiment label for learning word embedding is necessary. How to effectively exploit both word and tweet sentiment label for learning word embedding, is still a challenge problem. {width="90.00000%"} In fact, SSWE model combines multiple objectives, which are syntactic and sentiment learning, into one function. Moreover, TSWE model further encode topic, sentiment and syntactic into optimizing objective of neural network. However, most of the time, multiple objectives can not be directly optimized by a unified framework, i.e. word sentiment and tweet sentiment. Inspired by recent work for Multi-task deep Learning [@CollobertWeston-2013], we propose to learn word embedding by exploiting multi-level sentiment representation objective optimization approach. Although multi-level sentiment representation can be seen as multiple tasks, they actually have two different inputs 1) word with its context and 2) the whole tweet, which correspond to word sentiment and tweet sentiment, while multi-task deep learning commonly has the same input. Therefore, it is unable to directly use multi-task deep learning framework on this issue. For tackle this problem, we develop a Multi-level Sentiment-enriched Word Embedding (MSWE) model to learn word representation. MSWE consists of two two-parts asymmetric sub networks, which share a common linear layer and word representation layer. The two-parts sub networks are 1) several Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) networks and 2) one Convolution Neural Network (CNN), which are used to model n-gram and sentiment information of word level and sentiment information of tweet level, respectively. Our model is under the assumption that each word vector encodes its own sentiment and word composition encodes tweet sentiment, while SSWE/TSWE assumes each word vector indicate the tweet overall sentiment. Specifically, we feed words (with its context window) into MLP to model word level sentiment, which encodes the word its own sentiment. At the same time, the whole tweet is fed into CNN to model tweet level sentiment. The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows. - We propose to encode both word level and tweet level sentiment information when learning sentiment-specific word embedding, which makes full use of existing sentiment lexicons and distant supervised Twitter corpus. - To address the multi-level sentiment representation objective optimization, we develop a novel word embedding learning framework, which employs two asymmetric sub networks to model two level sentiment information, respectively. - We conduct experiments on standard Twitter sentiment classification benchmarks. The experiments results demonstrate that our method outperforms previous state-of-the-art approaches. Multi-Level Sentiment-Enriched Word Embedding for Twitter Sentiment Classification ================================================================================== In this paper, we argue that it is important to jointly model both word level and tweet level sentiment information to learn good sentiment-specific word embedding. In this way, it not only made full use of existing sentiment lexicon resource, but also distant supervised Twitter corpus in a unified representation framework. In other words, n-gram and multi-level sentiment information are both encoded in word embedding, which can improve the sentiment classification performance. Figure 1(c) describes the architecture of the representation learning network MSWE, which are used for encoding sentiment information in word embedding. The network takes tweet as input. First, MSWE model splits input tweet into several windows, i.e. $n$ windows. Then, $n$ window is the actual input of $n$ left sub networks and all the windows are the actual input of one right sub network. The left sub network outputs word level sentiment and n-gram information, and the right sub network output tweet level sentiment sentiment. We proceed to describe the network in detail. Sentiment-Specific Word Embedding --------------------------------- Our model aims to learn sentiment-specific word embedding, which is more beneficial for twitter sentiment classification than common used word embedding. Sentiment-specific word embedding model stems from C&W model [@CollobertWeston-1507], which learns word representation from n-gram contexts by using negative sampling. When learning the representation of a word $w$, they chose its contextual words $c$ in a window $t$ as positive sample, in which $w$ is in the center position of $c$. For getting negative sample, they alternate the word $w$ with a different word $\tilde{w}$ to form mutational context $\tilde{c}$. Its training objective is that the context $c$ is expected to obtain a higher language model score than the mutational context $\tilde{c}$ by a margin of 1. The optimization function is $$\label{eq:g0} loss_{ngm}(c) = \max (0, 1 - f^{ngm}(c) + f^{ngm}(\tilde{c})),$$ where $f^{ngm}(\cdot)$ is the output of C&W model, which represents the n-gram score of a context through out neural network. The C&W model architecture is shown in Figure 1(a). The bottom layer is lookup layer for represent $L$ $d$-dimension word vectors in vocabulary. All the words in context window are concatenated to form $[L_1,...,L_t]$, which is fed into a hidden linear layer. A $hTanh$ activation layer is used on top of the linear layer, its output is $$a = hTanh(W_1*[L_1,...,L_t] + b_1),$$ where $W_1 \in R^{h \times (t*d)}$ and $b_1 \in R^h$ is the model parameter, $h$ is the length hidden unit. The n-gram score is computed by a linear transformation applied in $a$, $$f^{ngm}(c) = W_2*a,$$ where $W_1 \in R^{1 \times h}$ is the model parameter. Although C&W model is successfully applied in many NLP task, it is not effective enough for sentiment classification. To address this problem, [@TangWei-1500] proposed a sentiment-specific word embedding SSWE model base on C&W model. They added tweet sentiment information loss into the objective function, which demonstrates the effectiveness of encoding sentiment information into word embedding for Twitter sentiment classification. The network structure is shown in Figure 1(b). There are some other variations, for example, TSWE (Topic-Enriched Word Embedding) encodes topic distribution into loss function of model and TEWE (Topic and Sentiment-Enriched Word Embedding) considers both topic and sentiment information [@RenZhang-2019]. Overall, all of them use multiple optimization objectives in their loss function. Multi-Level Sentiment-Enriched Word Embedding {#sect:mswe} --------------------------------------------- Existing work demonstrate that sentiment lexicon is an important resource for sentiment classification [@PangLee-1837; @Feldman-2037; @SocherPerelygin-1940]. In particular, [@SocherPerelygin-1940] developed *Sentiment Treebank*, which is based on word sentiment and further annotates the sentiment label of syntactically plausible phrase of sentences. By using this corpus, they train a RNTN (Recursive Neural Tensor Network) model for sentiment classification. However, the labelled phrase of *Sentiment Treebank* is still limited, which can not contain all the available word combinations. Nevertheless, comparing with word combination, the basic sentiment-bared words are changed relatively less over time. Therefore, we propose to consider word level sentiment from lexicon for encoding the individual sentiment information, and simultaneously model tweet level sentiment for considering the composition sentiment information of words. An intuitively approach is adding a new optimization objective in the loss function as practice in SSWE and TEWE. But, there are $n$ word sentiment optimization objectives corresponding to $n$ input words in tweet and only one optimization objective for tweet level sentiment. Existing structure can not optimize these multi-level sentiment scoring objective. As shown in Figure 1(c), we exploit two sub networks for modelling two level optimization objectives by using similar framework as multi-task learning [@ChuOuyang-2016; @CollobertWeston-2013; @DongWu-2015]. **Shared Units** Two sub networks have shared units, each unit contains one embedding layer and one linear layer. Assuming there is an input tweet $D$ consists of $n$ context windows, embedding dimension is $d$ and hidden layer length is $h$. Then the shared unit number is $n$, each unit connects one left sub network, and the whole $n$ units connect to right sub network after a pooling operation. For each shared unit, the input of embedding layer is $t$ words in a window and the output is represented as: $$x_{1:t} = x_1 \oplus x_2 \oplus ... \oplus x_t ,$$ where $x_i,x_{i+1},...,x_{i+t}$ is the $t$ word in window $i$. A linear transformation is applied to $x_{i:i+t}$ to produce a new feature $$e_i = f(W^1_1 * x_{i:i+t} + b^1_1),$$ where $W^1_1 \in R^{(t*d) \times h}$ and $b^1_1 \in R^h$ are the parameter of linear layer. **Word level-Specific Layers** For left sub network (modelling word level sentiment and n-gram), a following $tanh$ activation layer outputs $a_1=hTanh(e_i)$ and two linear transformations output n-gram and word level sentiment predicted scores $$f^{ngm} = W^1_2 * a_1,$$ and $$f^{ws} = W^1_3 * a_1$$ When training the model, we input window $c$ and its mutation $\tilde{c}$ into the left sub network, the loss function is calculated by Equation (\[loss1\]) $$\label{loss1} loss_1(c,\tilde{c}) = \alpha * loss_{ngm}(c,\tilde{c}) + (1-\alpha) * loss_{ws}(c),$$ $$loss_{ngm}(c,\tilde{c}) = max (0, 1-f^{ngm}(c)+f^{ngm}(\tilde{c})),$$ $$loss_{ws}(c) = max (0,1-\phi(0)f^{ws}_0(c)+\phi(1)f^{ws}_1(c)),$$ where $\alpha$ is linear interpolation weight and $\phi(\cdot)$ is an indicator of the sentiment polarity of the center word in $c$, $$\phi(j) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } y[j]==1, \\ -1 & \text{if } y[j]==0. \end{cases} ,$$ where $y$ is the gold label of a word, while we use 2-dimension vector to represent $y$, i.e. the negative polarity as \[1,0\] and the positive polarity as \[0,1\]. The sentiment polarity is from existing sentiment lexicon, in our experiments, we use the lexicon from [@HuLiu-2036]. Remarkably, if the center word is not sentiment word, we only optimize the n-gram score. {width="80.00000%"} **Twitter Level-Specific Layers** For right sub network (modelling Twitter level sentiment), each linear transformation in shared unit is seen as a convolution operation on tweet text sequence. Subsequently, we use three pooling methods, *max-pooling*, *average-pooling* and *min-pooling* on $e_1,e2,...,e_n$ to get fixed dimensional features $max(e)$, $avg(e)$ and $min(e)$. Then, we concatenate these features and feed them into a linear layer to get $$a_2 = W^2_1 * [max(e) \oplus avg(e) \oplus min(e)] + b^2_2,$$ where $W^2_1 \in R^{t*h \times h}$ and $b^2_1 \in R^h$ are the parameter of linear layer. Finally, the top softmax layer predicts the tweet sentiment $$f^{ds} = softmax (a_2)$$ The loss function of tweet level is $$\label{loss2} loss_2(D) = - \sum_{k=\{0,1\}} g_k(D) {\log f^{ds}_k},$$ where $g(\cdot)$ is the gold sentiment distribution of tweet on \[*positive*, *negative*\]. Since Equation (\[loss1\]) and Equation (\[loss2\]) optimize word level and tweet level information loss, respectively. Our final optimization objective is to get an overall score, as follow $$loss = \beta * loss_1(c,\tilde{c}) + (1-\beta) * loss_2(D)$$ where $\beta$ is the trade-off coefficient between two levels. **Model Training** We train word embedding from both lexicon and massive distant-supervised tweets that is collected with positive (e.g. \#happy, \#joy, \#happyness) and negative (e.g. \#sadness, \#angry, \#frustrated) hashtag and emoticons (e.g. :( :-( : ( :) :-) : ) :D). We crawl tweets from March 1st, 2015 to April 31th, 2015. We tokenize each tweet with NLTK package, remove the @user, URLs, duplicates, quotes, spams and tweets written in language other than English. Finally, we collect 5M positive tweets and 5M negative tweets. We use Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) to optimize the training target. For speeding up the training process, mini-batch training is commonly used in SGD. But, for word level training, there are a number of valid words[^1] in a tweet need to compute n-gram and sentiment loss. And there is one loss value in tweet level sentiment prediction. Moreover, for calculating tweet level sentiment prediction score, it must first compute the linear transformation $a_1$. Therefore, general mini-batch can not be used in our model. Here we use one trick which uses two batch sizes in training. The main batch size is for tweet level, and the second batch size is set as the window number in a tweet for word level training. In other words, the batch size is changeable for word level while batch size is fixed for tweet level through the training process. During training, we empirically set the window size as 3, the embedding dimension as 50, the length of hidden layer as 20, the main batch size as 32 and the learning rate as 0.01. Sentiment Classification with Sentiment-Enriched Word Embedding {#sect:mswe} --------------------------------------------------------------- After learning sentiment-specific word embedding, it can be used for sentiment classification by using existing supervised learning framework (e.g. SVM). Here, we use a neural network model to perform the classification task. The architecture of the model is showed in Figure \[fig:classi\]. Firstly, a convolutional layer with multiple filters applied in the input tweet, which have been represented by using learned sentiment-specific word embedding. Then, a Max pooling layer takes the maximum value as the feature of each convolutional filter. The next hidden layer is a full connected layer with $ReLU$ activation, which is used for learning hidden feature representation. The final layer is a full connected layer with 2-dimension output that is used for predicting the positive/negative polarity distribution with $softmax$. We use dropout on input layer and hidden layer for regularization. The classifier is trained by using back-propagation with AdaGrad to update parameters. Experimental Evaluation ======================= Datasets and Settings --------------------- ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------- (lr)[2-4]{} (lr)[5-7]{} Positive Negative Total Positive Negative Total Train 2,447 952 3,399 11,394 6,606 18,000 Dev 575 340 915 - - - Test 1572 601 2,173 CV CV CV ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------- **Datasets** For demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method, we perform experiments on the following two datasets: 1) SemEval2013, which is a standard Twitter sentiment classification benchmark [@Nakov-2074]; 2) CST (Context-Sensitive Twitter), which is the latest benchmark for Twitter sentiment classification task [@RenZhang-2021]. [@RenZhang-2021] crawled basic opinion tweet and its context for evaluating their model, which utilized the contextual tweets as auxiliary data for Twitter sentiment classification. In our experiments, we only use the basic data rather than both basic and contextual tweets, because our model does not consider the contextual tweets at present. Table 1 provides detailed information about each dataset. Evaluation metric is Macro-F1 of positive and negative categories. **Hyper-parameters** The hyper-parameter for specific task should carefully tune, for easily comparison of the experimental result, we use the unified setting that is chosen via a grid search on SemEval2013 developing dataset. There are seven hyper-parameters in the final model, including the network structure parameters (i.e. embedding dimension $D$, the length of hidden layer $H$, the convolutional filter size $S$ and filter number $N$) and the parameters for supervised training (i.e. the dropout rate of input layer $d_1$, the dropout rate of hidden $ReLU$ layer $d_2$ and the learning rate $\eta$ of AdaGrad). Table 2 reports all the hyper-parameters. Type Value ----------- ------------------------------------------------ Network structure $D$ = 50, $H$ = 200, $S$ = (2,3,4,5), $N$ = 30 Training $d_1$ = 0.8, $d_2$ = 0.7, $\eta$ = 0.01 : Hyper-parameter values in the final model. \[tab:para\] Results of Comparison Experiments --------------------------------- We compare our model with a number of state-of-the-art methods. The results of our models against other methods are listed in Table 3. All the methods fall into two categories: traditional classifier with various features and neural network classifier. In first category, SSWE achieves the best performance, which uses word embedding features that encode both n-gram and sentiment information. Because not explicitly exploiting sentiment information, C&W and Word2vec features are relatively weak. NRC system performs better than other partners except SSWE, because of using sentiment lexicons and many manually designed features. For second category, neural network classifier can naturally use word embedding for classification. Both TSWE and CNNM-Local, which exploited other extra information rather than sentiment, achieved the current best performance in SemEval2013 and SST, respectively. Under the same condition that only using sentiment information, our model performs better than them. Both our method and NRC utilize sentiment lexicons and achieve better performance, it demonstrates sentiment lexicon is still a strong resource for informal Twitter text sentiment classification. Model SemEval2013 SST ----------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------- DistSuper + uni/bi/tri-gram [@GoBhayani-2071] 63.84 - SVM + uni/bi/tri-gram [@PangLee-1608] 75.06 77.42 SVM + C&W [@TangWei-1500] 75.89 - SVM + Word2vec [@TangWei-1500] 76.31 - NBSVM [@TangWei-1500] 75.28 - RAE [@TangWei-1500] 75.12 - NRC (Top System in SemEval) [@Mohammad-2077] 84.73 80.24 SSWE [@TangWei-1500] **84.98** **80.68** TSWE [@RenZhang-2019] 85.34 - CNNM-Local [@RenZhang-2021] - 80.90 MSWE (Our model) **85.75** **81.34** Effect of parameter $\beta$ --------------------------- ![Macro-F1 scores of MSWE with different $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:para"}](param){width="47.00000%"} As given in Equation (15), $\beta$ is the trade-off between word level and tweet level information. We tune $\beta$ on the development set of SemEval2013. For another coefficient $\alpha$, we follow [@TangWei-1500] to set it as 0.5. Figure \[fig:para\] shows the macro-F1 scores of MSWE with different $\beta$ on SemEval2013 development set. It shows that MSWE gives better performance when $\beta$ = 0.8, which means giving more consideration to n-gram and word sentiment from lexicon. The model with $\beta$ = 1 stands for SSWE but the training sentiment label of word is from lexicon and $\beta$ = 0 stands for only using tweet level sentiment information. The model with $\beta$ = 0 gives lower performance, which shows the n-gram information is an indispensable evidence for Twitter sentiment classification. As a result, we set $\beta$ as 0.8 in our final experiments. Related Work ============ For Twitter sentiment classification, many work follow traditional sentiment classification methods [@PangLee-1608], which used machine learning methods to train a classifier for Twitter sentiment. Except common used text features, there are some distant supervised features can be utilized[@GoBhayani-2071]. Many studies use these massive noisy labelled tweets as training data or auxiliary source for Twitter sentiment classification [@HuTang-2073]. Unlike previous studies, our approach uses distant supervised information as well as lexicon knowledge for training word embedding, which is a combination of noisy-labelled resource and knowledge base. There is a large body of work on word embedding learning [@MikolovSutskever-1335; @CollobertWeston-1507; @PenningtonSocher-1333]. These models are based on word correlations within context windows. Recently, several methods integrate other information into word representation learning for specific tasks, which are more beneficial than common embedding [@LiuQiu-2055; @RenZhang-2019; @TangWei-1500; @ZhouHe-2057]. For sentiment classification, [@TangWei-1500] proposed to integrate the sentiment information of tweets into neural network to learn sentiment specific word embedding. [@TangWei-1500] added a new optimization objective on the top layer of C&W model [@CollobertWeston-1507], and it is able to add more optimization objective, such as topic distribution [@RenZhang-2019]. However, it is unable to simultaneously integrate both word level and tweet level sentiment information into its optimization function. Therefore, we propose multi-level sentiment specific word embedding learning model to tackle this problem. The difference is 1) our method uses lexicon knowledge as supervised information in word level sentiment, while they use twitter overall sentiment as the label of all the words in that twitter; 2) we treat each context window in word level learning as a convolution operation, and then pool all the context windows into neural network to predict tweet level sentiment polarity, while they assigned the tweet overall sentiment label to each word instead of modelling twitter sentiment. Our method uses similar schema as multi-task learning, which is firstly proposed in [@Caruana-2070]. For natural language processing community, a notable work about multi-task learning was proposed by [@CollobertWeston-2013]. In their model, each considered task shared the lookup tables as well as the first hidden layer, and the task was randomly selected for training in each round. [@LiuGao-1881] proposed to jointly train semantic classification and information retrieval, which have more shared layers between two tasks. Most of multi-task learning frameworks can be seen as a parameter sharing approach. However, these work aim to train the model for multi-tasks themselves, while our method aims to learn the shared embedding. Therefore, our method uses context window as the only convolution filter for Twitter level sentiment modelling. Our main target is to bring Twitter level sentiment information to word embedding but not to predict Twitter sentiment in MSWE. In our model, a shared unit not only represents a context composition window in word level but also a convolution window for tweet level. Conclusion ========== This paper proposes to utilize both word sentiment label from lexicon and tweet sentiment label from distant supervised information for training sentiment-enriched word embedding. Because these two information are crossing word and tweet level, we develop a multi-level sentiment-enriched word embedding learning method. Our method naturally integrates word level information into tweet level as a convolution result, while simultaneously modelling word level n-gram and sentiment information. When using learned word embedding to Twitter sentiment classification, it achieves the best results in standard benchmarks. For our future work, we have plans to integrate more information that may enhance Twitter sentiment classification. [^1]: The word has enough left and right context words among the window settings.

--- abstract: 'We establish pointwise estimates for the horizontal gradient of solutions to quasi-linear $p$-Laplacian type non-homogeneous equations with measure data in the Heisenberg Group.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218, USA' - 'Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218, USA' author: - Shirsho Mukherjee - Yannick Sire bibliography: - 'MyBib.bib' title: Gradient Potential Estimates on the Heisenberg Group --- =1 Introduction {#sec:Introduction} ============ In the development of non-linear potential theory, the pointwise estimates of solutions involving Wolff potentials of $p$-Laplacian type elliptic equations on the Euclidean spaces due to Kilpeläinen-Malý [@Kilp-Mal1] and gradient estimates due to [@Duz-Min; @Kuusi-Min1] are well known, which rely on $C^{1,\alpha}$-estimates of the $p$-Laplacian established earlier in, for instance [@Dib; @Tolk]. The [*sub-elliptic*]{} analogue of [@Kilp-Mal1] also holds due to Trudinger-Wang [@Tru-Wang1]. However, adequate regularity estimates of the horizontal gradient for degenerate sub-elliptic equations of $p$-Laplacian type on the Heisenberg group, was unavailable until [@Zhong; @Muk-Zhong; @Muk0; @Muk1], in the last years. It is therefore natural to consider the associated potential estimates of the horizontal gradient and this is the purpose of the present contribution. In this paper, we consider equations of the type $$\label{eq:maineq} -{\operatorname{div}_{\!_H}}a(x, {\mathfrak{X} }u) = \mu \quad\text{in}\ {\Omega}\subseteq{\mathbb{H}}^n,$$ where ${\Omega}$ is a domain and $\mu$ is a Radon measure with $|\mu|({\Omega})<\infty$ and $\mu({\mathbb{H}}^n{\setminus}{\Omega})=0$; hence the equation can be considered as defined in all of ${\mathbb{H}}^n$. Here we denote ${\mathfrak{X} }u = (X_1u,\ldots, X_{2n}u)$ as the horizontal gradient of $u:{\Omega}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ (see Section \[sec:Prelim\]). We shall take up the following structural assumptions throughout the paper: the continuous function $a:{\Omega}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ is assumed to be $C^1$ in the gradient variable and satisfies the following structure condition for every $x,y\in{\Omega}$ and $z,\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, $$\label{eq:str} \begin{aligned} (|z|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|\xi|^2\leq {\big\langle D_z a(x,z)\xi,\xi\big\rangle}&\leq L (|z|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|\xi|^2; \\ |a(x,z)-a(y,z)|&\leq L' |z|(|z|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|x-y|^\alpha, \end{aligned}$$ where $L,L'\geq 1, s\geq 0$, $\alpha\in(0,1]$ and $p \geq 2$. The sub-elliptic $p$-Laplacian equation with measure data, given by $$\label{eq:eq} -{\operatorname{div}_{\!_H}}(|{{\mathfrak{X} }u}|^{p-2}{\mathfrak{X} }u) = \mu,$$ is a prototype of the equation with for the case $s=0$ and $s$ is introduced in for regularization purposes. In order to develop the potential theory, one has to introduce the sub-elliptic analogue of the classical Wolff potentials, i.e. $$\label{eq:Wolfdef} {\boldsymbol{W}^\mu_{\beta,p}}(x_0,R) := \int^{R}_0 \Big( \frac{|\mu|(B_\varrho(x_0))}{\varrho^{Q-\beta p}}\Big)^\frac{1}{p-1}\frac{d\varrho}{\varrho}\qquad \forall\ \beta\in (0,Q/p],$$ where $Q=2n+2$ is the homogeneous dimension. Now we state our main result. \[thm:mainthm\] Let $u\in C^1({\Omega})$ be a solution of equation , with $\mu\in L^1({\Omega}), p\geq 2$ and $a:{\Omega}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}\to {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying the structure condition . Then there exist constants $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ and ${\bar R}={\bar R}(n,p,L,L',\alpha,\operatorname{dist}(x_0,{\partial}{\Omega}))>0$, such that the estimate $$\label{eq:mainest} |{\mathfrak{X} }u(x_0)|\,\leq\, c{\boldsymbol{W}^\mu_{\frac{1}{p},p}}(x_0,2R) + c{\vint}_{B_R(x_0)}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}$$ holds for any $x_0\in{\mathbb{H}}^n$, whenever $B_{2R}(x_0)\subset{\Omega}$ and $0<R\leq {\bar R}$. Furthermore, if $a(x,z)$ is independent of $x$, then hold for any $0<R<\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{dist}(x_0,{\partial}{\Omega})$. By a standard approximation argument, one can relax the regularity assumption on the solution $u$ and on the data $\mu$. In fact, using the well-known concept of Solutions Obtained by Limiting Approximations (SOLA) one can deal with very weak solutions of and a general measure $\mu$ with finite mass. We refer the reader to [@Duz-Min; @Kuusi-Min1] for more details. The proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] in this paper, relies on a novel technique introduced by Duzaar-Mingione [@Duz-Min] in past years after the work of Kilpeläinen-Malý, based on suitable [*comparison estimates*]{}, or in other words suitable [*harmonic replacements*]{}. In the present case, some adaptations to the sub-elliptic setting are in order. It is a well-known fact that the regularity theory for sub-elliptic PDEs is difficult due to the lack of ellipticity of the operators under consideration. A key idea in the latest developments of higher order regularity theory for such equations is that the homogeneous sub-elliptic equations behave like the inhomogeneous elliptic equations of the Euclidean setting. This aspect makes quantitative regularity estimates harder at the gradient level and one needs to estimate carefully extra-terms coming from commutators. An instance of this fact appears in Proposition \[prop:intosc0\] for the integral decay estimate, where the extra term involving $\chi$ in appears unavoidably. Similar integral estimates have been obtained previously in the Euclidean setting in [@Duz-Min; @Lieb--gen] etc. where the homogeneous equation would yield an estimate similar to , with $\chi =0$. However, in our case $\chi$ is non-zero and its source goes back to the Caccioppoli type estimates of [@Zhong; @Muk-Zhong; @Muk1], where the extra terms containing the commutator $Tu$ are locally majorized by supremum norm of gradient ${\mathfrak{X} }u$ due to a higher integrability estimate of $Tu$ obtained in [@Zhong]. Consequently, two scales $R$ and $\widetilde R$ appear in the crucial Lemma \[lem:intosc\], contrary to the corresponding Euclidean case in [@Duz-Min]. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference in the pointwise gradient estimate in the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\]. Preliminaries and Previous results {#sec:Prelim} ================================== The Heisenberg Group {#subsec:Heisenberg Group} -------------------- Here we provide the definition and properties of Heisenberg group that would be useful in this paper. For more details, we refer to [@Bonfig-Lanco-Ugu; @C-D-S-T], etc. The *Heisenberg Group*, denoted by ${\mathbb{H}}^n$ for $n\geq 1$, is identified to the Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n+1}$ with the group operation $$\label{eq:group op} x\circ y\, := \Big(x_1+y_1,\ \dots,\ x_{2n}+y_{2n},\ t+s+\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n (x_iy_{n+i}-x_{n+i}y_i)\Big)$$ for every $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_{2n},t),\, y=(y_1,\ldots,y_{2n},s)\in {\mathbb H}^n$. Thus, ${\mathbb{H}}^n$ with $\circ$ of forms a non-Abelian Lie group, whose left invariant vector fields corresponding to the canonical basis of the Lie algebra, are $$X_i= \partial_{x_i}-\frac{x_{n+i}}{2}\partial_t, \quad X_{n+i}= \partial_{x_{n+i}}+\frac{x_i}{2}\partial_t,$$ for every $1\leq i\leq n$ and the only non zero commutator $ T= \partial_t$. We have $$\label{eq:comm} [X_i\,,X_{n+i}]= T\quad \text{and}\quad [X_i\,,X_{j}] = 0\ \ \forall\ j\neq n+i,$$ and we call $X_1,\ldots, X_{2n}$ as *horizontal vector fields* and $T$ as the *vertical vector field*. Given any scalar function $ f: {\mathbb{H}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$, we denote ${\mathfrak{X} }f = (X_1f,\ldots, X_{2n}f)$ the *horizontal gradient* and ${{\mathfrak{X} }{\mathfrak{X} }}f = (X_i(X_j f))_{i,j} $ as the *horizontal Hessian*. Also, the *sub-Laplacian* operator is denoted by ${{\Delta}\,_{\!_H}}f = \sum_{j=1}^{2n}X_jX_jf $. For a vector valued function $F = (f_1,\ldots,f_{2n}) : {\mathbb{H}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, the *horizontal divergence* is defined as $${\operatorname{div}_{\!_H}}(F) = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} X_i f_i .$$ The Euclidean gradient of a scalar function $g: {\mathbb{R}}^{k} \to {\mathbb{R}}$, shall be denoted by ${\nabla}g=(D_1g,\ldots,D_{k} g)$ and the Hessian matrix by $D^2g$. The *Carnot-Carathèodory metric* (CC-metric) is defined as the length of the shortest horizontal curves connecting two points, see [@C-D-S-T], and is denoted by $d$. This is equivalent to the homogeneous metric, denoted as $ {d_{{\mathbb{H}}^n}}(x,y)= {\|y^{-1}\circ x\|_{{\mathbb{H}}^n}}$, where the homogeneous norm for $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_{2n}, t)\in {\mathbb{H}}^n$ is $$\label{eq:norm} {\|x\|_{{\mathbb{H}}^n}} := \Big(\, \sum_{i=1}^{2n} x_i^2+ |t|\, \Big)^\frac{1}{2}.$$ Throughout this article we use the CC-metric balls $B_r(x) = {\left\{y\in{\mathbb{H}}^n : d(x,y)<r\right\}}$ for $r>0$ and $ x \in {\mathbb{H}}^n $. However, by virtue of the equivalence of the metrics, all assertions for CC-balls can be restated to any homogeneous metric balls. The Haar measure of ${\mathbb{H}}^n$ is just the Lebesgue measure of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n+1}$. For a measurable set $E\subset {\mathbb{H}}^n$, we denote the Lebesgue measure as $|E|$. For an integrable function $f$, we denote $$(f)_E = {\vint}_E f{\, dx}= \frac{1}{|E|} \int_E f{\, dx}.$$ The Hausdorff dimension with respect to the metric $d$ is also the homogeneous dimension of the group $\mathbb H^n$, which shall be denoted as $Q=2n+2$, throughout this paper. Thus, for any CC-metric ball $B_r$, we have that $|B_r| = c(n)r^Q$. For $ 1\leq p <\infty$, the *Horizontal Sobolev space* $HW^{1,p}(\Omega)$ consists of functions $u\in L^p(\Omega)$ such that the distributional horizontal gradient ${\mathfrak{X} }u$ is in $L^p(\Omega\,,{\mathbb{R}}^{2n})$. $HW^{1,p}(\Omega)$ is a Banach space with respect to the norm $$\label{eq:sob norm} \| u\|_{HW^{1,p}(\Omega)}= \ \| u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}+\| {\mathfrak{X} }u\|_{L^p(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^{2n})}.$$ We define $HW^{1,p}_{{\text{\rm loc}}}(\Omega)$ as its local variant and $HW^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ as the closure of $C^\infty_0(\Omega)$ in $HW^{1,p}(\Omega)$ with respect to the norm in . The Sobolev Embedding theorem has the following version in the setting of Heisenberg group, see [@Jerison; @C-D-G; @C-D-S-T] etc. \[thm:sob emb\] Let $B_r\subset {\mathbb H}^n$ and $1<q<Q$. For all $u \in HW^{1,q}_0(B_r)$, there exists constant $c=c(n,q)>0$ such that, we have $$\label{eq:sob emb} \left(\int_{B_r}| u|^{\frac{Q q}{Q-q}}\, dx\right)^{\frac{Q-q}{Q q}} \leq\, c \left(\int_{B_r}| {\mathfrak{X} }u|^q\, dx\right)^{\frac 1 q}.$$ Hölder spaces with respect to homogeneous metrics have been defined in Folland-Stein [@Folland-Stein--book] and therefore, are sometimes known as Folland-Stein classes and denoted by $\Gamma^{\alpha}$ or $\Gamma^{\,0,\alpha}$ in some literature. However, as in [@Zhong; @Muk-Zhong], here we continue to maintain the classical notation and define $$\label{def:holderspace} C^{\,0,\alpha}({\Omega}) = {\left\{u\in L^\infty({\Omega}) : |u(x)-u(y)|\leq c\,d(x,y)^\alpha\ \forall\ x,y\in {\Omega}\right\}}$$ for $0<\alpha \leq 1$, which are Banach spaces with the norm $$\label{eq:holder norm} \|u\|_{C^{\,0,\alpha}({\Omega})} = \|u\|_{L^\infty({\Omega})}+ \sup_{x,y\in{\Omega}} \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|}{d(x,y)^\alpha}.$$ These have standard extensions to classes $C^{k,\alpha}({\Omega})$ for $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, comprising functions having horizontal derivatives up to order $k$ in $C^{\,0,\alpha}({\Omega})$; their local counterparts are denoted as $C^{k,\alpha}_{\text{\rm loc}}({\Omega})$. The Morrey embedding theorem is the following. \[thm:mor emb\] Let $B_r\subset {\mathbb H}^n$ and $q>Q$. For all $u \in HW^{1,q}_0(B_r)\cap C(\bar B_r)$, there exists constant $c=c(n,q)>0$ such that, we have $$\label{eq:mor emb} |u(x)-u(y)| \leq\, c\,d(x,y)^{1-Q/q} \left(\int_{B_r}| {\mathfrak{X} }u|^q\, dx\right)^{\frac 1 q}, \quad\forall\ x,y\in B_r.$$ Sub-elliptic equations ---------------------- Here, we enlist some of the properties and results previously known for sub-elliptic equations of the form . First, we recall that the structure condition implies the monotonicity and ellipticity inequalities, as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:monotone} {\big\langle a(x,z_1)-a(x,z_2),z_1-z_2\big\rangle}&\geq c(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2} |z_1-z_2|^2\\ \label{eq:ellip} {\big\langle a(x,z),z\big\rangle}&\geq c(|z|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|z|^2 \end{aligned}$$ for some $c= c(n,p,L)>0$. This ensures existence and local uniqueness of weak solution $u\in HW^{1,p}({\Omega})$ of equation from the classical theory of monotone operators, see [@Kind-Stamp]. We denote $u$ as the precise representative, hereafter. The regularity and apriori estimates of the homogeneous equation corresponding to with freezing of the coefficients, is necessary. Therefore, for any $x_0\in{\mathbb{H}}^n$, we consider the equation $$\label{eq:frzeq} {\operatorname{div}_{\!_H}}a(x_0, {\mathfrak{X} }u) = 0 \quad\text{in}\ {\Omega}.$$ Now we recall the following zero-order potential estimate due to Trudinger-Wang [@Tru-Wang1 Theorem 5.1], which is the sub-elliptic analogue of the classical Wolff potential estimate of Kilpeläinen-Malý [@Kilp-Mal1]. \[thm:truwang\] If $u$ is a weak solution of the equation with $a(x_0,z)$ satisfying the condition , then there exists $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ and ${\bar R}={\bar R}(n,p,L)>0$ such that the estimate $$\label{eq:truwang} |u(x_0)|\,\leq\, c{\boldsymbol{W}^\mu_{1,p}}(x_0,2R) + c|\sup_{{\partial}B_R} u|$$ holds for any $x_0\in{\Omega}$ and $0<R\leq {\bar R}$, whenever $B_{2R}(x_0)\subset{\Omega}$. The following theorem ensures that the weak solutions are $C^1$ and provides necessary estimates. We refer to [@Zhong; @Muk-Zhong; @Muk1] for the proofs. \[thm:c1alpha\] If $u$ is a weak solution of the equation with $a(x_0,z)$ satisfying the condition , then ${\mathfrak{X} }u$ is locally Hölder continuous. Moreover, there exists constants $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ and $\beta=\beta(n,p,L)\in (0,1/p)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:lipest} (i)\ \ &\sup_{B_{\tau R}}\ |{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p\leq c(1-\tau)^{-Q}{\vint}_{B_R} (|{\mathfrak{X} }u|^2+s^2)^\frac{p}{2}{\, dx}\quad\text{for any}\,\ \tau\in(0,1);\\ \label{eq:gradest} (ii)\ \ &{\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\varrho}|^p{\, dx}\leq c\big(\varrho/R\big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_{R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|^2+s^2)^\frac{p}{2}{\, dx},\end{aligned}$$ for every concentric $B_\varrho\subseteq B_R\subset{\Omega}$ and $0<\varrho\leq R$. In addition, the sub-elliptic reverse Hölder inequality, see [@ZGold; @Min-Z-Zhong], and Gehring’s lemma, implies that there exists $\chi_0=\chi_0(n,p,L)>1$ such that we have $$\label{eq:subgehring} \Big({\vint}_{B_{r/2}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u| +s)^{\chi_0 p}{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{\chi_0} \leq c{\vint}_{B_{r}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u| +s)^p{\, dx}$$ which, together with , yields $$\label{eq:lip1} \sup_{B_{R/2}}\ |{\mathfrak{X} }u| \leq c\Big({\vint}_{B_{3R/4}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u| +s)^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}\leq c{\vint}_{B_{R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u| +s){\, dx}.$$ We end this section by recalling the notion of De Giorgi’s class of functions in this setting. This would be required for Proposition \[prop:intosc0\], in Section \[sec:est\]. Given a metric ball $B_{\rho_0}=B_{\rho_0}(x_0)\subset {\mathbb H}^n$, the De Giorgi’s class $DG^+(B_{\rho_0})$ consists of functions $v\in HW^{1,2}(B_{\rho_0})\cap L^\infty(B_{\rho_0})$, which satisfy the inequality $$\label{eq:DG} \int_{B_{\rho'}}|{\mathfrak{X} }(v-k)^+|^2\, dx\le \frac{\gamma}{(\rho-\rho')^2} \int_{B_\rho}|(v-k)^+|^2\, dx+\chi^2| A_{k,\rho}^+|^{1-\frac{2}{Q}+\epsilon}$$ for some $\gamma, \chi,\epsilon>0$, where $ A_{k,\rho}^+=\{ x\in B_\rho: (v-k)^+=\max (v-k,0)>0\}$ for any arbitrary $k\in{\mathbb{R}}$, the balls $B_{\rho'},B_\rho$ and $B_{\rho_0}$ are concentric with $0<\rho'<\rho\le \rho_0$. The class $DG^-(B_{\rho_0})$ is similarly defined and $DG(B_{\rho_0})= DG^+(B_{\rho_0})\cap DG^-(B_{\rho_0})$. All properties of classical De Giorgi class functions, also hold for these classes. Estimates of the horizontal gradient {#sec:est} ==================================== In this section, we show several comparison estimates along the lines of [@Kilp-Mal1; @Duz-Min] ultimately leading to a pointwise estimate of the horizontal gradient. Here onwards we fix $x_0\in{\mathbb{H}}^n$ and denote $B_\varrho = B_\varrho(x_0) $ for every $\varrho>0$. Also, we denote all constants as $c$, the values of which may vary from line to line but they are positive and dependent only on $n,p,L$, unless explicitly specified otherwise. In the following, first we prove an integral decay estimate of solutions of the equation , that is sharper than . Similar estimates have been shown in the Euclidean setting in [@Lieb--gen; @Duz-Min] etc. We remark that the pointwise oscillation estimates for the gradient obtained in [@Zhong; @Muk-Zhong; @Muk1] are slightly different from that in [@Dib; @Tolk; @Lieb--bound], which makes the proof of the following proposition significantly shorter. \[prop:intosc0\] Let $B_{r_0}\subset {\Omega}$ and $u\in C^1({\Omega})$ be a solution of equation . Then there exists $\beta=\beta(n,p,L)\in (0,1/p)$ and $c=c(n,p,L)>0$, such that for all $0<\varrho<r<r_0$, we have $$\label{eq:intosc0} {\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}\leq c\left(\frac{\varrho}{r}\right)^\beta \Big[{\vint}_{B_r}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_r}|{\, dx}+ \chi r^\beta\Big]$$ with $\chi= M(r_0)/r_0^\beta$, where $M(r_0)=\max_{1\le i\le 2n}\sup_{B_{r_0}} |X_i u|$. Given $B_{r_0}\subset {\Omega}$, let us denote $M(\rho)=\max_{1\le i\le 2n}\sup_{B_{\rho}} |X_i u|$ and $$\label{eq:Mom} \omega(\rho)=\max_{1\le i\le 2n}\operatorname{osc}_{B_{\rho}} X_i u \quad\text{and}\quad I(\rho) = {\vint}_{B_\rho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\rho}|{\, dx}$$ for every $0<\rho<r_0$. Hence, note that $\omega(\rho)\leq 2M(\rho)$. Now, we recall the oscillation lemma previously proved, see [@Muk1 Lemma 4.14], that there exists $s=s(n,p,L)\ge 0$ such that for every $0<r\leq r_0/16$, we have $$\label{mur4r'} \omega(r) \leq (1-2^{-s})\omega(8r) + 2^s M({r_0})\Big(\frac{r}{{r_0}}\Big)^\beta,$$ for some $\beta=\beta(n,p,L)\in (0,1/p)$. A standard iteration on , see for instance [@Giu Lemma 7.3], implies that for every $0<\varrho<r\leq r_0$, we have $$\label{oscom} \begin{aligned} \omega(\varrho)\leq c\Big[\left(\frac{\varrho}{r}\right)^\beta \omega(r)+\chi \varrho^\beta\Big]=c\left(\frac{\varrho}{r}\right)^\beta \big[\omega(r)+\chi r^\beta\big] \end{aligned}$$ where $\chi= M(r_0)/r_0^\beta$ and $c=c(n,p,L)>0$. If $\varrho \leq \delta r$ for some $\delta\in (0,1)$, it is easy to see from , that for some $c=c(n,p,L)>0$, we have $$\label{I<om} I(\varrho) \leq c\,\omega(\varrho) \leq c\,\delta^{-\beta}\left(\frac{\varrho}{r}\right)^\beta[\omega(\delta r)+\chi r^\beta].$$ Now we claim that, there exists $\delta=\delta(n,p,L)\in (0,1)$ such that, the inequality $$\label{claimdel} \omega(\delta r) \leq c [I(r) +\chi r^\beta]$$ holds for some $c=c(n,p,L)>0$. Then and together, yields ; hence proving the claim is enough to complete the proof. To this end, let us denote $r'=\delta r$, where $\delta\in(0,1)$ is to be chosen later. Notice that, to prove the claim , we can make the apriori assumption: $$\label{assM} \omega(r)\geq M(r_0) (r/r_0)^\sigma\quad \text{with}\ \sigma =1/p\ \text{for}\ p\geq 2, \ \ \text{and}\ \ \sigma =1/2\ \text{for}\ 1<p<2,$$ since, otherwise holds trivially with $\beta=\sigma$. Now, we consider the following complementary cases. This is very standard for elliptic estimates, see [@Dib; @Tolk; @Lieb--gen; @Duz-Min]. **Case 1**: For at least one index $l\in\{1,\ldots,2n\}$, we have either $$\Big|B_{4r'}\cap\Big\{X_lu<\frac{M(4r')}{4}\Big\}\Big| \leq \theta |B_{4r'}| \ \ \text{or}\ \ \Big|B_{4r'}\cap\Big\{ X_lu>-\frac{M(4r')}{4}\Big\}\Big| \leq \theta |B_{4r'}|.$$ It has been shown in [@Muk-Zhong; @Muk1] that under assumption , if Case 1 holds with choice of a small enough $\theta = \theta(n,p,L)>0$, then $X_iu\in DG(B_{2r'})$ for every $i\in \{1,\ldots,2n\}$. Then, the standard local boundedness estimates of De Giorgi class functions [@Giu Theorem 7.2 and 7.3] follow; the fact that $X_iu$ belongs to $DG^+(B_{2r'})$ and $DG^-(B_{2r'})$, yields the following respective estimates for any $\vartheta < M(r')$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{supdg} &\sup_{B_{r'}}(X_iu-\vartheta) \leq c\Big[{\vint}_{B_{2r'}}(X_iu-\vartheta)^+{\, dx}+\chi r'^\beta\Big], \\ \label{infdg} &\sup_{B_{r'}}(\vartheta-X_iu) \leq c\Big[{\vint}_{B_{2r'}}(\vartheta-X_iu)^+{\, dx}+\chi r'^\beta\Big],\end{aligned}$$ for every $i\in \{1,\ldots,2n\}$. Adding and with $\vartheta = (X_iu)_{B_{r'}}$, we get $$\operatorname{osc}_{B_{r'}}X_iu\leq c\Big[{\vint}_{B_{2r'}}|X_iu-(X_iu)_{B_{r'}}|{\, dx}+\chi r'^\beta\Big]\leq c[I(r)+\chi r^\beta]$$ for some $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ and $\delta<1/2$, which further implies for this case. **Case 2**: With $\theta=\theta(n,p,L)>0$ as in Case 1, for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,2n\}$, we have $$\Big|B_{4r'}\cap\Big\{X_lu<\frac{M(4r')}{4}\Big\}\Big| > \theta |B_{4r'}| \ \ \text{and}\ \ \Big|B_{4r'}\cap\Big\{ X_lu>-\frac{M(4r')}{4}\Big\}\Big| > \theta |B_{4r'}|.$$ First, we notice that the above assertions respectively imply $\inf_{B_{4r'}}X_iu\leq M(4r')/4$ and $\sup_{B_{4r'}}X_iu\geq -M(4r')/4$ for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,2n\}$. These further imply that $$\label{ocsup} \omega(4r')\geq M(4r')-M(4r')/4=3M(4r')/4.$$ Now, let us denote $L=\max_{1\leq i\leq 2n}|(X_iu)_{B_r}| = |(X_ku)_{B_r}|$ for some $k\in\{1,\ldots,2n\}$. Then note that, if $L>2\omega(4r')$ then using , we have $$|(X_ku)_{B_r}|-|X_ku|\geq 2\omega(4r')-M(4r') \geq M(4r')/2 \quad\text{in} \ B_{4r'},$$ which, together with the choice of $\delta<1/4$, further implies $$\label{c21} I(r)\geq c(n){\vint}_{B_{4r'}}|X_k u-(X_ku)_{B_r}|{\, dx}\geq \frac{c(n)}{2}M(4r')\geq \frac{c(n)}{4}\omega(4r').$$ If $L\leq 2\omega(4r')=2\omega(4\delta r)$ then, we choose $\delta<1/8$ so that using $\omega(r/2)\leq 2M(r/2)$ and i.e. $M(r/2)\leq c{\vint}_{B_r}|{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}$ respectively on , we obtain $$\label{llest1} \begin{aligned} \omega(4\delta r)&\leq c(8\delta)^\beta [\omega(r/2)+\chi r^\beta]\leq c\delta^\beta\Big[{\vint}_{B_r}|{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}+\chi r^\beta\Big] \\ &\leq c_1\delta^\beta[ I(r)+ L+\chi r^\beta] \leq c_1\delta^\beta[ I(r)+ 2\omega(4\delta r)+\chi r^\beta] \end{aligned}$$ for some $c_1=c_1(n,p,L)>0$, where the second last inequality of the above is a consequence of triangle inequality and the definition of $I$ and $L$. Now we make a further reduction of $\delta$, such that $2c_1\delta^\beta<1$, so that imply $$\label{c22} \omega(4\delta r)\leq \frac{c_1\delta^\beta}{1-2c_1\delta^\beta} \big[I(r)+\chi r^\beta\big].$$ Thus and together shows that holds for Case 2, as well. Therefore, we have shown that claim holds for both cases and the proof is finished. Comparison estimates -------------------- Here, we prove certain comparison estimates that are essential for the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\], by localizing the equations and . Here onwards, we fix $R>0$ such that $B_{2R}\subset {\Omega}$. Letting $u\in C^1({\Omega})$ as a solution of , we consider the Dirichlet problem $$\label{eq:homdir} \begin{cases} {\operatorname{div}_{\!_H}}a(x,{\mathfrak{X} }w)= 0\ \ \text{in}\ B_{2R};\\ \ w-u\in HW^{1,p}_0(B_{2R}). \end{cases}$$ The following is the first comparison lemma where the density of the Wolff potential appears in the estimates. The proof is similar to that of [@Duz-Min], see also [@Boc-Gal]. \[lem:homcomp\] Given a solution of equation $u\in C^1({\Omega})$, if $w\in HW^{1,p}(B_{2R})$ is a weak solution of the equation and $p\geq 2$, then there exists $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ such that, $$\label{eq:homdirest} {\vint}_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\leq c\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2R})}{R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1}.$$ By testing equation with $\varphi\in HW^{1,p}_0(B_{2R})$ and using equation , we have the weak formulation $$\label{eq:weakhomdir} \int_{B_{2R}}{\big\langle a(x,{\mathfrak{X} }u)-a(x,{\mathfrak{X} }w),{\mathfrak{X} }\varphi\big\rangle}{\, dx}= \int_{B_{2R}}\varphi\, d\mu$$ which we estimate with appropriate choices of $\varphi$, in order to show . First, we assume $2\leq p\leq Q$. For any $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we denote the following truncations $$\psi_j = \max\bigg\{-\frac{j}{R^\gamma}, \min\Big\{\frac{u-w}{m},\frac{j}{R^\gamma}\Big\}\bigg\},\ \varphi_j = \max\bigg\{-\frac{1}{R^\gamma}, \min\Big\{\frac{u-w}{m}-\psi_j,\frac{1}{R^\gamma}\Big\}\bigg\},$$ where the scaling constants $m,\gamma\geq 0$ are to be chosen later. Notice that, for each $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we have $|\varphi_j|\leq 1/R^\gamma$ and ${\mathfrak{X} }\varphi_j = \frac{1}{m}({\mathfrak{X} }u-{\mathfrak{X} }w){\mathbbm{1}}_{E_j}$ where $$E_j=\{m j/R^\gamma<|u-w|\leq m(j+1)/R^\gamma\}.$$ Thus, taking $\varphi=\varphi_j$ in , it is easy to obtain $$\label{eq:cj} \int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j} |{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\,\leq\, \frac{cm}{R^\gamma}|\mu|(B_{2R})$$ for some $c=c(n,p,L)>0$, by using and $p\geq 2$. Now, using Hölder’s inequality and , we obtain $$\label{eq:1cj} \begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j}&|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\\ &\leq |E_j|^\frac{p-1}{p}\Big(\int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j} |{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}\\ &\leq c|E_j|^\frac{p-1}{p}(m /R^\gamma)^\frac{1}{p}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p}\\ &\leq c(m /R^\gamma)^\frac{1}{p}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p} \bigg[\frac{1}{(m j/R^\gamma)^\kappa}\int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j} |u-w|^\kappa{\, dx}\bigg]^\frac{p-1}{p} \end{aligned}$$ with $\kappa=Q/(Q-1)$, where the last inequality of the above follows from the fact that $|u-w|^\kappa>(m j/R^\gamma)^\kappa$ in $E_j$. Also from , note that for any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{eq:dj} \begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}\cap\{|u-w|\leq m N/R^\gamma\}} |{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}&= \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\\ &\leq \frac{cm}{R^\gamma}N|\mu|(B_{2R}). \end{aligned}$$ Now, we estimate the whole integral using and , as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}&= \int_{B_{2R}\cap\{|u-w|\leq m N/R^\gamma\}} |{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\\ &\qquad\quad+ \int_{B_{2R}\cap\{|u-w|> m N/R^\gamma\}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\\ &\leq |B_{2R}|^\frac{p-1}{p}\Big(\int_{B_{2R}\cap\{|u-w|\leq m N/R^\gamma\}} |{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}\\ &\qquad\quad+ \sum_{j=N}^{\infty} \int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\\ &\leq c(m /R^\gamma)^\frac{1}{p}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p} \bigg(|B_{2R}|^\frac{p-1}{p}N^\frac{1}{p} \\ &\qquad\quad+ \sum_{j=N}^{\infty}\Big[\frac{1}{(m j/R^\gamma)^\kappa}\int_{B_{2R}\cap E_j} |u-w|^\kappa{\, dx}\Big]^\frac{p-1}{p}\bigg)\end{aligned}$$ Using Sobolev inequality on the second term of the above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}&\leq c(m /R^\gamma)^\frac{1}{p}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p} |B_{2R}|^\frac{p-1}{p}N^\frac{1}{p} \\ &\ + c(m /R^\gamma)^{\frac{1}{p}-\frac{\kappa(p-1)}{p}}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p}\,\epsilon(N)^\frac{1}{p}\Big(\int_{B_{2R}} |{\mathfrak{X} }u-{\mathfrak{X} }w|{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{\kappa(p-1)}{p}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon(N)=\sum_{j=N}^{\infty}1/j^{\kappa(p-1)},\,\kappa=Q/(Q-1)$ and $c=c(n,p,L)>0$. Now, first we consider the case $p<Q$, so that we have $\kappa(p-1)/p<1$. Then, by applying Young’s inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}&\leq c\Big(\frac{m}{R^\gamma}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p} |B_{2R}|^\frac{p-1}{p}N^\frac{1}{p} +c\Big(\frac{m}{R^\gamma}\Big)^\frac{1+\kappa-\kappa p}{p+\kappa-\kappa p}|\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p+\kappa-\kappa p}\\ &\qquad + \epsilon(N)^\frac{1}{\kappa(p-1)}\Big(\int_{B_{2R}} |{\mathfrak{X} }u-{\mathfrak{X} }w|{\, dx}\Big) \end{aligned}$$ for some $c=c(n,p,L)>0$. Now, we make the following choice of the scaling constants, $$m = |\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p-1}\quad \text{and}\quad \gamma= (Q-p)/(p-1)$$ such that the first two terms of the above are the same. Also note that, since $p\geq 2>1+1/\kappa$, we have $\kappa(p-1)>1$ and hence, $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}1/j^{\kappa(p-1)} = \zeta(\kappa(p-1))<\infty$. Thus, for some large enough $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ $$\epsilon(N)=\sum_{j=N}^{\infty}1/j^{\kappa(p-1)}<1/2^{\kappa(p-1)}$$ and the last term of the estimate can be absolved in the right hand side. With these choices of $m,\gamma,N$, we finally obtain $$\label{eq:homfin} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\leq c |\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p-1} R^{\frac{Qp-2Q+1}{p-1}}$$ for some $c=c(n,p,L)>0$, which immediately implies . For the case of $p=Q$, the estimate also follows similary with a possibly larger $N$ and the same choices of scaling constants, i.e. $m = |\mu|(B_{2R})^{1/(Q-1)}$ and $\gamma=0$; except here we absolve the last term to the right hand side directly, without using Young’s inequality. Now we assume the $p\geq Q$. Here we simply choose $\varphi=u-w$ in and use together with Morrey’s inequality to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}&\leq c\int_{B_{2R}}|u-w|\,d\mu \leq c|\mu|(B_{2R})\sup_{B_{2R}} |u-w| \\ &\leq c|\mu|(B_{2R}) R^{1-\frac{Q}{p}} \Big(\int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}, \end{aligned}$$ which, upon using Young’s inequality, yields $$\label{eq:mordir} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\leq c |\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{p}{p-1} R^\frac{p-Q}{p-1}.$$ Then, using Hölder’s inequality and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}&\leq |B_{2R}|^\frac{p-1}{p} \Big(\int_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }u|^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}\\ &\leq c |\mu|(B_{2R})^\frac{1}{p-1} R^{\frac{Qp-2Q+1}{p-1}}\end{aligned}$$ which, just as before, implies . Thus, the proof is finished. It is evident that by using Sobolev or Morrey inequality , on , we can obtain the estimate $${\vint}_{B_{2R}}|w -u|{\, dx}\leq c\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2R})}{R^{Q-p}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1}$$ where $u$ and $w$ are the functions stated in Lemma \[lem:homcomp\]. For the next comparison estimate, we require the Dirichlet problem with freezing of the coefficients. Letting $w\in HW^{1,p}(B_{2R})$ as weak solution of , we consider $$\label{eq:frzdir} \begin{cases} {\operatorname{div}_{\!_H}}a(x_0,{\mathfrak{X} }v)= 0\ \ \text{in}\ B_R;\\ \ v-w\in HW^{1,p}_0(B_R). \end{cases}$$ \[lem:frzcomp\] Given weak solution $w\in HW^{1,p}(B_{2R})$ of , if $v\in HW^{1,p}(B_R)$ is the weak solution of equation , then there exists $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ such that $$\label{eq:frzcomp} {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }v-{\mathfrak{X} }w|^p{\, dx}\leq cL'^2R^{2\alpha}{\vint}_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|+s)^p{\, dx}.$$ First, note that by testing equation with $w-v$ and using the ellipticity , it is not difficult to show the following inequality, $$\label{eq:enbd} \int_{B_R} |{\mathfrak{X} }v|^p{\, dx}\leq c\int_{B_R} (|{\mathfrak{X} }w|+s)^p{\, dx},$$ for some $c= c(n,p,L)$; the proof is standard, see [@Muk1 Lemma 5.1] for instance. Also, testing both equations and with $w-v$, we have that $$\int_{B_{2R}} {\big\langle a(x,{\mathfrak{X} }w),{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }v\big\rangle}{\, dx}=0=\int_{B_R}{\big\langle a(x_0,{\mathfrak{X} }v),{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }v\big\rangle}{\, dx}.$$ Using the above together with and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} c\int_{B_R}&(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|^2+|{\mathfrak{X} }v|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|{\mathfrak{X} }w-{\mathfrak{X} }v|^2{\, dx}\\ &\leq \int_{B_R}{\big\langle a(x_0,{\mathfrak{X} }w)-a(x_0,{\mathfrak{X} }v),{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }v\big\rangle}{\, dx}\\ &= \int_{B_R}{\big\langle a(x_0,{\mathfrak{X} }w)-a(x,{\mathfrak{X} }w),{\mathfrak{X} }w -{\mathfrak{X} }v\big\rangle}{\, dx}\\ &\leq c L'R^\alpha \int_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|^2+|{\mathfrak{X} }v|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|{\mathfrak{X} }w| |{\mathfrak{X} }w-{\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}\end{aligned}$$ Using Young’s inequality on the last integral of the above, it is easy to get $$\int_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|^2+|{\mathfrak{X} }v|^2+s^2)^\frac{p-2}{2}|{\mathfrak{X} }w-{\mathfrak{X} }v|^2{\, dx}\leq c (L'R^\alpha)^2 \int_{B_R} (|{\mathfrak{X} }w|^2+|{\mathfrak{X} }v|^2+s^2)^\frac{p}{2}{\, dx}.$$ This, together with , is enough to prove . Combining Lemma \[lem:homcomp\] and Lemma \[lem:frzcomp\], we obtain the following comparison estimate of solution $u$ of and weak solution $v$ of . \[cor:comb\] Given a solution $u\in C^1({\Omega})$ of equation , if $w\in HW^{1,p}(B_{2R})$ is a weak solution of the equation and $v\in HW^{1,p}(B_R)$ is the weak solution of equation , then there exists $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ such that $${\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }v-{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}\leq c\big(1+(L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}\big) \bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2R})}{R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + c(L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}{\vint}_{B_{2R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}.$$ First, notice that Hölder’s inequality and imply $$\label{eq:frzcomp'} {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }v-{\mathfrak{X} }w|{\, dx}\leq c(L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p} \Big({\vint}_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|+s)^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}.$$ Hence, using and , we obtain $$\label{eq:s1} \begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }v-{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}&\leq {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }w-{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}+ {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }v-{\mathfrak{X} }w|{\, dx}\\ &\leq c\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2R})}{R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} +c(L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p} \Big({\vint}_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|+s)^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p}. \end{aligned}$$ We estimate the last integral using reverse Hölder’s inequality and Gehring’s lemma [@ZGold] similarly as ,, to obtain $$\label{eq:s2} \begin{aligned} \Big({\vint}_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|+s)^p{\, dx}\Big)^\frac{1}{p} &\leq {\vint}_{B_{2R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }w|+s){\, dx}\\ &\leq {\vint}_{B_{2R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}+ {\vint}_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u-{\mathfrak{X} }w|{\, dx}\\ &\leq {\vint}_{B_{2R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}+ c\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2R})}{R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1}, \end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from . Now it is easy to see that by combining and , the proof is finished. Proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] -------------------------------- The comparison estimates of the last subsection culminate to an integral decay estimate of the horizontal gradient of the solution $u$ of equation . The pointwise estimate of ${\mathfrak{X} }u$ shall follow thereafter, by iteration and limiting argument, thereby proving Theorem \[thm:mainthm\]. The following is the integral estimate of the horizontal gradient ${\mathfrak{X} }u$ which is induced by the integral estimate of ${\mathfrak{X} }v$ and the previous comparison estimate. \[lem:intosc\] Let $u\in C^1({\Omega})$ be a solution of the equation and let $B_{2\tilde R}\subset{\Omega}$ for some $\tilde R>0$. Then there exists $\beta=\beta(n,p,L)\in(0,1)$ and $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ such that, for every $0<\varrho < R\leq \tilde R/2$, the following estimate holds: $$\begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_\varrho}&|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}\\ &\leq c\Big(\frac{\varrho}{R}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_{2R}} |{\, dx}+ c\Big(\frac{R}{\tilde R}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_{2\tilde R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\\ &\ + c\Big(\frac{R}{\varrho}\Big)^Q\Big[\big(1+(L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}\big) \bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2R})}{R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + (L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}{\vint}_{B_{2R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\Big]\\ &\ + c\Big(\frac{R}{\tilde R}\Big)^\beta\Big[\big(1+(L'\tilde R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}\big) \bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{2\tilde R})}{\tilde R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + (L'\tilde R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}{\vint}_{B_{2\tilde R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Given $u\in C^1({\Omega})$ and $B_{\tilde R}\subset {\Omega}$, we define the comparison functions $w$ and $v$ as weak solutions of equations and , as before. Then we have $$\label{eq:io1} \begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}&\leq 2{\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }v)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}\\ &\leq 2{\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }v - ({\mathfrak{X} }v)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}+2{\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - {\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}. \end{aligned}$$ Now, we shall estimate both terms of the right hand side of seperately. Using $r=R$ and $r_0=\tilde R/2$ in , we estimate the first term of as follows, $$\begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_\varrho}&|{\mathfrak{X} }v - ({\mathfrak{X} }v)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}\\ &\leq c\Big(\frac{\varrho}{R}\Big)^\beta \Big[ {\vint}_{B_{R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }v-({\mathfrak{X} }v)_{B_R}|) + (R/\tilde R)^\beta \sup_{B_{\tilde R/2}}|{\mathfrak{X} }v|\Big]\\ &\leq c\Big(\frac{\varrho}{R}\Big)^\beta \Big[{\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_R}|{\, dx}+2 {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - {\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}+ (R/\tilde R)^\beta \sup_{B_{\tilde R/2}}|{\mathfrak{X} }v|\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ The second term of is estimated simply as $${\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - {\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}\leq c\Big(\frac{R}{\varrho}\Big)^Q{\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - {\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}.$$ Using the above two estimates in , we obtain $$\label{eq:io4} \begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}&\leq c\Big(\frac{\varrho}{R}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_R} |{\, dx}\\ &\quad + c\Big(\frac{R}{\varrho}\Big)^Q{\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - {\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}+c(R/\tilde R)^\beta \sup_{B_{\tilde R/2}}|{\mathfrak{X} }v|. \end{aligned}$$ The last term is estimated using as $$\sup_{B_{\tilde R/2}}|{\mathfrak{X} }v| \leq c{\vint}_{B_{\tilde R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }v|+s){\, dx}\leq c{\vint}_{B_{\tilde R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}+ c{\vint}_{B_{\tilde R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u-{\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx},$$ which combined with , yields $$\begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_\varrho}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_\varrho}|{\, dx}&\leq c\Big(\frac{\varrho}{R}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_R} |{\, dx}+ c\Big(\frac{R}{\tilde R}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_{\tilde R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\\ & \ + c\Big(\frac{R}{\varrho}\Big)^Q{\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - {\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}+c\Big(\frac{R}{\tilde R}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_{\tilde R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u-{\mathfrak{X} }v|{\, dx}.\end{aligned}$$ The second last term of the above is estimated from Corollary \[cor:comb\]. Now note that, since $2R\leq \tilde R$ and $B_{2\tilde R}\subset {\Omega}$, the comparison functions $w$ and $v$ can be defined in $\{u\}+HW^{1,p}_0(B_{\tilde R})$ by extension and we can derive all the previous comparison estimates in the scale of $\tilde R$. Then we estimate the last term of the above using the $\tilde R$-scaled version of Corollary \[cor:comb\]. Then, together with the elementary inequality $${\vint}_{B_R}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_R} |{\, dx}\leq 2^{Q+1}{\vint}_{B_{2R}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_{2R}} |{\, dx},$$ the proof is finished. Before the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\], we provide the following estimate of the density of Wolff potential. We refer to [@Duz-Min] for the proof. \[lem:denswolf\] Given any $h>1, x_0\in{\mathbb{H}}^n$ and $r>0$, if $r_i= r/(2h)^i$ for every $i\in \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$, then for any $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have $$\label{eq:denswolf} \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{r_i}(x_0))}{r_{i}^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} \leq \bigg(\frac{2^\frac{Q-1}{p-1}}{\log(2)}+\frac{(2h)^\frac{Q-1}{p-1}}{\log(2h)}\bigg){\boldsymbol{W}^\mu_{\frac{1}{p},p}}(x_0,2r).$$ Finally, now we are ready prove the main theorem, Theorem \[thm:mainthm\]. In this proof, we shall fix some arbitrary $x_0\in {\mathbb{H}}^n$ and denote the metric balls $B_\rho=B_\rho(x_0)$ as before. Let us fix any arbitrary $R$, so that $$\label{eq:r0} 0<R\leq \bar R=\bar R(n,p,L,L',\alpha,\operatorname{dist}(x_0,{\partial}{\Omega})),$$ where ${\bar R}$ shall be chosen as small as required as the proof proceeds and finally the minimum of every reductions of $\bar R$, is to be considered. To begin with, we consider $\bar R\leq \min\{\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{dist}(x_0,{\partial}{\Omega}), L'^{-1/\alpha}\}$. Let $0<r<\tilde r\leq \bar R$ and observe that we have $B_{2r}\subset B_{2\tilde r}\subset {\Omega}$ and $L'r^\alpha\leq L'\tilde r^\alpha\leq 1$. Now, let us choose $h=h(n,p,L)> 1$ large enough such that we have $ (c/h)^\beta \leq 1/2$, where the constant $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ is as in Lemma \[lem:intosc\]. Then we apply the Lemma \[lem:intosc\] (with $r=2R$ and $\tilde r= 2\tilde R$) and $\varrho=r/2h$, to obtain $$\label{eq:intosc1} \begin{aligned} {\vint}_{B_{r/2h}}&|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_{r/2h}}|{\, dx}\\ &\leq \frac{1}{2} {\vint}_{B_r}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_r} |{\, dx}+ c\Big(\frac{r}{\tilde r}\Big)^\beta {\vint}_{B_{\tilde r}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\\ &\quad +c_0\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{r})}{r^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + c_0 (L'r^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}{\vint}_{B_{r}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\\ &\quad +c\Big(\frac{r}{\tilde r}\Big)^\beta\bigg[\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{\tilde r})}{\tilde r^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + (L'\tilde r^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}{\vint}_{B_{\tilde r}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\bigg] \end{aligned}$$ for some $c_0=c_0(n,p,L)\geq 1$, which we fix temporarily. With $h$ and $c_0$ of the above being fixed, let us denote the sequence $R_i = R/(2h)^i$ for every $i\in \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ and $$\label{eq:ak} A_i= {\vint}_{B_{R_i}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_{R_i}}|{\, dx}\quad \text{and}\quad K_i ={\vint}_{B_{R_i}}|{\mathfrak{X} }u|{\, dx}.$$ We make use of the inductive estimation technique of [@Duz-Min], to show that $K_m \leq c\mathcal M$ for all $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, where $c=c(n,p,L)>0$ is independent of $m$ and $$\mathcal M = {\vint}_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}+ {\boldsymbol{W}^\mu_{\frac{1}{p},p}}(x_0,2R).$$ Observe that $A_0+K_0 \leq 2{\vint}_{B_R}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\leq 2\mathcal M$. Let us consider the following induction hypothesis: $$\label{eq:indh} \exists\ c=c(n,p,L)>0, \quad\text{such that}\quad K_m\leq c\mathcal M\quad \forall\ m\in\{1,2,\ldots, N\}.$$ It is easy to see that, for any $m\geq 0$, $$\label{eq:Kest} \begin{aligned} K_{m+1}&= K_0 + \sum_{i=0}^m (K_{i+1}-K_i) \leq K_0+\sum_{i=0}^m {\vint}_{B_{R_{i+1}}} |{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_{R_i}}|{\, dx}\\ &\leq K_0+\sum_{i=0}^m (2h)^Q{\vint}_{B_{R_{i}}} |{\mathfrak{X} }u - ({\mathfrak{X} }u)_{B_{R_i}}|{\, dx}= K_0+(2h)^Q\sum_{i=0}^m A_i , \end{aligned}$$ and we shall continue the estimate by running an iteration on . We substitute $r=R_{i-1}$ for and $\tilde r=R$ in to obtain $$\begin{aligned} A_i &\leq \frac{1}{2}A_{i-1} + c\bigg(\frac{R_{i-1}}{R}\bigg)^\beta \bigg[{\vint}_{B_{R}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}+ \bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{R})}{R^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1}\bigg]\\ &\quad + c_0\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{R_{i-1}})}{R_{i-1}^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + c_0 (L'R_{i-1}^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}{\vint}_{B_{R_{i-1}}}(|{\mathfrak{X} }u|+s){\, dx}\\ &\leq \frac{1}{2}A_{i-1} + c\bigg(\frac{R_{i-1}}{R}\bigg)^\beta\mathcal M + c_0\bigg(\frac{|\mu|(B_{R_{i-1}})}{R_{i-1}^{Q-1}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{p-1} + c_0 (L'R_{i-1}^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p} (K_{i-1}+s) \end{aligned}$$ for every $i\in\{1,2,\ldots\}$, where we have used Lemma \[lem:denswolf\] with $N=1$ to get the latter inequality of the above. Now, we take summation of the above estimate over $i\in\{1,2,\ldots, N\}$, to obtain the following: $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i=1}^N A_i &\leq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} A_{i} + c\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\Big(\frac{R_{i}}{R}\Big)^\beta\mathcal M +c_0\Big[ {\boldsymbol{W}^\mu_{\frac{1}{p},p}}(x_0,2R) + \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}(L'R_{i}^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}(K_{i}+s)\Big]\\ &\leq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} A_{i} + c_0\Big[ \mathcal M + \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}(L'R_{i}^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}(K_{i}+s)\Big] \end{aligned}$$ where we have used Lemma \[lem:denswolf\] again for $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and enlarged $c_0$ over $c$ and the constants dependent on $h$. Then, by adding $A_0$ to both sides of the above, iterating on the terms $\sum_{i=0}^N A_i$ and using induction hypothesis , we obtain $$\label{eq:oscit} \begin{aligned} \sum_{i=0}^N A_i &\leq 2A_0 + 2c_0\Big[ \mathcal M + \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}(L'R_{i}^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}(K_{i}+s)\Big]\\ &\leq 2c_0\mathcal M \Big[2+\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} (L'R_{i}^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}\Big]\leq 2c_0\Big[2+\frac{(L'R^\alpha)^\frac{2}{p}}{1-(2h)^{-2\alpha/p}}\Big]\mathcal M\leq 6c_0\mathcal M, \end{aligned}$$ with a further reduction of $\bar R$. Using for $m=N$ together with , we easily find that the hypothesis also holds for $m=N+1$. Thus, holds for every $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and hence, we have $$|{\mathfrak{X} }u(x_0)|=\lim_{m\to \infty}K_m \leq c\mathcal M.$$ The proof is completed with the final observation that, if $a(x,z)$ is independent of $x$ then we can assume $L'=0$ and all preceeding steps hold for any $R>0$, whenever $B_{2R}(x_0)\subset{\Omega}$. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- S.M. has been partially supported by the projects entitled Analyysin ja dynamiikan huippuyksikkö (The Centre of Excellence in Analysis and Dynamics Research) and “Variationaaliset integraalit geometr”. Y.S. is partially supported by the Simons foundation.

$\ $ **Prediction of Ordered Random Effects in a Simple Small Area Model** Yaakov Malinovsky$^{*}$ and Yosef Rinott$^{*,**}$ *$^*$The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and $^{**}$LUISS, Rome* > [*Abstract:*]{} Prediction of a vector of ordered parameters or part of it arises naturally in the context of Small Area Estimation (SAE). For example, one may want to estimate the parameters associated with the top ten areas, the best or worst area, or a certain percentile. We use a simple SAE model to show that estimation of ordered parameters by the corresponding ordered estimates of each area separately does not yield good results with respect to MSE. Shrinkage-type predictors, with an appropriate amount of shrinkage for the particular problem of ordered parameters, are considerably better, and their performance is close to that of the optimal predictors, which cannot in general be computed explicitly. > > [*Key words and phrases:*]{} Empirical Bayes predictor, Shrinkage, Order statistics, Linear predictor. Introduction ============ We study the prediction of ordered random effects in a simple model, motivated by Small Area Estimation (SAE), under a quadratic loss function. The model is $$\label{Model:main} y_{i}=\mu+u_i+e_i,\quad i=1,...,m,$$ where $y_i$ is observed, $\mu$ is an unknown constant, $u_i\stackrel{{iid}}\sim \textit{F}(0,\sigma_u^2)$ and $e_i\stackrel{{iid}}\sim \textit{G}(0,\sigma_e^2)$, and F and G are general distributions with zero means and variances $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$. Set ${\bf{y}}=(y_1,...,y_m), {\bf{u}}=(u_1,...,u_m)$, and ${\bf{e}}=(e_1,...,e_m)$, and assume that $\bf{u}$ and $\bf{e}$ are independent. Set $\theta_i=\mu+u_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta} =(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_m)$. The purpose is to predict the ordered random variables $\theta_{(i)}$, $\left(\theta_{(1)}\leq\theta_{(2)}\leq...\leq\theta_{(m)}\right)$ from the observed $y$’s. In SAE the random effect $\theta_{i}$ represent the $i$th area parameter. The above model is a special case of the SAE model of Fay and Herriot (1979) that was presented in the context of estimating per capita income for small places (i.e., population less than 1,000) from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. The original Fay-Herriot model allows different $\mu_{i}$ of the form $\mu_{i}=x_i'\beta$, where $x_i$ is a vector of covariates for area $i$, $\beta$ is a vector of coefficients that are common to all areas, $u_i$ is a random effect of area $i$, and $\theta_i=\mu_i+u_i$, the value of interest in area $i$, is measured with a sampling error $e_i$. The SAE literature is concerned with the estimation of $\theta_i$; see, e.g., Rao (2003). However, it is also natural to consider the ordered parameters ${\theta}_{(i)}$ if one is interested in estimating jointly the best, second best, median, or worst area’s parameter, for example, or in studying the best or worst $k$ areas. In these cases, one is interested in many or all ranked parameters, and not just a single $\theta_{(i)}$. When we have more than one observation per area, the model is known as the Battese-Harter-Fuller model (1988), see also Pfeffermann (2002), which we again simplify as in (\[Model:main\]) : $$\label{Model:Fuller} y_{ij}=\mu+u_i+e_{ij},\quad j=1,\ldots,n,\,\,i=1,\ldots,m.$$ Typically in SAE $m$ is large, while $n$ is small; however, we consider both small and large $m$. Taking area means, as justified by sufficiency, the latter model reduces to that of with $\sigma_e^2$ replaced by $\sigma_e^2/n$. When the $\sigma_e^2$ is unknown, it should be estimated. A main idea in SAE is to borrow strength across the different areas in order to predict effects. This can be applied also to variance estimation when some of the areas have only one observation; however, this is beyond the scope of the present paper, and for simplicity we assume the same number of observations $n$ in each area. To see the difference between predicting the unordered vector $\boldsymbol\theta$, and the ordered vector ${\boldsymbol\theta}_{(\,)}=(\theta_{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{(m)})$, consider estimating the maximum $\theta_{(m)}$, and two natural unbiased predictors of $\theta_i$, $\widehat{\theta}_i=y_i$ or $\widehat{\theta}_i = E(\theta_i| \bf y)$. By Jensen’s inequality $\widehat{ \theta}_{(m)} :=\max_i\widehat{\theta}_i$ is an overestimate in expectation of $\theta_{(m)}$ in the case of $\widehat{\theta}_i=y_i$, and an underestimate if we use $\widehat{\theta}_i = E(\theta_i| \bf y)$. Such biases increase in $m$, which in SAE and in many parts of this paper is taken to be large. Similar considerations hold for other ordered parameters. With different loss functions, prediction of the ordered parameters appears in Wright, Stern and Cressie (2003), and prediction and ranking of small area parameters appear in Shen and Louis (1998). Their Bayesian methods require heavy numerical calculations, and are sensitive to the choice of priors; see Shen and Louis (2000). If $\mu$ and $\sigma_u^2$ and/or $\sigma_e^2$ are known, we have a Bayesian model in or , and under quadratic loss, the optimal predictors of the ordered parameters would be of the form ${\widehat{\theta}\,}_{(i)}=E(\theta_{(i)}|\bf y)$, where the expectation depends on $\mu$, $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$, (and the distribution $F$ and $G$). If $\mu$ and $\sigma_u^2$ and/or $\sigma_e^2$ are unknown, we adopt an Empirical Bayes approach, and estimate them from the data. However, even in the normal case, analytical computation of $E(\theta_{(i)}|\bf y)$ seems intractable for $m>2$, and even more so under other distributions. Numerical computations could be done, and in fact, this is the Bayesian approach taken in principle by Wright et al (2003) and Shen and Louis (1998, 2000); the precise quantities they compute are different due to the fact that they use different loss functions. In this paper we avoid such Bayesian calculations and present simple predictors whose performance is close to optimal; furthermore, due to their simplicity, they are more robust against model misspecification. Our starting point is the following. Consider the predictor $\widehat{\theta}_{i}=E(\theta_{i}|\bf y)$ of $\theta_i$; under the assumption that $F$ and $G$ are normal, we have $\widehat{\theta}_{i}=\widehat{\theta}_{i}({\mu,\gamma^*})=\gamma^*y_i+(1-\gamma^*)\mu,$ where $\gamma^*=\sigma_u^2/(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)$. For unknown $\mu$, we plug in the estimator $\widehat{\mu}=\overline{y}$, and obtain the shrinkage-type predictor $\widehat{\theta}_{i}(\widehat{\mu})=\gamma^*y_i+(1-\gamma^*)\overline{y}$, which is the best linear unbiased predictor of $\theta_i$ for any $F$ and $G$; see, e.g., Robinson (1991), Rao (2003). Here $\gamma^*$ determines the amount of shrinkage toward the mean. We discuss the required amount of shrinkage when the goal is to predict ${\theta}_{(i)}$ rather than ${\theta}_{i}$. For the problem of predicting the unordered parameters, Bayesian considerations as above, and Stein (1956) and the ensuing huge body of literature suggest shrinkage predictors. In view of the discussion on under and overestimation, it is not surprising that for the present problem of predicting the ordered parameters, shrinkage is also desirable, but to a lesser extent. In fact, it can be shown geometrically that if the coordinates of the predicting vector $\boldsymbol{{\widehat{\theta}}} =(\widehat\theta_1,\ldots,\widehat\theta_m)$ happen to have the right order, that is, the same order as the coordinates of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, then the desirable shrinkage is the same for the two problems, but otherwise it is smaller. The latter case happens with high probability for large $m$ when the parameters are not very different. In this paper we show that rather satisfactory results can be obtained by simple predictors of the type $\gamma y_{(i)}+(1-\gamma)\overline{y}$, and study the optimal value of $\gamma$. In general we have $\gamma^* \le \gamma$. Specifically, for large $m$ ($m>25$, say), we propose the predictor $\sqrt{\gamma^*} y_{(i)}+(1-\sqrt{\gamma^*})\overline{y}$, to be denoted later by ${\widehat{\theta}\,^{[2]}_{(i)}}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$. This predictor is easy to compute when the variances are either known or estimated, and performs well in comparison to Bayes predictors, and other numerically demanding predictors that appear in the literature. In most of this paper we consider some predictor $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}= (\widehat{\theta}_{1},\ldots,\widehat{\theta}_{m}$), take $\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}$ as a predictor of ${\theta}_{(i)}$ with a loss function given by $$\label{eq:Loss} L({\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{(\,)}}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})=\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)}\right)^2,$$ and compare different predictors in terms of the (Bayesian) risk $$r(H,{\widehat{\theta}}\,) = E\{L({\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{(\,)}}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\},$$ where $H=(F,G)$ and the expectation is over all random variables involved. Note that by a simple rearrangement inequality we always have $\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)}\right)^2 \le \sum_{i=1}^m\left(\widehat{\theta}_{i}-\theta_{i}\right)^2$. We also briefly consider the individual mean square error (MSE) of a predictor $\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}$, defined to be $MSE(\widehat{\theta}_{(i)})=E(\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})^2$. Even in the case of $m=2$ this prediction problem is not trivial. Blumenthal and Cohen (1968) consider the following model: given independent observation $X_1, X_2$ with $X_i\sim N(\theta_i,\tau^2)$, estimate $\theta_{(2)}=\max(\theta_1, \theta_2)$. They present five different estimators for $\theta_{(2)}$ and evaluate their biases and mean square errors. Generalizing their method to more than two parameters appears to be hard. Finally we mention that Senn (2008), with reference to Dawid (1994) and others, deals with a different but related problem of estimation of the parameter $\theta_{i^*}$ corresponding to $i^*=\arg \max y_i$. In SAE, this is the parameter belonging to the population having the largest sample outcome, while we consider estimation of $\theta_{(m)}$, the parameter of the “largest population" (and likewise for other ordered parameters). The difference is important when $m$ is large, and the parameters vary significantly; our interest is in the ordered parameters and not parameters chosen by the data, as in the above references. In Section \[sec:pred\] we discuss the model and present several predictors. We also give minimax results that provide some justification to normality assumptions and linear prediction. Section \[sec:main\] contains the main results on properties and comparisons of the various predictors. The proposed class of predictors contains a parameter $\gamma$. Some of the results apply to the whole class, while others suggest a range where the best value of $\gamma$ should be, and apply to $\gamma$ in this range. We describe a conjecture about the optimal value of $\gamma$ when $m$ is large and provide an approximation for the optimal value of $\gamma$ in the normal case. The last part of Section \[sec:main\] deals with a special case when $F$ and $G$ are normal and $m=2$. In this part we get tighter conclusions than in the general case. In Section 3 we assumed that the variances in are known. Section 4 deals with the case of unknown variances and studies plug-in Empirical Bayes predictors by simulation. In Sections 5 and 6 we study robustness of the proposed predictors against certain misspecifications of the assumptions on the distributions, and compare to other predictors from the literature. The proofs of results concerning general $m$ are given in Section 7. The rest of the proofs are given in an on-line Supplement at\ **http://www.stat.sinica.edu.tw/statistica**. In the Supplement we provide simulations for Conjectures 1 and 2, we compare various predictors under the assumption of known variances, and when one of the variances is unknown. Theorems 5 and 6 are also proved there. Predictors {#sec:pred} ========== Unordered parameters --------------------- In Sections \[sec:pred\] and \[sec:main\] we assume that $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$ are known. Later they are assumed unknown, and plug-in estimators are used. First we review some known results for the unordered case of Model (\[Model:main\]) and the standard problem of predicting $\theta_i$, $i=1,...,m$. The best linear predictor is of the form ${\bf a}^{t}{\bf y}+b$, with ${\bf a},b$ that minimize the mean square error. It is easy to see that when $\mu$ is known, and recalling that $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$ are now also assumed to be known, the best linear predictor of $\theta_i$, that is, the predictor that minimized $E(\widehat{\theta}_{i}-\theta_{i})^2$ and therefore $r^*(H,{\widehat{\theta}}\,):=E\left(\sum_{i=1}^m(\widehat{\theta}_{i}-\theta_{i})^2\right)$ among linear predictors, is $$\label{minmax} \widehat{\theta}_{i}({\mu})=\gamma^*y_i+(1-\gamma^*)\mu,$$ where $\gamma^*=\sigma_u^2/(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)$. Note that the model (\[Model:main\]) does not assume normality, and that the best linear predictor is unbiased, that is, $E (\widehat{\theta}_{i}-{\theta}_{i})=0$. When both distributions $F$ and $G$ are normal, the best linear predictor above is the best predictor (or Bayes predictor). For unknown $\mu$, the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) of $\theta_i$ (see, for example, Robinson (1991), Rao (2003) and references therein) is $$\label{E:EBl} \widehat{\theta}_{i}(\widehat{\mu})=\gamma^*y_i+(1-\gamma^*)\overline{y},$$ where $\widehat{\mu}:=\overline{y}=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m y_i$. The BLUP property means that the predictor minimizes $E(\widehat{\theta}_{i}-\theta_{i})^2$ among linear unbiased predictors for all $F$ and $G$ with the prescribed variances. These are shrinkage predictors (with shrinkage towards the mean). Such predictors appear also in Fay and Herriot (1979). We see in Section \[sec:main\] that for the ordered parameters shrinkage is also required, but in a smaller amount (see also Louis (1984) and Ghosh (1992) for such shrinkage, under different loss functions), showing again that the related problems of predicting the ordered and unordered parameters, are not the same. ### A justification of normality and linearity Using the fact that an equalizer Bayes rule is minimax, Schwarz (1987) proved the following result, which in some sense justifies both linear estimators and the assumption of normality of $F$ and $G$. \[th:Sch\] Consider (\[Model:main\]) with $\mu$, $\sigma_u^2$, and $\sigma_e^2$ all fixed and known, and the risk function $r^*(H,{\widehat{\theta}}\,)=E\left(\sum_{i=1}^m(\widehat{\theta}_{i}-\theta_{i})^2\right)$. The predictor $\delta_{0}=(\delta_{01},\ldots,\delta_{0m})$ of $\boldsymbol\theta$ given by $\delta_{0i}=\gamma^{*}y_i+(1-\gamma^{*})\mu,\,\,\,\,i=1,...,m$, is minimax and the normal strategy for $H=(F, G)$ is least favorable. The next result is closely related to the previous one, and justifies linearity when $\mu$ is unknown, which is the case we consider. It can easily be extended to the original Fay-Herriot model with $\mu_i=x'_i\beta$. Under the assumptions of Theorem \[th:Sch\], but with unknown $\mu$, the predictor defined by $\delta_{0i}=\gamma^{*}y_i+(1-\gamma^{*})\overline{y},\,\,\,\,i=1,...,m$, is minimax among all linear unbiased predictors of $\boldsymbol\theta$. Let $\cal H$ denote the class of pairs of distributions $(F,G)$ having the given variances. Note that $r^*(H,\delta_{0})$ depends only on the fixed variances, and therefore for $H \in \cal H$, $r^*(H,\delta_{0})$ is constant, say $v$. Let $\cal L$ denote the class of linear unbiased predictors. We know that $\delta_{0}=(\delta_{01},\ldots,\delta_{0m})$ is BLUP. We have $$\begin{aligned} &\overline{V}=\inf_{\delta \in {\cal L}}\sup_{H \in {\cal H}}r^*(H,\delta)\leq \sup_{H \in {\cal H}}r^*(H,\delta_{0})=r^*(H_0,\delta_{0})=v,\\ &\underline{V}=\sup_{H \in {\cal H}}\inf_{\delta \in {\cal L}}r^*(H,\delta)\geq \inf_{\delta \in {\cal L}}r^*(H_{0},\delta)=r^*(H_{0},\delta_{0}) =v,\end{aligned}$$ for any $H_0 \in \cal H$, where the penultimate equality holds by the BLUPness of $\delta_{0}$. Since clearly $\overline{V} \ge \underline{V}$, it follows that $\inf_{\delta \in {\cal L}}\sup_{H \in {\cal H}}r(H,\delta)= \sup_{H \in {\cal H}}r(H,\delta_{0})$, so that $\delta_{0}$ is minimax among predictors in $\cal L$ as required. Ordered parameters {#ordpar} ------------------ Let $\vartheta_{(i)}(\mu)=E_{{\mu}}(\theta_{(i)}|\bf y)$, the best predictor of $\theta_{(i)}$ when $\mu$ is known, and consider its empirical or plug-in version when $\mu$ is unknown: $E_{\widehat{\mu}}(\theta_{(i)}|{\bf y})=\vartheta_{(i)}(\widehat{\mu})$, where $\widehat{\mu}=\overline{y}$. We consider three predictors: $${\widehat{\theta}\,^{[1]}_{(i)}} =y_{(i)},\qquad {\widehat{\theta}\,^{[2]}_{(i)}}(\gamma)=\gamma y_{(i)}+(1-\gamma)\overline{y},\qquad {\widehat{\theta}\,^{[3]}_{(i)}}=E_{\widehat{\mu}}(\theta_{(i)}|\bf y),$$ where $y_{(1)}\leq...\leq y_{(m)}$ denote the order statistics of $y_1,...,y_m$. Set ${\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[k]}_{(\,)}}= \left({\widehat{\theta}\,^{[k]}_{(1)}},\ldots,{\widehat{\theta}\,^{[k]}_{(m)}}\right)$ for $k=1,2,3$. The predictors in the class $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma)$ are analogous to the best linear predictor for the unordered case, but as we shall see, the value of $\gamma$ has to be reconsidered, and $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ is the empirical best predictor in the ordered case (the best predictor with $\mu$ replaced by $\overline{y}$). The latter predictor cannot in general be computed explicitly for $m>2$, and some of our results are aimed at showing that it can be efficiently replaced by $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma)$ with an appropriate choice of $\gamma$ for the ordered case at hand. Thus $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$, the empirical best predictor, will be used as a yardstick to which other predictors are compared. Main results, known variances {#sec:main} ============================== General distributions F and G and general m ------------------------------------------- The proofs of the results of this subsection are given in the Appendix. The first few results show that shrinkage-type predictors in the class $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma)$ perform better than the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}$. Refined calculations of the range of the optimal $\gamma$ allow us to understand the amount of shrinkage required for the ordered parameters case. \[Th:big\] Consider (\[Model:main\]) with the loss function (\[eq:Loss\]) and $\gamma^*=\sigma_u^2/(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)$. If $$\label{Con:1} \frac{m}{m-1}(2\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}-1)-\frac{1}{m-1}(2\gamma^{*}-1)\leq\,\,\,\gamma\,\,\,\leq1,$$ then $$\label{E:2vs1} E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}.$$ Note that if $\sigma^2_{u}\rightarrow 0$ then $\gamma^* \rightarrow 0$ and the left-hand side of (\[Con:1\]) tends to $-1$. If $m\rightarrow\infty$, which is of interest in SAE, then the left-hand side of (\[Con:1\]) tends to $2\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}-1$. The left-hand side of (\[Con:1\]) is 1 when $\gamma^{*}=1$ and increases in $\gamma^{*}$, hence is bounded by 1. By verifying the condition for the left-hand side of (\[Con:1\]) to be nonpositive, we obtain the following. \[Cl:c1\] If $$\label{eq:up} \gamma^{*}\leq\left(\frac{m-\sqrt{(m-1)^2+1}}{2}\right)^2,$$ then $$\label{eq:mas} E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}$$ for all $\gamma, 0\leq\gamma\leq1$. Note that asymptotically becomes $\gamma^{*}\leq\frac{1}{4}$, since $\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty} \left(\frac{m-\sqrt{(m-1)^2+1}}{2}\right)^2=\frac{1}{4}$. Condition (\[eq:up\]) is sufficient and may not be necessary. But, (\[eq:mas\]) does not hold without a suitable condition on $\gamma^*$; for example, if $m=100$, the upper bound of (\[eq:up\]) is 0.2475. For $\gamma^*=1/3$ and $\gamma=0.1$, a straightforward simulation using normal variables shows that (\[eq:mas\]) does not hold. For $\gamma=\gamma^{*}$, (\[Con:1\]) holds if and only if $\gamma^{*}\leq (m-1)^2/(m+1)^2$ (see Appendix). From this result we obtain the following. \[Cl:c2\] If $$\label{Con:2} \gamma^{*}\leq (m-1)^2/(m+1)^2,$$ $\text{then}\quad E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\} \,\,\, \text{ for all} \quad \gamma,\, \gamma^{*}\leq\gamma\leq1.$ Asymptotically, Corollary \[Cl:c2\] holds for all $\gamma^*$ without (\[Con:2\]), because $\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\{ (m-1)^2/(m+1)^2\}=1$ and $0\leq\gamma^*\leq 1$ by definition. A small simulation study indicates that Corollary \[Cl:c2\] may hold without the condition $\gamma^*\leq (m-1)^2/(m+1)^2$ for a large variety of F and G. We can prove it only for the extreme case $m=2$ and normal F and G; see Theorem \[Th:small\] below. The range of $\gamma$’s for which shrinkage improves the predictors, $\gamma^{*}\leq\gamma$, indicates that, for the ordered problem, less shrinkage is required. The following lemma is used in the proof of Theorem \[Th:big\], but may be of independent interest. \[Le:main\] Under (\[Model:main\]), $$m(\sigma_u^2+\mu^2)\leqslant E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}\leqslant m[(\sigma_u^2+\mu^2)(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2+\mu^2)]^{1/2}.$$ For the predictors ${\widehat{\theta}\,^{[2]}_{(i)}}(\gamma)$, it is natural to look for optimal or good values of $\gamma$. \[Th:MinPoint\] Under (\[Model:main\]), let $\gamma^{\,o}$ be the optimal choice of $\gamma$ for the predictor ${\widehat{\theta}\,^{[2]}_{(i)}}(\gamma)$ in the sense of minimizing $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$. Then $$\label{E:OptR} \gamma^{\,o} \in \left[\gamma^{*}, \frac{m}{m-1}\sqrt{\gamma^*}-\frac{1}{m-1}\gamma^*\right].$$ As $m\rightarrow\infty$, the above range for the optimal $\gamma$ becomes $\left[\gamma^{*}, \sqrt{\gamma^*}\right].$ \[Conj:C1\] The optimal $\gamma$ in the sense of Theorem \[Th:MinPoint\] satisfies $\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\gamma^{\,o}=\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}$. Simulations that justify Conjecture \[Conj:C1\] are given in the Supplement. For $m>25$ or so, which is common in SAE, we recommend using the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma)$ with $\gamma=\sqrt{\gamma^*}$. Numerous simulations suggest that the latter choice, or the choice of $\gamma = \gamma^{\,o}$, yield essentially the same results. We emphasize that the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$ is very easy to compute. The case of $m \le 25$ is discussed next. An approximation for $\gamma^{\,o}$ in the normal case {#sec:approx} ------------------------------------------------------ For practical computation of $\gamma^{\,o}$ for $m \le 25$ or so, we propose the following approach that we have implemented in the normal case. (For $m>25$, $\sqrt{\gamma^*}$ provides an excellent approximation to $\gamma^{\,o}$, see simulation results and Conjecture \[Conj:C1\]). In view of Theorem \[Th:MinPoint\] we consider the approximation formula $$\label{eq:approxgamma0} {\gamma^{\,o}}\approx\alpha \gamma^* + (1-\alpha)u(m,\gamma^*),$$ with $u(m,\gamma^*)=\frac{m}{m-1}\sqrt{\gamma^*}-\frac{1}{m-1}\gamma^*$, and $\alpha$ depending on $m$ and $\gamma^*$. For fixed $\gamma^*$, and for each $m$ satisfying $2 \le m \le 30$ we compute $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ by simulations and find the minimizer $\gamma^{\,o}$ by an exhaustive search. We then define $\alpha_{m,\gamma^*}$ to be the solution of (\[eq:approxgamma0\]). For fixed $\gamma^*$ we carry out polynomial regression of the computed values of $\alpha_{m,\gamma^*}$ on the explanatory variable $m$ in the range $2 \le m \le 30$; this is repeated for an array of values of $\gamma^*$. It turns out that an excellent approximation is obtained when $\alpha_{m,\gamma^*}=\alpha_m$ is taken to be only a function of $m$ for a large range of values of $\gamma^*$. We therefore combine the different regressions for the different values of $\gamma^*$, and obtain a polynomial approximation for $\alpha_m$. The numerical calculations lead to the quadratic polynomial $\alpha_m=0.8236-0.0573m+0.0012m^2$. Plugging it into (\[eq:approxgamma0\]) we obtain the approximation $\widetilde{\gamma^{\,o}}=\alpha_m \gamma^* + (1-\alpha_m)u(m,\gamma^*)$ for $\gamma^{\,o}$. Numerical simulations show that in the range $2 \le m \le 25$ and for all values of $\gamma^*$, the resulting $\widetilde{\gamma^{\,o}}$ is indeed very close to $\gamma^{\,o}$. In fact, for $m=2$ they may differ by about $10\%$, but for $m \ge 4$ they differ by about $1\%-2\%$. Using one or the other yields almost identical expected losses. Normal distribution of F and G and m=2 -------------------------------------- When both F and G are normal and $m=2$, we obtain tighter conclusions for the previous results. \[Th:small\] For (\[Model:main\]) with $F$ and $G$ normal and $m=2$: 1. if $0\leq\gamma^*\leq c \thickapprox0.4119$, then $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}$ for all$0\leq\gamma\leq1$; 2. for all $\gamma^*$ and $\gamma$ satisfying $\gamma^{*}\leq\gamma\leq 1$, $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}$; 3. the optimal $\gamma$ for the predictor ${\widehat{\theta}\,^{[2]}_{(i)}}(\gamma)$ (i=1,2) in the sense of minimizing $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{Opt:m2} &\gamma^{\,o}=\gamma^*\left(4\psi(a)-1\right)+(1-\gamma^*)\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})},\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi(a)=\int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left({{a}}t\right)\varphi(t)dt$, and $a=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^{*}}{1-\gamma^{*}}}.$ Thus Part *1* of Theorem \[Th:small\] shows that we can replace the condition $\gamma^*\leq \left(\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{2}\right)^2 \thickapprox 0.086$ of Corollary \[Cl:c1\] by $\gamma^*\leq c, \,\,c\thickapprox0.4119$; Part *2* shows that (\[Con:2\]) ($\gamma^*\leq 1/9$ for $m=2$) of Corollary \[Cl:c2\] may be omitted; Part *3* of Theorem \[Th:small\] gives an exact result rather than the range given by (\[E:OptR\]). **Remark**. The accurate definition of $c$ and its approximation are given in the proof of Theorem \[Th:small\] in the Supplement. The function $\psi(a)$ can be computed by Matlab: $\text{double}(int(x^2*\text{normpdf}\,(x)*(\text{erf}\,(a*x/sqrt(2))+1)/2,x,0,\text{inf}\,))$. The results given so far compare ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma)$ with ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[1]}}$ in the sense of minimizing expected loss. In the absence of an explicit expression for ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$, it is not easy to compare it with other predictors analyticallly, but it is possible to do this if F and G are normal and $m=2$, and the result is Theorem \[Th:smallBest\]. For $m>2$ we provide simulations. It is obvious that the estimator $\vartheta_{(i)}(\mu)=E_{{\mu}}(\theta_{(i)}|y)$ minimizes the MSE. The point of Theorem \[Th:smallBest\] is that the unknown $\mu$ is replaced in $\vartheta_{(i)}(\mu)$ by its estimate $\overline{y}$ to obtain ${\widehat{\theta}}_{(i)}^{\,\,{[3]}}$. \[Th:smallBest\] Consider (\[Model:main\]) with $F$ and $G$ normal. Then for $m=2$, $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,*}), \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}$. \[conj:E\] If $F$ and $G$ are normal and $m\geq2$, then $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o}), \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}$. Various simulations support this conjecture. Some of them are presented in the Supplement. The simulations show that the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$ is worse than $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ in the sense of $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$, as suggested by Conjecture 2. However, they are rather close, while the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,*})$ is far worse. This suggests that the linear predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$ can be used without much loss. As mentioned above, for $m \ge 25$ or so, the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^{\,*}})$, which is easy to calculate, is as good as $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$, and the calculation of $\gamma^{\,o}$ can be avoided. See the Supplement. Unknown variances ================= Until now it was assumed that the variances are known. We now turn to the case of unknown variances. This case will be studied by simulations, whose detailed description is given in the Supplement. We first make the common assumption in SAE that only $\sigma_u^2$ is unknown, and later that both variances, $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$ are unknown. We replace each unknown variance by plugging-in its natural estimator. For the case that only $\sigma_u^2$ is unknown, it is estimated by $$\begin{aligned} \label{EVar:plugin} \widehat{\sigma}_u^2=\max\left(\frac{1}{m-1}\sum_{i=1}^m \left(y_{i}-\overline{y}\right)^2-\sigma_e^2,0\right). \end{aligned}$$ This approach cannot be expected to work for small values of $m$. We emphasize again the interest in SAE is in large $m$’s. The notation for the resulting estimates remains as it was for the case of known variances. In this case, and in the case that both variances are unknown (Figure 1 below), we use simulations to compare the risk $ E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ for the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}({\gamma^*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$, and $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$, and since in all simulations the risks of the latter two predictors are almost identical, we present only one of them. We also compare the performance of these predictors when only the maximum is predicted. {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} **Figure 1:** - Comparison of $ E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ as a function of $\gamma^*,$ for the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}({\gamma^*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ (dotted, solid, dashed lines), where F and G are normal and\ $m=100,n=15$ (upper left), $m=30,n=15$ (upper right) - Comparison of the MSE of ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^*),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\sqrt{\gamma^*}),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ (dotted, solid, dashed lines) for predicting $\theta_{(m)}$, as a function of $\gamma^*$, where F and G are normal and $m=100,n=15$ (bottom left), $m=30,n=15$ (bottom right) In Figure 3S (given in the Supplement) only $\sigma_u^2$ is estimated, and in Figure 1 both $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$ are estimated. The figures are rather similar. The results should be compared to those of Figure 2S (Supplement), where the variances are known. Clearly the less one knows, the higher the loss. However, the simple shrinkage predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$ performed almost as well as the best plug-in predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$, and much better than $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}({\gamma^*})$. Thus again we conclude that for the problem at hand, shrinkage estimators work, provided one uses the right amount of shrinkage for the ordered parameters problem. For the case of unknowns ${\sigma}_u^2$ and ${\sigma}_e^2$, consider the model $$y_{ij}=\mu+u_i+e_{ij}; i=1,...,m ,j=1,...,n,$$ which is a special case of the Nested Error Unit Level Regression model of Battese, Harter and Fuller (1988). We apply our previous estimators, replacing the variances by $$\widehat{\sigma}_e^2=\frac{1}{m(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(y_{ij}-\overline{y}_{i.}\right)^2, \quad \widehat{\sigma}_u^2=\max\big\{\frac{1}{mn-1}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left({y}_{ij}-\overline{y}_{..}\right)^2-\widehat{\sigma}_e^2,0\big\},$$ and set $\displaystyle \gamma^{*}=\frac{\hat\sigma_u^2}{\hat\sigma_u^2+\hat\sigma_e^2/n}$. Simulation results are given Figure 1. Shrinkage type predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$ in the non normal case =============================================================================================================== \[Subsec:shrinkage\] We briefly consider non-normal $F$, whereas the error distribution $G$ remains normal. We first take the double exponential distribution (Laplace distribution) for the random effects $u_i$, with density $\frac{1}{2b}\exp\left(-\frac{|u_i|}{b}\right)$, where $b=\frac{\sigma_{u}}{\sqrt{2}}$. Direct calculations show that the density function of $\theta_i$ given $y_i$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{CDis:Laplace} &f_{\theta_{i}|y_{i}}\left(t|y\right)= \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{p_{1}(t)}{\int_{-\infty}^{\mu}p_{1}(t)dt+\int_{\mu}^{\infty}p_{2}(t)dt},&\text{if $t\leq \mu$}\\ \displaystyle \frac{p_{2}(t)}{\int_{-\infty}^{\mu}p_{1}(t)dt+\int_{\mu}^{\infty}p_{2}(t)dt},&\text{if $t>\mu$} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{i}(t)=exp\left(-{\left(t-\left(y+(-1)^{i+1}{\sigma_{e}^2 }{b^{-1}}\right)\right)^2}/{2\sigma_{e}^2}\right),\,\,\, i=1,2$. {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} **Figure 2:** - Comparison of $ E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ as a function of $\gamma^*,$ for the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}({\gamma^*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ (dotted, solid, dashed lines), where F is the Laplace distribution and G is normal (upper left), and where F is the Location exponential distribution and G is normal (upper right), for $m=100$. - Comparison of the MSE of ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^*),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^{\,o}),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ (dotted, solid, dashed lines) for predicting $\theta_{(m)}$, as a function of $\gamma^*$, where F is the Laplace distribution and G is normal (bottom left), and where F is the Location exponential distribution and G is normal (bottom right), for $m=100$. We also take a location exponential distribution for the random effects , with density $\frac{1}{b}\exp\left(-\frac{u_i-a}{b}\right)1_{(u_i\geq a)}$, where $b=\sigma_u,\,\,a=-b$. By direct calculation the density function of $\theta_i$ given $y_i$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{CDis:LExp} &f_{\theta_{i}|y_{i}}\left(t|y\right)=\displaystyle \frac{exp\left(-{\left(t-\left(y-{\sigma_e^2}{\sigma_u^{-1}}\right)\right)^2}/ {2\sigma_e^2}\right)1_{(t\geq-\sigma_u+\mu)}}{\int_{-\sigma_u+\mu}^{\infty} exp\left(-{\left(t-\left(y-{\sigma_e^2}{\sigma_u^{-1}}\right)\right)^2}/ {2\sigma_e^2}\right)dt}\end{aligned}$$ The simulations (Figure 2) were done as in Figure 2S (m=100), except that for each value of $\gamma^*$ we ran 100 simulations and generated 100 random variables from $f_{\theta_{i}|y_{i}}\left(\cdot|\cdot\right)$, sorted them, and approximated ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}.$ We can see in Figure 2 that for the symmetric but heavy-tailed Laplace distribution, our shrinkage type predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}({\gamma^o})$ (and the same is true for $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}({\sqrt{\gamma^*}})$) is close to the empirical best predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$, but in the asymmetric case of the Location Exponential distribution, this does not happen. Robustness and comparison with Shen and Louis (1998) ==================================================== Shen and Louis (1998; henceforth SL) proposed predictors called “Triple-goal estimates" for random effects in two-stage hierarchical models. Their method is in general not analytically tractable, and requires numerical calculations. Moreover, being sensitive to Bayesian assumptions, it is not robust (Shen and Louis (2000)). The first stage of SL is minimizing $E\int\left\{A(t;{\bf y})-G_m(t)\right\}^2 dt$ with the constraint that $A$ is a discrete distribution with at most $m$ mass points, where $G_{m}(t)$ is the ‘empirical’ distribution function $G_{m}(t)=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m I_{(\theta_{i}\leq t)}$. They show that the solution $A$ is the empirical distribution of $\boldsymbol{\widehat{U}}=(\widehat{U}_1,...,\widehat{U}_m)$, $\widehat{U}_{j}=\overline{G}_{m}^{\,-1}\left(\frac{2j-1}{2m}\right)$, where $\overline{G}_{m}(t)=E\left(G_{m}(t)|\bf y\right)=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}P\left(\theta_{i}\leq t|y_{k}\right)$. Therefore $\widehat{U}_{j}$ is a predictor of $\theta_{(j)}$,$j=1,...,m$. The solution $\widehat{U}_{j}=\overline{G}_{m}^{\,-1}\left(\frac{2j-1}{2m}\right)$ depends on the posterior distributions of $\theta_1,....,\theta_m$ and requires estimation of unknown parameters and a solution of nonlinear equations. In order to compute $\overline{G}_{m}(t)$ in our simulations, we compute $P\left(\theta_{i}\leq t|y_{k}\right)$ using the plug-in (or moment) estimator $\overline{y}$ of $\mu$, and with the assumption that $F$ and $G$ are normal, and apply Matlab function $\mathbf{`fzero'}$ for the solution $t=\widehat{U}_{j}$ of the equations $\overline{G}_{m}(t)=\frac{2j-1}{2m}$. For the purpose of checking robustness we generated data taking $F$ to be the Laplace distribution or the asymmetric location exponential distribution, and a normal $G$. The simulations were done as in Figure 2S (m=100), except that in the stage of prediction we ignored the true distribution of the random effects and used the normal distribution. Here we compared $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*}),\, \boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$, and the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{U}}$ based on SL. Note that, unlike the estimators in SL, it is not necessary to know the distributions for the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$. {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} {height="1.40in"} **Figure 3:** - Comparison of $ E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ as a function of $\gamma^*,$ for the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{U}}$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ (red, black, green lines), where F is the Laplace distribution and G is normal (upper left ) and where F is the Location exponential distribution and G is normal (upper right) for, $m=100$. - Comparison of the MSE of $\widehat{U}_{m}$, ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$, ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ (red, black, green lines) for predicting $\theta_{(m)}$, as a function of $\gamma^*$, where F is the Laplace distribution and G is normal (bottom left ) and where F is the Location exponential distribution and G is normal (bottom right), for $m=100$. In general, the SL estimators and $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ exhibited very similar performance, see Figure 3. Under the correct assumptions they were somewhat better than our predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$ (Figure 2); however, they are usually computationally intensive and non-robust against model misspecification. Under misspecification of the distributions in the model, it turned out that $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^*})$, which does not depend on the assumed model was better, as can be sees from the simulations of Figure 3. Appendix: Proofs {#sec:app} ================ [**Proof of Theorem \[Th:big\].**]{} Without loss of generality take $\mu=0$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Ltheta} &E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}}{\,\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}= E\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\gamma y_{(i)} +(1-\gamma) \overline{y}-\theta_{(i)}\right)^2 \nonumber\\ &= E\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\gamma y_{(i)} +(1-\gamma) \overline{y}-y_{(i)}+y_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)}\right)^2= E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)}\right)^2\\ &+(1-\gamma)^{2} E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)^2 -2(1-\gamma)E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} &D(\gamma):=E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}{\,\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}- E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}{\,\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}=(1-\gamma)^{2} E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)^2\\ & -2(1-\gamma) E\sum_{i=1}^m({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}).\end{aligned}$$ We calculate each part separately. First note that $E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)^2= E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{i}-\overline{y}\right)^2 \\=(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)(m-1)$. Now $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:innprod} &E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)= E\sum_{i=1}^m{y}_{(i)}^{2}-E\sum_{i=1}^m{y}_{(i)}\overline{y}-E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)} +E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}\overline{y}\nonumber\\ &=m(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)-m\left(\frac{\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2}{m}\right) -E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)} +m\left(\frac{\sigma^{2}_u}{m}\right)= m(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)-\sigma_e^2-E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}.\end{aligned}$$ Summarizing the above we have $$\label{eq:D} D(\gamma)=(1-\gamma)^2(\sigma^2_u+\sigma^2_e)(m-1)- 2(1-\gamma)\Big(m(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)-\sigma_e^2-E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}\Big).$$ From Lemma \[Le:main\] (to be proved later) $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bounds} &m(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)-\sigma_e^2-m\sqrt{\sigma_u^2(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)}\leq E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right) \leq (m-1)\sigma_e^2.\end{aligned}$$ We use the first inequality to deduce that for $\gamma\leq1$, $$\begin{aligned} &D(\gamma)\leq(1-\gamma)^2(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)(m-1)-2(1-\gamma)\left(m(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)- \sigma_e^2-m\sqrt{\sigma_u^2(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)}\right). $$ Equating the right-hand side to zero and solving the quadratic equation in $1-\gamma$, it is easy to see that $D(\gamma) <0$ in the interval $\left(\frac{m}{m-1}(2\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}-1)-\frac{1}{m-1}(2\gamma^{*}-1), 1\right)$, and the result follows. [**Proof of Corollary \[Cl:c1\]**]{}. Clearly, $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}$ for all $0\leq\gamma\leq1$, if$\frac{m}{m-1}(2\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}-1)-\frac{1}{m-1}(2\gamma^{*}-1)\leq 0$. Solving the quadratic equation in $\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}$, we see that the latter inequality holds if either $(i)\,\,\, \gamma^{*}\leq\left(\frac{m-\sqrt{(m-1)^2+1}}{2}\right)^2$ or $(ii)\,\,\, \gamma^{*}\geq\left(\frac{m+\sqrt{(m-1)^2+1}}{2}\right)^2 (\geq 1)$. Since $\gamma^{*}\leq 1$ the only possibility is $(i)$, and the proof is complete. [**Proof of Corollary \[Cl:c2\]**]{}. From Theorem \[Le:main\] it is clear that $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}\leq E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}$ if $\frac{m}{m-1}(2\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}-1)-\frac{1}{m-1}(2\gamma^{*}-1)\leq\gamma^{*} \leq \gamma \leq 1$. The first inequality is equivalent to $\gamma^{*}\leq\frac{(m-1)^2}{(m+1)^2}$ or $\gamma^{*}\geq 1$. The case $\gamma^{*}=1$ is trivial because in this case ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,[1]}= {\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,[2]}(\gamma^*)$. [**Proof of Lemma \[Le:main\]**]{}. The lower bound is a result of the rearrangement inequality $$\begin{aligned} &E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}\geq E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{i}}{y}_{i}=m(\sigma_u^2+\mu^2).\end{aligned}$$ The upper bound follows from $$\begin{aligned} E\sum_{i=1}^m{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}\leq \left( \sum_{i=1}^mE({\theta_{i}^{2}})\sum_{i=1}^m{E({y}_{i}^{2}})\right)^{1/2} =m\sqrt{(\sigma_u^2+\mu^2)(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2+\mu^2)},\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. [**Proof of Theorem \[Th:MinPoint\]**]{}. By the calculations of Theorem \[Th:big\], $$\begin{aligned} &E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}= E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)}\right)^2\\ &+(1-\gamma)^{2} (\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)(m-1) -2(1-\gamma)E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $d E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}/d{\gamma}=0$ if and only if $\gamma=1-\frac{E\sum_{i=1}^m\left({y}_{(i)} -\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)}{(m-1)(\sigma_u^2+\sigma_e^2)}$, which is a minimum by convexity. We cannot calculate the latter expression exactly, yet the bounds of (\[eq:bounds\]) imply the result readily. [**Acknowledgment**]{} We thank Danny Pfeffermann for discussions that led to the formulation of the problems studied in this paper. An Associate Editor and the referees made comments that resulted in significant improvements in the paper.\ This paper is dedicated to the memory of Gideon Schwarz, a teacher and a friend. This research was supported in part by grant number 473/04 from the Israel Science Foundation.\ \ [**References**]{} Battese, G. E., Harter, R. M., and Fuller, W. A. (1988). An error component model for predection of county crop areas using survey and satellite data. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**83**]{}, 28-36. Blumenthal, S. and Cohen, A. (1968). Estimation of the larger of two normal means. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**63**]{}, 861-876. David, H. A. and Nagaraja, N. H. (2003). *Order Statistics* (third edition). [Wiley, New York.]{} Dawid, A. P. (1994). Selection paradoxes of Bayesian inference. [*In Multivariate Analysis and its Application*]{} [**24**]{}, (eds. T.W. Anderson, K. A-T. A Fang and I. Olkin) [Philadelphia, PA:IMS]{}. Fay, R. E. and Herriot, R. A. (1979). Estimates of income for small places: An application of James-Stein procedures to census data. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**74**]{}, 269-277 . Ghosh, M. (1992). Constrained Bayes estimates with application. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**87**]{}, 533-540. Kella, O. (1986). On the distribution of the maximum of bivariate normal random variables with general means and variances. [*Commun. Statist-Theory Meth.*]{} [**15**]{}, 3265-76. Louis, T. A. (1984). Estimating a population of parameter values using Bayes and empirical Bayes methods. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**79**]{}, 393-398. Pfeffermann, D. (2002). Small area estimation- new developments and directions. [*International Statistical Review*]{} [**70**]{}, 125-143. Rao, J. N. K. (2003). *Small Area Estimation*. Wiley, New York. Robinson, G. K. (1991). That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. [*Statistical Science*]{} [**6**]{}, 15-32. Rinott, Y. and Samuel-Cahn, E. (1994). Covariance between variables and their order statistics for multivariate normal variables. [*Statist. Probab. Lett.* ]{} [**21**]{}, 153-155. Senn, S. (2008). A Note concerning a selection “Paradox” of Dawid’s. [*The American Statistician* ]{} [**62**]{}, 206-210. Shen, W. and Louis, T. A. (1998). Triple-goal estimates in two-stage hierarchical models. [*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B* ]{} [**60**]{}, 455-471. Shen, W. and Louis, T. A. (2000). Triple-Goal estimates for Disease Mapping. [*Statistics in Medicine*]{} [**19**]{}, 2295-2308. Schwarz, G. (1987). A minimax property of linear regression. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**82**]{}, 220. Siegel, A. F. (1993). A surprising covariance involving the minimum of multivariate normal variables. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{} [**88**]{}, 77-80. Stein, C. (1956). Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. [*Proc. Third Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Probability [**1**]{}* ]{}, 197-206. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Wright, D. L., Stern, H. S., and Cressie, N. (2003). Loss function for estimation of extreme with an application to disease mapping. [*The Canadian Journal of Statistics* ]{} [**31**]{}, 251-266. first author affiliation E-mail: (msyakov@mscc.huji.ac.il) second author affiliation E-mail: (rinott@mscc.huji.ac.il) **A Supplement to Prediction of Ordered Random Effects in a Simple Small Area Model** In this Supplement we provide some of the simulations and technical proofs. Equations in this Supplement are indicated by $S$, e.g., $(3.1S)$, and similarly, lemmas that appear only in the Supplement are numbered with $S$, e.g., Lemma $1S$. Equations, lemmas, and Theorems without $S$, refer to the article itself. Most of the notation is defined in the article, and this Supplement cannot be read independently. Simulations for Conjecture \[Conj:C1\] ====================================== \[Conj:C1\] The optimal $\gamma$ in the sense of Theorem 4, $\gamma^{\,o}$, satisfies $$\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\gamma^{\,o}=\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}.$$ We justify Conjecture \[Conj:C1\] by simulations. First we consider the case that both the area random effect $u_i$ and the sampling error $e_i$ have a normal distributions, and take $m=5, 10, 20, 100$, and then repeat the simulation with $e_i$ having a translated exponential distribution. The red lines in Figure 1S are the range (3.6) of optimal $\gamma$ from Theorem 4 and the blue line is the optimal $\gamma$, both as functions of $\gamma^*$. The simulations were done as follows: we set $\sigma^2_{u}=1$. Different values of $\sigma^2_{e}$ define the different values of $\gamma^*$. Setting without loss of generality $\mu=0$, we generated $y_i=0+u_i+e_i$, $i=1,\ldots,m$. For each value of $\gamma^*$ we ran 1,000 simulations. By suitably averaging over these simulations, we then approximated $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ for each $\gamma\in[0,1]$ using an exhaustive search with step-size of 0.001 and found $\gamma^{\,o}$, the value of $\gamma$ that minimizes $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$. {height="2.1in" width="2.6in"} {height="2.1in" width="2.6in"} **Figure 1S:** $\gamma^{\,o}$ (the optimal $\gamma$) as a function of $\gamma^*$ (blue line) and the range of optimal $\gamma$ from Theorem 4 as a function of $\gamma^*$ (red lines) when: 1. Both the area random effect $u_i$ and the sampling error $e_i$ are normal (left four graphs). 2. The area random effects $u_i$ are normal, but the sampling errors $e_i$ are from a location exponential distribution (an exponential distribution translated by a constant) (right four graphs). Simulations for Conjecture 2, and comparison of predictors {#sec:sim} ========================================================== Known variances ----------------- For normal F and G, Conjecture 2 says that the predictor ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ is better than ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma)$ for all values of $\gamma$ (including the optimal) in the sense that $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\} \le E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$. Recall that $E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^o), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\} \le E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}$ for all $\gamma$. The simulations below support Conjecture 2. Figure 2S shows a sample of simulation results for $m=30$ and 100. We compare the expected loss in predicting $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)}$ by $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$ to that of $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$. While doing these simulations, we also compared the expected loss in predicting $\theta_{(m)}$ by ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^{\,o})$ to that of ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$. The simulations show that the expected losses of the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$ and $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ are rather close, while the predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{*})$ is far worse. This suggests that the linear predictor $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$ can be used without much loss. It is important to note that given $\gamma^{\,o}$ this estimator is easy to calculate. For large $m$ one may take $\gamma^{\,o}=\sqrt{\gamma^{*}}$, whereas for small $m$, the approximation of Section 3.2 can be used. The simulation was done as follows: we set $\sigma^2_{u}=1$. Different values of $\sigma^2_{e}$ define the different values of $\gamma^*$. Setting $\mu=0$, we generated $y_i=0+u_i+e_i$, $i=1,..,m$. For each value of $\gamma^*$ we ran 1,000 simulations and approximated $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}$ for each $\gamma$ in the range (3.6). Using an exhaustive search with step-size of 0.001 we found $\gamma^{\,o}$, the minimizer of $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}$. We approximated ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ in the following way: when both F and G are normal, $\theta_{i}|y_i~\thicksim N\left(\gamma^*y_i+(1-\gamma^*)\mu, \gamma^*\sigma^2_{e}\right).$ Hence, for each $y_{i},\, i=1,...,m,$ we generated 1,000 random variables from $N\left(\gamma^*y_i+(1-\gamma^*)\overline{y}, \gamma^*\sigma^2_{e}\right)$, sorted them, and approximated ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}.$ We approximated $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}$ in the same way as we approximated $E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^*), \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})}\}.$\ {height="1.50in"} {height="1.50in"} {height="1.50in"} {height="1.50in"} **Figure 2S:** - Comparison of $ E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})\}$ as a function of $\gamma^*,$ for the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,o})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ (red, black, green lines), where F and G are normal and\ $m=100$ (upper left ), $m=30$ (upper right) - Comparison of the MSE of ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^*),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^{\,o}),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ (red, black, green lines) for predicting $\theta_{(m)}$, as a function of $\gamma^*$, where F and G are normal and\ $m=100$ (bottom left), $m=30$ (bottom right) Unknown variances ----------------- Figure $3S$ compares the risks when only $\sigma_u^2$ is unknown and its estimator (4.1) is plugged-in. Otherwise, the simulations are similar to those of the previous section. The case that both variances, $\sigma_u^2$ and $\sigma_e^2$ are unknown is considered in Section 4 in the article. {height="1.50in"} {height="1.50in"} {height="1.50in"} {height="1.50in"} **Figure 3S:** - Comparison of $ E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}_{(\,)}, \boldsymbol{{\theta}}_{(\,)})\}$ as a function of $\gamma^*,$ for the predictors $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma^{\,*})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\sqrt{\gamma^{\,*}})$, $\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}$ (red, black, green lines), where F and G are normal and\ $m=100$ (upper left ), $m=30$ (upper right) - Comparison of the MSE of ${\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma^*),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\sqrt{\gamma^*}),\, {\widehat{\theta}_{(m)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}$ (red, black, green lines) for predicting $\theta_{(m)}$, as a function of $\gamma^*$, where F and G are normal and $m=100$ (bottom left), $m=30$ (bottom right) Proofs {#sec:app} ====== Proof of Theorem 5 ------------------ For the proof of Theorem 5 we need some further lemmas. In the sequel, $\mathbb{I}$ denotes an indicator function, and $\varphi$ and $\Phi$ denote the standard normal density and cdf.\ [**Lemma 1S**]{}. \[Le:main1\] *Set $\psi(a) := \int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left({{a}} t\right)\varphi(t)dt$, $\varrho_1(a)=\frac{1}{4}+\left(\frac{1}{4\pi}+\frac{1}{8}\right)\mathbb{I}\left(a\geq1\right)$, and $\varrho_2(a)=\frac{1}{4}\mathbb{I}\left(a=0\right)+\left(\frac{3}{8}+\frac{a}{4\pi}\right)\mathbb{I} \left(0<a<\frac{\pi}{2}\right) +\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}\left(a\geq\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$. Then $$\label{eq:le2} \varrho_1(a) \leq \psi(a) \leq\varrho_2(a) \,\, \text{for all}\,\, a\geq0, \text{with equalities for}\,\, a=0, a=1.$$* [**Proof**]{}. Note that $\psi(a) =\int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left({{a}}t\right)\varphi(t)dt$ is increasing in $a$, and thus for $0 \leq a < \infty$, we have $1/4 =\psi(0) \leq \psi(a) \le \psi(\infty) = 1/2$. A simple calculation shows that $\psi(1)=\frac{1}{4} +\left(\frac{1}{4\pi}+\frac{1}{8}\right)$, and the lower bound follows. The upper bound follows readily once we show that for $a>0$, $\psi(a) \le \left(\frac{3}{8} +\frac{a}{4\pi}\right)$. We use the latter inequality only for $0<a\leq\frac{\pi}{2}$ since for $a \ge \pi/2$,1/2 is a better upper bound. (In fact 1/2 is a good bound since for $a>1$, that $\psi(a) > \psi(1)=\frac{1}{4} +\left(\frac{1}{4\pi}+\frac{1}{8}\right)\thickapprox 0.4546$.) To show $\psi(a) \le \left(\frac{3}{8} +\frac{a}{4\pi}\right)$ for $a>0$ we compute Taylor’s expansion around $a=1$, $$\begin{aligned} &\Phi(at)=\Phi(t)+t\varphi(t)(a-1)-\frac{a^*t^3}{2}\varphi(a^*t)(a-1)^2,\end{aligned}$$ with $a^*$ between 1 and $a$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} &\Phi(at)\leq\Phi(t)+t\varphi(t)(a-1),\quad for\quad t\geq 0\quad and\quad a\geq0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} &\psi(a)=\int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left({{a}}t\right)\varphi(t)dt\leq \int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left(t\right)\varphi(t)dt+(a-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^3\varphi^{2}(t)dt\\ &=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi}+\frac{3}{8}\right)+\frac{a-1}{4\pi}= \left(\frac{3}{8} +\frac{a}{4\pi}\right) \quad for\quad all\quad a\geq0. \qquad \qed\end{aligned}$$\ [**Lemma 2S**]{}. \[Le:main2\] *Let $Z \sim N(0,1)$. Then $2\varrho_1(a)-\frac{1}{2} \leq E\left(|Z|Z\Phi\left(aZ\right)\right) \leq 2\varrho_2(a)-\frac{1}{2}.$ Equalities hold when $a=0$ or $a=1$.*\ \ [**Proof**]{}. $$\begin{aligned} E\left(|Z|\Phi\left(aZ\right)Z\right) &=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|t| {t} \Phi\left(at\right)\varphi(t)dt= \int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left(at\right)\varphi(t)dt -\int_{-\infty}^{0}t^2 \Phi\left(at\right)\varphi(t)dt\\ &= 2\int_{0}^{\infty}t^2 \Phi\left(at\right)\varphi(t)dt-\frac{1}{2}=2\psi(a)-\frac{1}{2} . \hspace{2.8cm} (3.1S)\end{aligned}$$ The result now follows from Lemma 1S.\ \ \ [**Lemma 3S**]{}. \[Le:main3\] *For Model (1.1) with $F$ and $G$ normal, $m=2$, and $\mu=0$, $$\begin{aligned} E\left(\theta_{(2)}{y}_{(2)}\right)\leq 2\sigma^2_{u}\varrho_2(a) +\frac{\sigma^2_{e}}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} E\left(\theta_{(2)}{y}_{(2)}\right)\geq 2\sigma^2_{u}\varrho_1(a) +\frac{\sigma^2_{e}}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})},\end{aligned}$$ where $a=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^{*}}{1-\gamma^{*}}}.$*\ \ [**Proof.**]{} Kella (1986) (see also David and Nagaraja 2003) shows that $$E_{{\mu}}\left(\theta_{(i)}|\bf y\right) =\Phi\left(\bigtriangleup\right){\mu_{1}} + \Phi\left(-\bigtriangleup\right){\mu_{2}} +(-1)^{i}\sigma \sqrt{2} \varphi \left(\bigtriangleup\right),\eqno(3.2S)$$ where $\bigtriangleup=\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}, \quad \sigma^{2}=\gamma^{*} \sigma^2_{e} ,\quad \mu_i=\gamma^{*} y_i,\quad i=1,2.$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} &E(\theta_{(2)}{y}_{(2)})=E({y}_{(2)}E(\theta_{(2)}|{\bf y})) =E\left({y}_{(2)}\left(\Phi\left(\bigtriangleup\right){\mu_{1}} + \Phi\left(-\bigtriangleup\right){\mu_{2}} +\sigma \sqrt{2} \varphi \left(\bigtriangleup\right)\right)\right)\nonumber\\ &=\gamma^{*} E\left({y}_{(2)} \Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right)+\gamma^{*} E\left(y_{(2)}y_2\right)+{\sigma\sqrt{2}} E\left({y}_{(2)} \varphi \left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ $$\eqno(3.3S)$$ We now calculate the latter three terms. For the first we use the relation $y_{(2)}=\frac{y_1+y_2}{2}+\frac{|y_1-y_2|}{2}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned} &E\left({y}_{(2)} \Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right) =E\left(\frac{y_1+y_2}{2}\Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right)\\ &+E\left(\frac{|y_1-y_2|}{2}\Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right) =E\frac{y_1+y_2}{2}E\left(\Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right)\\ &+E\left(\frac{|y_1-y_2|}{2}\Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right) =E\left(\frac{|y_1-y_2|}{2}\Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The penultimate equality follows from the fact that for iid normal variables $y_i$, $y_{1}-y_{2}$ and $y_{1}+y_{2}$ are independent, and the last equality holds because for $\mu=0$ we have $E(y_i)=0$. The substitution $Z=\frac{y_1-y_2}{[2(\sigma^2_u+\sigma^2_e)]^{1/2}}$ and standard calculations show that the last term above equals $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{\sigma^2_{u}}{\gamma^{*}}E\left(|Z|\Phi\left(\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^{*}}{1-\gamma^{*}}}Z\right)Z\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is a standard normal random variable.\ Let $a=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^{*}}{1-\gamma^{*}}}$. Using (3.1S) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &E\left({y}_{(2)} \Phi\left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)(y_1-y_2)\right)= \frac{\sigma^2_{u}}{\gamma^{*}}E\left(|Z|\Phi\left(a\,Z\right)Z\right) =\frac{\sigma^2_{u}}{\gamma^{*}}(2\psi(a)-1/2).\end{aligned}$$ To calculate the second term of (3.3S) we use a result from Siegel (1993), see also Rinott and Samuel-Cahn (1994). It yields the second equality below, while the others are straightforward: $$E\left(y_{(2)}y_2\right)=Cov(y_2,y_{(2)})=Cov(y_2,y_2)P(y_2=y_{(2)})+Cov(y_2,y_1)P(y_2=y_{(1)}) = \frac{\sigma^2_{u}}{2\gamma^{*}}.$$ The third part of (3.3S) is computed like the second part above to give $$\begin{aligned} E\left({y}_{(2)} \varphi \left(\gamma^{*}\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right)= \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_{u}}{2\gamma^{*}}}E\left(|Z| \varphi \left(a\,Z\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The latter expectation becomes $$\begin{aligned} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|t|\varphi \left(a\,t\right)\varphi(t)dt &=2\int_{0}^{\infty}t\,\varphi \left(a\,t\right)\varphi(t)dt=\frac{1-\gamma^{*}}{\pi}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these results, we get $$E\left(\theta_{(2)}{y}_{(2)}\right)= 2\sigma^2_{u}\psi(a) +\frac{\sigma^2_{e}}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}. \eqno (3.4S)$$ From (3.4S) and Lemma 1S, Lemma 3S follows readily.\ \ [**Proof of Theorem 5**]{}. It is easy to see that we can assume $\mu=0$ without loss of generality. We use the calculations of Theorem 3. Lemma 3S is used instead of Lemma 1 for a better upper bound of $E\left(\theta_{(1)}y_{(1)}+\theta_{(2)}y_{(2)}\right)$ for the normal case and $m=2$. Below we use the notation of Lemma 1. By symmetry $E(\theta_{(1)}{y}_{(1)})=E(\theta_{(2)}{y}_{(2)})$. Therefore, by Lemma 3S with $a=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^{*}}{1-\gamma^{*}}}$, we have $E(\theta_{(1)}{y}_{(1)}+\theta_{(2)}{y}_{(2)})\leq 4\sigma^2_{u} \varrho_2(a) +2\frac{\sigma^2_{e}}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}.$ By (7.2) and the above inequality we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &E\sum_{i=1}^2\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)= 2(\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e})-\sigma^2_{e}-E\sum_{i=1}^2{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}\\ &\geq 2(\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e})-\sigma^2_{e}-4\sigma^2_{u} \varrho_2(a) -2\frac{\sigma^2_{e}}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}\\ &=2\sigma_u^2-4\sigma^2_{u} \varrho_2(a)+\sigma^2_{e}\left(1-\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*} (1-\gamma^{*})}\right) :=\kappa(\gamma^*).\end{aligned}$$ Recall from the proof of Theorem 3 the notation $$\begin{aligned} &D(\gamma):=E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}{\,\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}- E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}{\,\,^{[1]}_{(\,)}}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to prove part 1 of Theorem 5, we have to show that its conditions imply $D(\gamma) \le 0$. By (7.3) for $m=2$, $$\begin{aligned} &D(\gamma)=(1-\gamma)^{2} (\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e}) -2(1-\gamma)E\sum_{i=1}^2({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y})\\ &\leq (1-\gamma)^{2} (\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e})-2(1-\gamma)\kappa(\gamma^*) =(1-\gamma)[(1-\gamma) (\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e})-2\kappa(\gamma^*)].\end{aligned}$$ We assume $0 \le \gamma \le 1$ and therefore $D(\gamma)\leq 0$ provided $\gamma\geq1-2\frac{\kappa(\gamma^*)}{\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e}}=:\omega(\gamma^*)$. For $\gamma^{*}=0 \,\,(a=0)$, $\omega(\gamma^{*})=-1$ and clearly $D(\gamma) \le 0$ for all $\gamma$. Next we show that in the range $\displaystyle 0<\gamma^*<\frac{\pi^2}{\pi^2+4} \approx 0.71 \,\left(0<a<\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$ the function $\omega(\gamma^*)$ has a single zero at $c \approx 0.4119$, and $\omega(\gamma^*)<0$ for $\gamma^* <c$. This implies that $\gamma>\omega(\gamma^*)$ and therefore $D(\gamma)<0$. In this range of $\gamma^{*}$, $\omega(\gamma^{*})=1+4\gamma^{*}\left( \frac{a}{2\pi}-\frac{1}{4}\right)-2 (1-\gamma^{*})\left(1-\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*} (1-\gamma^{*})}\right)$. Substituting $\displaystyle \gamma^*=\frac{a^2}{1+a^2}$ we get $\omega(\gamma^{*})=1+\frac{1}{1+a^2}\left(\frac{2}{\pi}a^3-a^2-2+\frac{4}{\pi}\frac{a}{1+a^2}\right)$. The function $\omega(\gamma^*)$ has the same zeros as the function $ P(a):=\frac{\pi}{2}(1+a^2)^2\omega(\gamma^*)$ and straightforward calculations show that $P(a)=a^5+a^3-\frac{\pi}{2}a^2+2a-\frac{\pi}{2}$, and that this function is increasing in $a$ and therefore in $\gamma^{*}$. By numerical calculation we obtain that it vanishes at $c \approx 0.4119$. The second part of Theorem 5 is proved by showing that $\gamma^*\geq \omega(\gamma^{*})$ and therefore $ 1\geq\gamma\geq\gamma^{*}$ implies $\gamma\geq \omega(\gamma^{*})$. In the range $\displaystyle 0<\gamma^*<\frac{\pi^2}{\pi^2+4} \approx 0.71 \,\left(0<a<\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$, $\omega(\gamma^{*})=1+4\gamma^{*}\left( \frac{a}{2\pi}-\frac{1}{4}\right)-2 (1-\gamma^{*})\left(1-\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*} (1-\gamma^{*})}\right)\leq 1-2 (1-\gamma^{*})\frac{\pi-1}{\pi}$. Therefore, $\omega(\gamma^{*})-\gamma^{*}\leq\frac{2-\pi}{\pi}(1-\gamma^{*})<0$. In the range $\displaystyle \gamma^*\geq\frac{\pi^2}{\pi^2+4}$, $\omega(\gamma^{*})=1-2 (1-\gamma^{*})\left(1-\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*} (1-\gamma^{*})}\right)\leq 1-2 (1-\gamma^{*})\frac{\pi-1}{\pi}\, .$ Therefore, $\omega(\gamma^{*})-\gamma^{*}\leq\frac{2-\pi}{\pi}(1-\gamma^{*})<0$. For the proof the last part we use the same calculation as in Theorem 4 with m=2 to obtain $$\begin{aligned} &\partial E\{L(\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}(\gamma), \boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})\}/\partial{\gamma}=0 \quad\text{if and only if}\quad \gamma=1-\frac{E\sum_{i=1}^2\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)}{(\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e})}.\end{aligned}$$ By (7.2) we have $$\begin{aligned} &E\sum_{i=1}^2\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)= 2(\sigma_u^2+\sigma^2_{e})-\sigma^2_{e}-E\sum_{i=1}^2{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}.\end{aligned}$$ By (3.4S) we have $E\sum_{i=1}^2{\theta_{(i)}}{y}_{(i)}= 4\sigma^2_{u}\psi(a) +2\frac{\sigma^2_{e}}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} &E\sum_{i=1}^2\left({y}_{(i)}-\theta_{(i)})({y}_{(i)}-\overline{y}\right)= 2\sigma^2_u\left(1-2\psi(a)\right)+\sigma^2_e \left(1-\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using the convexity of $E\{L({\widehat{\theta}}{\,^{[2]}}(\gamma), \theta)\}$, the optimal $\gamma$ is $$\begin{aligned} \gamma^{o}=\gamma^*\left(4\psi(a)-1\right)+(1-\gamma^*)\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma^{*}(1-\gamma^{*})}. \qquad \qquad\qed\end{aligned}$$ Proof of Theorem 6 ------------------ Note that ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma)=(1-\gamma)\overline{y}+\gamma g_{i}(y)$, and from (3.2S) ${\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}=E_{\widehat{\mu}}\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)=(1-\gamma^{*})\overline{y}+\gamma^{*} f_{i}(y)$, where $f_i(y)$ and $g_i(y)$ are functions of $y=(y_1,y_2)$ defined for $i=1,2$ by $$\begin{aligned} &f_i\equiv f_{i}(y)= (-1)^{i}\left(\Phi\left(\bigtriangleup\right)(y_{1}-y_{2}) +\frac{\sigma}{\gamma^*} \sqrt{2} \varphi \left(\bigtriangleup\right)\right)+y_{i},\,\,\,g_i\equiv g_{i}(y)=y_{(i)},\\ &\bigtriangleup=\gamma^*\frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{2}},\quad \sigma^{2}=\gamma^{*} \sigma^2_e.\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} &E\left(({\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}-\theta_{(i)})^2| y\right)=Var\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)+\left(E\left((\theta_{(i)}-{\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}})| y\right)\right)^{2}\\ &=Var\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)+\left((1-\gamma^*)\left(\mu-\overline{y}\right)\right)^{2}= Var\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)+\left((1-\gamma^*)\overline{y}\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality holds because for m=2 we can assume that $\mu=0$ without loss of generality. In the same way, $$\begin{aligned} &E\left(({\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma)-\theta_{(i)})^2| y\right)=Var\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)+\left(E\left((\theta_{(i)}-{\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma))| y\right)\right)^{2}\\ &=Var\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)+\left((1-\gamma^{*})\mu+\gamma^{*} f_{i}-(1-\gamma)\overline{y}-\gamma g_{i}\right)^{2} =Var\left(\theta_{(i)}|y\right)+\left(\gamma^{*} f_{i}-(1-\gamma)\overline{y}-\gamma g_{i}\right)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} &d(\gamma):=E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}{\,\,^{[3]}_{(\,)}},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}- E\{L({\boldsymbol{\widehat{\theta}}{\,\,^{[2]}_{(\,)}}(\gamma),\boldsymbol{\theta}_{(\,)})}\}\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^2 E\left\{E\left(({\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[3]}}-\theta_{(i)})^2| y\right)\right\} -\sum_{i=1}^2 E\left\{ E\left(({\widehat{\theta}_{(i)}}^{\,\,{[2]}}(\gamma)-\theta_{(i)})^2| y\right) \right\} \\ &=2E\left((1-\gamma^*)\overline{y}\right)^{2}- E\left(\gamma^{*} f_{1}-\gamma g_{1}-(1-\gamma)\overline{y}\right)^{2} -E\left(\gamma^{*} f_{2}-\gamma g_{2}-(1-\gamma)\overline{y}\right)^{2}\\ &=2\left((1-\gamma^*)^2-(1-\gamma)^2\right)E\left(\overline{y}\,^2\right) -E\left(\gamma^{*} f_{1}-\gamma g_{1}\right)^{2}-E\left(\gamma^{*} f_{2}-\gamma g_{2}\right)^{2}\\ &+2(1-\gamma)E\big[\left((\gamma^{*}( f_{1}+f_{2})-\gamma (g_{1}+g_{2})\right)(\overline{y})\big].\end{aligned}$$ From the definitions of $f_{i}$ and $g_{i}$ it follows that $f_{1}+f_{2}-g_{1}-g_{2}\equiv 0$, and the last term vanishes. It is now easy to see that $d(\gamma^*) \le 0$.

--- abstract: 'We study the evolution of the fractal dimensions during anisotropic aggregation and disaggregation (i.e., when the applied field is switched off) processes, in a magneto-rheological fluid composed by super-paramagnetic particles with a diameter of 1 micron, suspended in water under the action of a constant uniaxial magnetic field. We use video-microscopy and image analysis to retrieve the form of the aggregates and calculate the following fractal dimensions: one-dimensional $D_1$, two-dimensional $D_2$, perimeter-based fractal dimension $D_p$ and two-dimensional capacity dimension or box-counting dimension $D_B(2D)$. We apply this methodology for different values of the magnetic field amplitude and particle concentration. During aggregation, we can calculate an average value $\left<D_p~\right>\sim 1.84$ for the rod-like chains and we find a linear dependence of the capacity dimension with the ratio of two characteristic length scales. By means of a quantification of the roughness, we interpret $D_p$ as a measure of the clusters border roughness, while the capacity dimension represents how the chains fill the space. We also show how the quadratic deviation of the cluster contour height follows power-law behaviours in the initial stages of aggregation and disaggregation. We compare our results on projected fractal dimensions with previous theoretical and experimental studies about aggregation of magnetic particles. As a result, we check some recently proposed theoretical relation between $D_p$ and the three-dimensional fractal dimension $D_f$.' author: - 'Pablo Domínguez-García' - Sonia Melle - 'Miguel A. Rubio' title: | Cluster morphology in magneto-rheological fluids:\ fractal dimensions during anisotropic aggregation and disaggregation processes. --- \[introduction\]introduction. ============================= The study of fractal geometry [@Mandelbrot; @Federbook] aiming to characterize the morphology of aggregates has been a wide and diverse research field on mathematics, chemistry, physics and biosciences along the last decades. For example, the concepts of fractal geometry have been useful in fields as diverse as the study of cancer growth and cell structure [@KeipesDicato:93; @Bru1998] and the distribution of galaxies [@MuranteThieberger:98]. In the last three decades, several experimental studies about colloidal aggregation have been carried out aiming to determine fractal dimensions of colloidal aggregates, in special, by means of light scattering techniques [@RoqueJCP03; @RoqueJCP04; @RoqueCSA05]. The interest to determine fractal dimension of aggregates is related to the practical applications. In fact, by means of fractal dimension analysis, dynamic or morphological properties of aggregates can be investigated in processes relevant for water depuration, biology, medicine or engineering. For instance, properties such as deposition, sedimentation [@GonzlezLeone:2004; @Allain-etal:96], settling [@JohnsonLogan:96; @settling04], roughness [@Chen2006], coagulation or porosity (see references on [@ChakrabortiBenschoten:2003]), have been analysed in terms of fractal concepts.  Two main classes of optical techniques are widely used in the study of the morphology of the aggregates in colloid science: light scattering techniques [@BushellAmal:2002] and direct imaging techniques (e.g., video-microscopy) [@crocker]. Hereafter, we will study 2D-projected fractal dimensions by means of image analysis in an experimental colloidal system, namely, a magneto-rheological fluid (MRF). We use an aqueous suspension of micron-sized super-paramagnetic particles that, under the action of a constant uniaxial magnetic field, acquire a magnetic dipole moment that forces them to aggregate into linear chains [@Fermigier-etal:92; @PromislowFermigier:95; @MelleFuller:2001; @MelleFuller:2001b]. Magnetic particles [@HelgesenJullien:89; @Ding-etal:89; @NiklassonLett:88], magneto-rheological fluids [@CarrilloMendoza:2003; @MartnezPedreroAspects:2005; @MartinezPedrero2006], organic-solvent-based magnetic fluids [@ShenLangmuir01] or magnetic liposomes [@LicinioBraz2000] have been the object of several experimental investigations on fractal aggregation [@viskecbook; @jullienbook] and fractal geometry. Studies on fractal dimension by means of simulations have been also developed on magnetic particles [@HelgesenJullien:89; @PastorSatorras2000] or two-dimensional magnetic fluids simulations including van der Waals and electrostatic forces [@ChinSeparationScience04]. In this paper, we use 2D images of the colloidal aggregates in a MRF to compute 2D-projected values of the fractal dimension of the aggregates. These projected fractal dimension gives a lot of information concerning the morphology and spatial properties of the clusters. Regarding fractal properties, many of the experimental works for magnetic particle aggregation commented before, give different information: light scattering techniques yield fractal dimension values related to the three-dimensional (3D) structure of the aggregate distribution, while direct imaging techniques usually deal with two-dimensional (2D) projected images of the real three-dimensional structure of the aggregate distribution. However, some progress in this direction has been recently done [@ColemanPietronero:92], and several possible relations have been theoretically found [@Lee2004; @MaggiE2004; @SanchezPerez:2005]. We perform a detailed analysis of these studies on Section \[appendix\]. The structure of the paper is as follows: after the Introduction, Section \[experimental\] contains a description of the experimental setup and procedure. In Section \[fractal\_methods\] we include a brief recall on the definitions of the several fractal dimensions that will be used throughout the paper, including practical details about the computational methods. Section \[results\] contains the description of the results and Section \[conclusion\] displays some conclusions and prospects for future work. Materials and Methods {#experimental} ===================== Experimental Setup. ------------------- Our magneto-rheological sample consists on a commercial aqueous suspension of super-paramagnetic particles, (Estapor M1-070/60). These particles are composed by a polystyrene matrix with embedded magnetite crystals ($Fe_{3}O_{4}$) of small diameter ($10$ nm). Since these iron oxide grains are randomly oriented inside the micro-particles, the resulting average magnetic moment is negligible in the absence of an external magnetic field. The super-paramagnetic particles have a radius $a = 0.48$ $\mu m$ and a density $\rho \sim 1.85$ g/$cm^{3}$ with a magnetic content of $54.7\%$. The particles are denser than water and, therefore, they sediment to the bottom of the container. The height probability distribution of the particles can be calculated [@Faucheux] and, for the particles here used, it can be shown that 80 % of the particles lie in a narrow layer above the bottom glass plate, with a thickness of, approximately, twice the particle diameter. Hence, most of the particles are captured with a narrow field depth optical system, and the images correspond to an effective two-dimensional system. The surface of the latex micro-spheres is functionalized with carboxylic groups. The suspension has been also provided with a $1$ g/l concentration of a surfactant (sodium dodecil sulfate). For these kind of suspensions we have measured a zeta potential by means of a Malvern Zetasizer Nano, obtaining values in between $-110$ mV and $-60$ mV for suspension pH in the range $6-7$, reflecting the presence of an electrostatic repulsive force in the system. The suspension sample is confined in a cylindrical cell, with a diameter of $6.5$ mm and a height of $100$ $\mu$m, made of two quartz windows separated by a teflon spacer. A water jacket connected to a circulation thermostatic bath keeps the temperature constant during the experiments to $T = 282 \pm 1$ K. The system used to generate the magnetic field is composed by a pair of coils fed by a power amplifier (BOP-50-4M) driven by a programmable arbitrary function generator (HP-33120A). This system allows for the generation of an uniform magnetic field along the measurement region (see more details about the experimental system on [@MelleFuller:2002]). The video-microscopy setup used to record the images is located below the sample, and is formed by a long working distance microscope (Navitar) with zoom capabilities attached to a CCD camera (Retiga-Ex) with 12 bit intensity resolution and $1360\,$x$\,1036\,px$ spatial resolution. The required illumination is generated from the top using an optical fiber Fostec light source. Full frame images are captured every $0.4$ seconds during a total time of approximately $8000$ seconds at maximum spatial resolution. Experimental procedure. ----------------------- The control parameters in the experiments are the volume fraction of the suspension and suitably defined dimensionless magnetic interaction energy. Actually, when an external magnetic field $\overrightarrow{H}$ is applied, the particles acquire a magnetic dipole moment aligned with the external field direction. This magnetic moment is $\overrightarrow{m} = (4\pi/3)a^{3}\overrightarrow{M}$, where $\overrightarrow{M}=\chi\overrightarrow{H}$, being $\overrightarrow{M}$ the magnetization of the particle, and $\chi$ the particle’s magnetic susceptibility. The relevant parameter in the study of these suspensions is the ratio between the magnetic interaction energy for two particles in contact, $W_{m}$ and the energy of thermal fluctuations, $k_{B}T$: $$\label{lambda} \lambda \equiv \frac{W_{m}}{k_{B}T} = \frac{\mu_{0}m^{2}}{16\pi a^{3}k_{B}T}$$ where $\mu_{0}$ is the vacuum magnetic permeability, $k_{B}$ the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ the temperature. The values of $\lambda$ in the experiment have been calculated from the magnetization curve of the particles that was obtained by means of a vibrating sample magnetometer. The value obtained for the saturation magnetization was $46.5$ emu/g. The volume fraction of particles $\phi$ in the solution is defined as the fraction of the volume occupied for the particles over the total volume of the solution. For the purpose of this study, it is more useful to use an effective surface fraction which is calculated by dividing the sum of the area of all cluster contained in the image by the image total area. Hereafter, $\phi_{2D}$ will refer to this effective surface fraction. These parameters, $\lambda$ and $\phi_{2D}$, can be used to define two characteristic length scales. First, we can define a distance, $R_1$, at which the dipole-dipole interaction energy is equal to the energy of thermal fluctuations, i.e., $R_1 \equiv 2a\lambda^{1/3}$. Second, we may define an initial average inter-particle distance, $R_0 \equiv 2a\phi_{2D}^{1/2}$. The ratio of these two length scales allows us to distinguish between diffusion limited and field driven aggregation processes. If at the time the field is switched on $R_1 < R_0$, the aggregation process should be diffusion limited, while if $R_1 > R_0$, the aggregation process should be field driven. The sedimentation velocity for the particles in the suspension can be calculated from the buoyancy force as $v \approx (2 a^2 g(\rho-\rho_s))/(9\eta)$, where $g$ is the gravity constant, and $\eta$ and $\rho_s$ are the viscosity and density of the solvent, respectively. Thus the sedimentation velocity in our experiment is 0.43 $\mu$m /s. When the sample cell containing the magnetic suspension is introduced in the experimental setup, it is left at least $15$ minutes to equilibrate without external field, to allow for particle sedimentation and temperature stabilization. After this time, most of the particles lay in a thin layer of $2$ particles diameter depth, located right above the bottom quartz window. After this equilibration time, we capture images during $5$ minutes without field and then, a constant uniform magnetic field is switched on. The field triggers the aggregation process and, images are recorded during the time the field is being applied (approximately, 5000 seconds). Then, we switch off the magnetic field and capture another hour of images during the disaggregation process of the previously formed chains. Hence, we record approximately $21000$ images for each experiment. This procedure is performed in experiments carried out at different values of $\lambda$ and $\phi_{2D}$. The image analysis, data extraction and statistical calculations have been carried out with image processing software developed at our lab, based in the *ImageJ*[@imagej] free open source Java program for image analysis. In this software, we have implemented an adaptative threshold image processing algorithm that removes the image background and suitably captures the contour of the clusters. An example of a filtered image can be seen in Fig.\[fig:agres1\]. The contour of each cluster is then used to calculate geometrical properties such as cluster perimeter, $P$, area, $A$, Feret’s diameter (longest distance between cluster contour points), $l_f$, and circularity, $C = 4\pi A/P^2$. Moreover, we have calculated the cluster size probability density, $n_{s}(t)$, which is the number of clusters of size $s$, per unit area, present in the system at time $t$ [@vicsekscaling]. Then, $n_{s}(t)$, is used to calculate the average cluster size $S(t) = \sum \limits_{s}{s^{2}n_{s}(t)}/ \sum \limits_{s}{s n_{s}(t)}$. ![\[fig:circ\]Temporal evolution of mean cluster circularity $\left<C\right>(t)$ and mean cluster size $\left<S\right>(t)$ for a case of $\lambda =1688$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.088$. The magnetic field is applied at $t=300$ s ((a) region without field and (b) region with field where occurs the aggregation process) and disconnected at $t=4620$ s ((c) region without field and disaggregation process).](fig2b.eps) Fractal dimension using image analysis. {#fractal_methods} ======================================= A fractal object presents self-similarity, i.e., when we change the scale where the object is observed, the result is very similar or identical to the original observed one. It is possible to classify fractals according to the variations of this property. From a rigorous point of view, a fractal can be defined as a set of points whose Haussdorff dimension is larger that its topological dimension. In general, if we have a fractal quantity $F$, it is connected with a length $l$ using a relation such as $F \sim l^{D_C}$, where $D_C$ is the fractal dimension associated with this fractal quantity. By means of fractal dimension, $D_f$ (also called $D_3$ or $D$), an interpretation can be made on how the aggregate fills the space or how primary particles fill the space of the volume occupied by the aggregate. An usual method to determine the fractal dimension of an aggregate knowing its number of particles, $N$, is through the radius of gyration, $R_g$ [@viskecbook]. Then, the following expression is verified: $$\label{gyration2} R_g(N)\sim N^{1/D_{f}}$$ This is a very reliable method for determining $D_{f}$, if the number of particles for cluster is known with enough precision, being widely used in colloidal aggregation [@woodcombustion06]. ![\[db\_example\] Log-log plots of number of counts versus the inverse of the box size for a box-counting method. Box sizes on the log-log plots are powers of 2, so the points on the graphs are equally spaced. We use a chain during aggregation ($t=4989.6$ s) and during disaggregation ($10$ s after the field has been switched off) for an experiment with $\lambda=$703 and $\phi_{2D}=$0.106. In the first case we obtain $D_B(2D)=1.11 \pm 0.02$ and $D_B(2D)=1.28 \pm 0.02$ in the second.](fig3.eps) However, it is usual in image analysis not to have a reliable experimental setup or methodology for the right extraction of the number the particles on a cluster. In our case, we have searched for a compromise between reasonably good statistics and spatial resolution. As a result, we do not have enough image definition for detecting the individual particles inside each cluster (see Fig.\[fig:agres1\]) and only the contours of the clusters have been detected. An estimation method of Haussdorff dimension is the box-counting method consisting in covering the fractal object with boxes of different size and extracting the fractal dimension through a power law between the number of boxes and its size [@boxcountingreference04]. That is, if we cover a fractal objet with a number of boxes $N(r)$ with side $r$, we can obtain its capacity dimension using the following expression: $$\label{capacity} D_B=-\lim_{r\rightarrow0}\frac{\log N(r)}{\log r}$$ This method gives the box-counting dimension or capacity dimension ($D_B$ hereafter). Classical box-counting method presents limitations that have to be taken into account: this method is very sensitive to the resolution and orientation of the image and the power-law relationship must be verified in a reasonable range of length scales to be able to state that fractal structure appears [@EcologyLett04]. An example can be seen on Fig. \[db\_example\], where we calculate $D_B(2D)$ for a chain during aggregation and $10$ s after the field has been turned off for an experiment with $\lambda=$703 and $\phi_{2D}=$0.106. In the first case, a capacity dimension $D_B(2D)=1.11 \pm 0.02$ is obtained, whereas in the second, we obtain $D_B(2D)=1.28 \pm 0.02$. The range where the linear regression is fitted is almost two orders of magnitude. In Section \[results\], we use this method for several chains for each time and we calculate average values. Another method for obtaining fractal dimensions from these 2D images of the projected aggregates consists on the analysis of several projected fractal dimensions using the scale relation for fractal quantities explained before. We can consider various types of these fractal dimensions: one and two dimensional fractal dimensions, $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$, which are obtained through the following form: $$\label{D1D2} P \sim l_{f}^{~D_1};~~~~ A \sim l_{f}^{~D_2}$$ where $P$ represents the perimeter of a cluster, $A$ the area and $l_f$ the longest distance between two points in the cluster, the so-called Feret’s diameter [@Lee2004]. Another useful expression uses the area and the perimeter for obtaining the so-called perimeter-based fractal dimension $D_p$ in the following form: $$\label{Dpf} A \sim P^{~2/D_p}$$ These relations let us calculate the fractal dimensions easily using 2D images captured with a digital camera. Thus, when the contour of the clusters or aggregates is detected by means of image analysis, we only need to calculate the perimeter, the area and the Feret’s diameter for obtaining the corresponding 2D fractal dimension. However, some critics to the applicability of the area-perimeter method on Ec.(\[Dpf\]) have been lately reported [@perimeter-area06]. The main argument of that critic lies on the fact that digitalising can change the perimeter and area of the objects of study, if it is applied for objects oriented in different directions. In our case, this argument is not applicable, because of the anisotropy of the clusters caused by the external magnetic field. An example of the calculation of $D_{p}$ using the area-perimeter method can be seen on Fig.\[fig:dp\_example\_2\]. The power law behaviour is verified in almost four orders of magnitude, showing that this method for obtaining fractal properties is adequate for a system like ours. ![\[fig:dp\_example\_2\] Linear regression for the calculation of $D_p$ corresponding to a magneto-rheological fluid with concentration $\phi_{2D}=0.088$ and $\lambda=1688$ after applying the magnetic field during $4500$ s. A value of $D_{p}=1.84$ is obtained.](fig4.eps) Roughness. ---------- For testing the possible interpretation of the projected fractal dimensions as a reflection of the roughness of the boundary of the clusters, we compute the height of the clusters contour measured from a central line which crosses the clusters end to end which we named as $h_j(x,t)$. For each cluster $j$ in a single image, this quantity depends of the position $x$ of the contour point and time $t$. For this study, we calculate the average value, $H(t)\equiv {\left< h(t)\right>}_j$, of this height for all the clusters contained at the corresponding image. This border roughness study is different to others previously made on a single magnetic chain [@Silva1996], where the fluctuations on the form of the chain were analysed, not its border. We also calculate the border height fluctuation by means of the interface width for the cluster $j$ as: $$\label{fluctuation} w_j(t)\equiv\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[h(i,t)-\left<h(t)\right>\right]^2}$$ where $i$ refers to the corresponding contour point and $N$ is the total number of contour points. This quantity characterizes the roughness of the contour. We calculate a cluster average value of the border height fluctuation for each time as $W(t)\equiv {\left<w(t)\right>}_j$. Also, we can define the height-height correlation: $$\label{correlation} c(l)\equiv\sqrt{\left[h(x)-\left<h(x')\right>\right]^2}$$ where $l=|x-x'|$ is the distance between two contour points projections, $x$ and $x'$, made into a central end to end line that crosses the cluster. This magnitude scales in the form $c(l)\sim l^{\alpha}$, being $\alpha$ the roughness exponent. This property has been widely used, for instance, for the study of surface growth [@fractalsurfacesgrowth] and interfacial growth phenomena by electrochemical deposition [@JuanmaPRL]. Moreover, it is possible to connect the roughness exponent with a fractal dimension $d$ [@fractalsurfacesgrowth]: $$\label{dimalpha} d=2-\alpha$$ Later in this work, we will show as $D_p$, the perimeter-based dimension, may be identified with this fractal dimension $d$, confirming the morphologic nature of this quantity. We also use the temporal evolution of the average height-height correlation $W(t)$ for observing the changes on the cluster roughness during the aggregation and disaggregation processes. Results. {#results} ======== We calculate the capacity dimension $D_B(2D)$ using several clusters in some images during aggregation and disaggregation. For an adequate calculation of this dimension, we extract manually well-defined and representative clusters in each image and calculate individually the box-counting dimension. Next, we make an average value of $D_B(2D)$ for each analysed time. This method is only valid when we study objects with enough size for fitting a linear regression in an acceptable range. Besides, because of the image resolution, we cannot use this methodology in the stages in which the number of free particles is predominant. We also obtain one-dimensional ($D_1$), two-dimensional ($D_2$) and perimeter-based ($D_p$) fractal dimensions using Ec.(\[D1D2\]) and Ec.(\[Dpf\]). Therefore, we fit three linear regressions in every captured image (every $0.4$ sec) using our software, aiming to observe the changes on these fractal dimensions during aggregation and disaggregation. We require a regression correlation factor of at least $r>0.98$ for considering that the result of its respective image is correct. This condition widely reduces the number of images that are useful for this study, specially when chains are not yet formed, that is when the particles are moving free in the liquid. As it can be seen on the example in Fig. \[fig:agres1\], we use a wide vision field for detecting as many chains as possible. This is just what happens with $D_B(2D)$, for small objects, like free particles, we do not have enough precision -or number of pixels- to observe clearly the particles’ border, so we cannot suitably obtain their corresponding fractal dimension. Aggregation. ------------ As it has been commented in the Introduction, a few studies about fractal dimension of aggregates using magnetic particles have been developed in the last two decades. The differences between experimental systems imply that a complicated issue can arise from the comparison between different obtained fractal dimensions. However, it is obtained that all the values relating chain-like structures of magnetic particles for three-dimensional fractal dimensions are contained in a interval $D_f = 1.1 - 1.3$. For instance, using light scattering, it is possible to obtain $D_f$ adjusting the scattering intensity $I$ with the scattering vector $q$ between the Guinier and the Porod regimes, where is verified $I \propto q^{-D_f} $[@BushellAmal:2002]. Various works can be found on the literature which use light scattering: spherical vesicles containing magnetic particles (magnetic liposomes) which gives a value of $D_f = 1.1 \pm 0.1$ [@LicinioBraz2000], organic-solvent-based magnetic fluids compressing disperse magnetite nanoparticles with $D_f = 1.22$ [@ShenLangmuir01], and magneto-rheological fluids with $D_f = 1.21 \pm 0.14$ [@MartnezPedreroAspects:2005] and $D_f = 1.24 \pm 0.04$ [@MartinezPedrero2006]. By means of the expressions explained in last section, it may be possible to compare perimeter-based fractal dimension with three-dimensional fractal dimensions obtained using light scattering [@Lee2004]. ![\[fig:signal\]Temporal evolution of projected projected fractal dimensions during aggregation. Continuous lines $D_2$ (bottom) and $D_p$ (top) for a case of $\lambda = 703$ and $\phi_{2D} =0.106$ (correlation factor $r>0.98$). The single points represent box-counting dimension $D_B(2D)$: $\lambda=$131 and $\phi_{2D}=$0.071 for squares; $\lambda=$176 and $\phi_{2D}=$0.115 for circles; $\lambda=$703 and $\phi_{2D}=$0.106 for triangles.](fig5.eps) Helgesen *et al* [@HelgesenJullien:89] reported variation of fractal dimension with the magnetic strength for a 2D system of $3.6~\mu$m magnetic particles contained in a cell of $5~\mu$m thickness. The fractal dimension is calculated using video-microscopy and Ec.(\[gyration2\]). In fact, their obtained fractal dimension must not be considered three-dimensional but two-dimensional, because of their experimental system is clearly two-dimensional. The magnetic interaction is measured using the factor $K_{dd} =m^2 / 8a^{3}k_B T$. Comparing this quantity with our equivalent $\lambda$ factor, we obtain $K_{dd} = \lambda/2$ using S.I. units. In their study, magnetic particles have a permanent magnetic moment, thus comparison between our experiments and theirs is complicated. In one case, they apply a external magnetic field of $H=1$ Oe, generating chains aligned with the external field. This experiment, the more compatible with ours, a value of $D_2 = 1.05 \pm 0.03$ for $K_{dd}=1360$ ($\lambda=680$) is obtained. Simulations have been reported on magnetic fluids including van der Waals, electrostatic, magnetic dipole and hydrodynamic inter-particle forces [@ChinSeparationScience04]. In that work, Chin *et al* obtain values for fractal dimension inside the interval $D_f = 1.1 - 1.3$ for magnetic fields $0.1$, $1$ and $2$ T. However, tangential magnetic dipole forces have not been included, so aggregates do not have a chain structure, nor are aligned with the magnetic field and therefore comparison with real experimental systems may be not applicable. Changes and temporal evolution of fractal dimension during aggregation have been studied on latex micro-spheres [@ChakrabortiBenschoten:2003], and lately on magneto-rheological fluids [@MartinezPedrero2006]. In Fig. \[fig:signal\], we display an example of the values of $D_2$ and $D_p$ obtained along the aggregation process with the requirement of $r>0.98$. We also represent several average values of $D_B(2D)$ for three different experiments. A temporal dependence in projected fractal dimensions is not detected and a relatively uniform value for fractal dimensions which do not depend of aggregation dynamics is found, i.e., the fractal dimension is constant in time, although dynamical quantities such as number of clusters, mean cluster size and others similar magnitudes follow a power law behaviour in this kind of systems [@vicsekscaling; @pabloagregacion]. We do not observe temporal variation of these fractal dimensions during initial stages of aggregation. This is because free particles are not detected suitably and this reduce considerably the correlation factor on linear regressions. As we justify later in this work, we can interpret capacity dimension as a measure of the degree of cluster space filling, while the perimeter-based dimension is linked with the clusters border roughness. When clusters become linear chains, these kind of aggregates do not change the way they fill the space (they are almost linear objects) and the box counting dimension do not vary. In the same way, chains’ border roughness does not suffer special alterations during aggregation and consequently $D_p$ does not show any variation. We calculate the projected fractal dimensions varying $\lambda$ and $\phi_{2D}$. The obtained values for $D_2$ and $D_p$ are summarized on Table \[tab:table1\] on columns 3 and 4, the associated $\lambda$ and $\phi_{2D}$ values can be consulted on columns 1 and 2. No dependency with $\lambda$, $\phi_{2D}$ or with the ratio $R_1/R_0$ is observed on these fractal dimensions. Therefore, we assume that making average values using all the experiments is a correct procedure. We also calculate the one dimensional dimension $D_1$ for the chains, also with no variation or dependencies during aggregation, obtaining an average value of $\left<D_1\right> = 1.01 \pm 0.03$. One-dimensional fractal dimension gives some information about the irregularity on the perimeter of the aggregate. For Euclidean dimension, we must have $D_1=1$. In our case, we obtain a very similar value to this Euclidean result, probably because of the linear and field-aligned structure of the chains. Perhaps, as proposed Lee *et al* [@Lee2004], could be argued the existence of a relation among circularity $C$ and $D_1$, since $C$ also measures the aggregate morphology as $D_1$ does. Nevertheless, no correlation is observed between $D_1$ and $C$ for different kind of clusters, as Lee *et al* obtained. In our case, where aggregates are linear chains, $C$ varies in the aggregation process with a power law behavior during aggregation (as it can be seen on Fig. \[fig:circ\]), while $D_1$ keeps constant. ![\[db\_agre2\]Dependency of $D_B(2D)$ with the ratio $R_1/R_0$ during aggregation (Table \[tab:table1\], columns 6 and 3). The continuous line represent a linear regression of the experimental data giving $D_B(2D)=$(-0.06 $\pm$ 0.01)$R_1/R_0$ + (1.39 $\pm$ 0.02) with a correlation factor $r=$-0.873.](fig6.eps) Two-dimensional fractal dimensions $D_2$ and $D_p$ are more useful that one-dimensional fractal dimension $D_1$ in terms of characterizing the formed chains from our magneto-rheological system. These dimensions not only give information about the morphology of the aggregates, but they also supply mechanical strength information about the aggregate. For two-dimensional fractal dimension $D_2$, an average value of $\left<D_2\right> = 1.09 \pm 0.02$ is obtained. This value is quite close to the expected $D_2 = 1$ for a linear object in an Euclidean geometry and is compatible with the previous value obtained by Helgesen *et al* of $D_2 = 1.05 \pm 0.03$. For the perimeter-based dimension $D_p$, we obtain an average value of $\left<D_p\right> = 1.84 \pm 0.02$. Both values, $D_2$ and $D_p$, must be in an interval between 1 and 2. For $D_p=1$, we have a perfect spherical object, whereas for $D_p=2$, we obtain a linear object. In our case, we obtain a value close to 2, so the aggregates are linear objects. The main practical difference among $D_2$ and $D_p$ is that $D_p$ is obtained from magnitudes which are calculated more directly (area and perimeter) and that $D_2$ (and $D_1$) is calculated by means of Feret’s diameter, i.e., $D_p$ reflects better the roughness of the boundary of the aggregate. For this reason, a value for $D_p$ is obtained not so close to 2 than $D_2$ to 1. In contrast to $D_1$, $D_2$ and $D_p$, the capacity dimension seems to show a relation with the external parameters, so an average value cannot be calculated. In fact, we find a linear dependence with the ratio $R_1 / R_0$ as can be seen on Fig. \[db\_agre2\]. As we mentioned on the Introduction, the ratio $R_1 / R_0$ informs about whether the chains initially aggregate by magnetic interaction ($R_1 > R_0$) or by diffusion ($R_1 < R_0$). In all our experiments $R_1/R_0>1$ is verified, therefore, from the beginning, the aggregation process is dominated by the magnetic interaction among particles. Moreover, this result shows that the shape of the chains depends on the intensity of this ratio. Visually, we observe that the finer and longer formed chains at the stationary state correspond to higher values of the ratio $R_1/R_0$, while wider chains are observed when the ratio is lower. Therefore, the shape of the clusters may depend of the intensity of this magnetic interaction between particles. This implies that the capacity dimension measures how the chains fill the surrounding space. In the Introduction, we introduced various concepts related with the roughness to the clusters contour, in particular, the border height fluctuation $W(t)$. For our experiments, we observe that $W(t)$ is approximately constant during aggregation from $100$ s, until the field is switched off (see Fig. \[fig:wagre\]). In Table \[tab:table1\], column 7, we show time average values $\left< W\right>_t$ for each experiment in the saturated region. No dependence with $\lambda$, $\phi_{2D}$ or $R_1/R_0$ is observed. Therefore, as it happens with $D_p$, the variations on the border of the clusters do not suffer high variations during aggregation and they seem not to depend on external variables, with the exception of the initial stages of aggregation. The average value of this dispersion is 0.21$\pm$ 0.04 $\mu$m, approximately $1/5$ of the particle diameter. This value can be considered high for linear chains, because a perfect spherical single particle should have a value of $w$ close to $1/3$ of the particle diameter. However, the quantities $\left< W\right>_t$ have been obtained making a cluster average in which the free particles and small chains count the same as the longest clusters. Similarly, the initial value when no field is applied may vary as a function of the number of initial aggregates present in the system. Therefore, this average and experimental variations for ideal scenarios may reduce the value of $W(t)$ for a perfect chain composed of aligned spherical particles. ![\[fig:wagre\]Four experiments as examples of power-law behaviour of the average chain-border height fluctuation $W(t)$ in the initial stages of aggregation ($t<100$) until saturation. From top to bottom: $\lambda=131$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.071$; $\lambda=703$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.106$; $\lambda=252$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.145$; $\lambda=1688$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.088$.](fig7b.eps) We observe as the average chain-border height fluctuation $W(t)$ follows a power-law behaviour on the initial stages of aggregation, as can be seen for various experiments on Fig. \[fig:wagre\]. Consequently, we define the exponent ${\beta}_a$, so during initial stages $W(t)\sim t^{{\beta}_a}$ is verified. We summarize ${\beta}_a$ obtained values on Table \[tab:table1\] on column 5. An average value for this exponent is $\left<{\beta}_a\right>=-0.03 \pm 0.02$. The high relative error of this magnitude is associated with the differences in number and morphology between the detected clusters in each experiment, specially regarding the free particles. In addition, and as a verification, we calculated the roughness factor $\alpha$ for chains with sufficient length. We obtain a average value of three aligned chains ($\sim$ 20 $\mu$m length) $\alpha$ = 0.11 in a case of $\lambda$= 703 and $\phi_{2D}$ = 0.106 and for different times $t$ = 4105.6 s, 5233.2 s and 5400 s. If we apply Ec.(\[dimalpha\]), we obtain an average value of $d$ = 1.88 $\pm$ 0.03, compatible with the value $D_p$ = 1.85 obtained for this experiment and with the average $\left<D_p\right>$ = 1.84 $\pm$ 0.02. As we will see below, this method also gives, where it is applicable, concordance between $d$ and $D_p$ in the disaggregation process. Therefore, we can interpreter perimeter-based fractal dimension as a measure of the roughness of the chains border. ![\[fig:desas\]Example of chains disaggregating for different times in the experiment $\lambda=131$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.071$. The contour around the chains is the border of the clusters detected by means of the image analysis, while the grey color is the original captured image. Left: $t=0$ s (when field is off), Middle: $t=20$ s, and Right: $t=40$ s](fig8.eps) At this point we would like to compare our experimental findings with previous results on magneto-rheological fluids using light scattering. However this comparison may not be possible because of the nature of the three-dimensional fractal dimension obtained by static light scattering and the fractal dimension obtained using projected images as in our experiments. However, theoretical expressions showed in the Appendix has been developed to carried out such a comparison. An adequate knowledge on this subject would be interesting in colloids for understanding the dynamics of the aggregates and their morphological evolution. Therefore, with our results of $D_2$, we obtain an average value of $\left<D_f\right> = 1.419 \pm 0.002$ using Ec.(\[relation1a\]). By means of Ec.(\[relation1b\]), we obtain an average value $\left<D_f\right> = 1.58 \pm 0.04$. Both results seem to give overestimated values, taking into account that they are clearly linear aggregates, especially regarding Ec.(\[relation1b\]). Using the linear regression result Ec.(\[relation2\]) on the data from Sánchez *et al*, a more sounder value is obtained. An average gives $\left<D_f\right> = 1.28 \pm 0.04$. A result quite close to this average is obtained by means of Ec.(\[relation3\]), using a resolution of $N_{pix}=1072$ px, a similar resolution to our experimental system. Therefore, we obtain an average three-dimensional capacity dimension of $\left<D_B(3D)\right> = 1.34 \pm 0.01$. Then, the more similar value that we have obtained comparing with previous experiments using static light scattering, is $\left<D_f\right> = 1.28 \pm 0.04$, by means of the linear regression fitted with the data by Sánchez *et al* Ec.(\[relation2\]). A little higher value is obtained with the average value for the capacity dimension $D_B(3D)$, using Ec.(\[relation3\]), this may be because the box-counting method gives imprecise results, due to its dependency of the pixel resolution. Disaggregation. --------------- As it has been said before, it is difficult to obtain reliable results on fractal dimensions, when we have free particles because of image resolution. That is why we cannot observe the variation on fractal dimensions while the chains are being formed by the aggregation of individual particles. However, we can observe the disaggregation process, i.e, the separation by Brownian motion and repulsive electrostatic forces of the particles that formed the chains when the applied field is switched off. Surprisingly, in the literature, this kind of processes have rarely been studied [@Chinbreakup02; @soniatesis]. Developed studies focus on aggregation, but not on the process of the aggregates that vanish and become free particles. This is very interesting for practical applications, for example, for designing an on-off dispositive based on magneto-rheological fluids. In Fig. \[fig:des\], we show three snapshots of a group of chains during disaggregation at times $t=0$ (field is turned off), $t=20$ s and $t=40$ s. The dark border along the clusters border is the contour extracted using our software. It can be seen how the free particles have appeared at 20 seconds and how the clusters contour turns into itself. ![$D_p$ during disaggregation when the field is switched off ($t=0$) in three different experiments (circles: $\lambda=131$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.071$; squares: $\lambda=176$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.068$ and triangles: $\lambda=703$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.106$). The little crosses correspond to the average chain-border height fluctuation $W(t)$. The black filled points are $d=2-\alpha$ values for the experiment $\lambda=703$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.106$[]{data-label="fig:des"}](fig9.eps) The evolution of $D_p$ in the disaggregation process for three different experiments varying $\lambda$ and $\phi_{2D}$ values is displayed on Fig. \[fig:des\]. The perimeter-based fractal dimension $D_p$ changes from the value $D_p \sim 1.90$ for linear chains to a minimum value $D_p \sim 1.65$ after 20 seconds of Brownian motion. After that, a stabilization on $D_p$ (for $t> 40$ s) is observed. We have to say that this method presents several limitations at this point: first, the presence of free particles reduces the correlation factor of the linear regression, making the result less reliable. Second, as it has been commented in the Introduction, this method could not be correct when the objects do not present anisotropy, as occurs when the chain disaggregates into free particles. Therefore, $D_p$ values may not be correct when $t>60$ s during disaggregation. In Fig.\[fig:des\], we also represent (little crosses) the evolution of the average chain-border height fluctuation $W(t)$. Two separated states can be observed on this magnitude: the first, an steep growth from $t=0$ until $t \sim 10$ s; the second, a soft decrease of the curve until saturation. Both behaviours present, separately, power-law behaviours with, of course, different exponents. We respectively named these exponents as ${\beta}_{d1}$ and ${\beta} _{d2}$ and their values for each experiment have been summarized on Table \[tab:table1\] columns 9 and 10. Average calculations of both quantities give the following results: $\left<{\beta}_{d1}\right>=0.15\pm 0.06$ and $\left<{\beta}_{d2}\right>=-0.11\pm 0.03$. We interpret these two regions as follows: the first region represents the region where the rugosity of the clusters grows because of the simple movement of the particles inside the cluster. In this stage, the clusters maintain their individuality not breaking yet into little pieces. This behaviour means univocalicity in the contour points. The second region appears when the clusters begin to break into little clusters and the free particles appear. At this point the growth on the average cluster rugosity decreases, because the average is calculated with the new clusters and free particles that appear during the process. ![\[graph:db\]Box-counting dimension during disaggregation for three different experiments. Each case begins the process with different $D_B(2D)$ values, but the fractal dimension tends to a common temporal evolution while the chains lose its linear structure.](fig10.eps) A crucial point for calculating the roughness exponent $\alpha$ in our clusters using the height-height correlation function Ec.(\[correlation\]) is the univocalicity of the contour. That means that, each $x$ point must be associated to one and only one height. When the disaggregation process is advanced and the free particles appear, the detected contour becomes not univocal and tends to twist itself up. When this behaviour occurs, it is not possible to use this method. For this reason, we observe that we can only calculate $\alpha$ values for $t<4$ s. In Fig. \[fig:des\], using black filled points, we plot some calculations of $d=2-\alpha$ (Ec.(\[dimalpha\])) for a long chain in an experiment with $\lambda=703$ and $\phi_{2D}=0.106$. The points of $d$ fit adequately to the represented $D_p$ points and values seem to be very similar. For that reason, we conclude that the perimeter-based dimension, $D_p$, is a measure related with the rugosity of the clusters contour. Finally, we calculate some average values for the box-counting dimension during disaggregation. These calculations can be seen on Fig. \[graph:db\]. As we see on the study of aggregation, the box-counting dimension is different for each experiment depending on the ratio $R_1/R_0$, therefore the experiments begin the disaggregation process with different values of $D_B(2D)$. However, when the field is switched off, all the values tend to a single curve. This might be the expected behaviour, if we suppose that the capacity dimension measures how the clusters occupy the space, since the clusters tend to dissolve into little clusters and particles, regardless of the characteristics of the field and concentration at beginning of the aggregation process. Conclusions. {#conclusion} ============ In this work, we study experimentally the cluster morphology in a magneto-rheological fluid (MRF) under a constant uniaxial magnetic field. We calculate 2D fractal dimensions and study the contour roughness of the cluster using image analysis. We study two processes: the aggregation, where the rod-like chains formed by the application of the external magnetic field, and the disaggregation which occurs when the magnetic field is switched off. As far as we know, the disaggregation process has not been studied in detail in the literature, in spite of its interest on potential practical applications. During aggregation, we do not observe any regular temporal variation on fractal dimensions, because the method used in this work cannot be applied to the initial stages of aggregation. Using the area-perimeter method, we obtain the following average values for: one-dimensional fractal dimension, $\left<D_1\right> = 1.01 \pm 0.03$; two-dimensional fractal dimension, $\left<D_2\right> = 1.09 \pm 0.02$ and perimeter-based fractal dimension, $\left<D_p\right> = 1.84 \pm 0.02$. We compare these values with previous experimental works. We show that the fractal dimension obtained by Helgesen *et al* [@HelgesenJullien:89] is indeed a two-dimensional fractal dimension. We obtain a good agreement between their value with a external applied field ($D_2 = 1.05 \pm 0.03$) and our result for two-dimensional fractal dimension. We obtain that the box-counting dimension or capacity dimension $D_B(2D)$ does not vary with time, but its value is different depending on the ratio $R_1/R_0$ between two characteristic lengths that measures a relative magnetic field strength for particle. We also calculate various quantities associated with the roughness of the contour or border of the clusters. We find that the average chain-border height fluctuation $W(t)$ follows a power-law exponent, in the initial stages of the aggregation process, with an average exponent $\left<{\beta}_a\right>=-0.03 \pm 0.02$. [0.45]{} [@|ccc|ccccccc|]{} $\lambda$ &$\phi_{2D}$ &$R_1/R_0$ &$D_2$ &$D_p$ &$D_B^{2D}$ &$\left<W\right>_t$ &$\beta_a$ &$\beta_{d1}$ &$\beta_{d2}$\ 131 &0.071 &1.34 &1.14 &1.85 &1.33 &0.21 &-0.02 &0.23 &-0.16\ 131 &0.132 &1.85 &1.03 &1.89 &1.28 &0.17 &-0.04 &0.19 &-0.11\ 176 &0.068 &1.46 &1.09 &1.89 &1.30 &0.20 &-0.03 &0.14 &-0.15\ 176 &0.115 &1.90 &1.10 &1.84 &1.31 &0.17 &-0.03 &0.17 &-0.10\ 252 &0.145 &2.41 &1.07 &1.84 &1.26 &0.16 &-0.05 &0.15 &-0.09\ 390 &0.112 &2.45 &1.1 &1.87 &1.27 &0.19 &-0.03 &0.17 &-0.09\ 536 &0.051 &1.83 &1.10 &1.82 &1.30 &0.22 &-0.02 &0.16 &-0.13\ 536 &0.086 &2.38 &1.05 &1.92 &1.27 &0.18 &-0.03 &0.20 &-0.12\ 703 &0.038 &2.41 &1.11 &1.84 &1.28 &0.21 &-0.02 &0.10 &-0.07\ 703 &0.106 &2.90 &1.10 &1.85 &1.20 &0.20 &-0.04 &0.15 &-0.13\ 888 &0.051 &2.17 &1.05 &1.87 &1.27 &0.25 &-0.01 &0.06 &-0.12\ 888 &0.075 &2.63 &1.05 &1.85 &1.25 &0.26 &-0.02 &0.19 &-0.08\ 1485 &0.059 &2.77 &1.08 &1.84 &1.25 &0.22 &-0.05 &0.03 &-0.12\ 1688 &0.088 &3.53 &1.10 &1.87 &1.22 &0.15 &-0.05 &0.21 &-0.09\ 1891 &0.045 &2.62 &1.09 &1.82 &1.22 &0.22 &-0.06 &0.21 &-0.15\ 2989 &0.043 &2.99 &1.07 &1.78 &1.25 &0.3 &-0.01 &0.07 &-0.14\ During the process of chain disaggregation, i.e., when the applied field is switched off and the chains vanish because of the Brownian motion and electrostatic repulsive forces, we observe that $D_p$ decreases approximately a $13\%$ factor when the field is switched off. Also, we show that $W(t)$ presents two different power-law behaviours with exponents $\left<{\beta}_{d1}\right>=0.15\pm 0.06$ and $\left<{\beta}_{d2}\right>=-0.11\pm 0.03$. Moreover, we show that the perimeter-based dimension is related with the fractal dimension $d$ obtained directly by means of the roughness exponent $\alpha$ in Ec.(\[dimalpha\]). This means that we may interpret the perimeter-based dimension as a measure of the clusters border roughness. Finally, we show results on the evolution of box-counting dimension during disaggregation. The differences among experiments on this fractal dimension vanish as the clusters dissolve. This behaviour fits with an interpretation of $D_B(2D)$ as a measure of how the clusters fill the space. In conclusion, for a better understanding of temporal evolution and dependencies of fractal dimension in MRF and for confirming the results hereby exposed, it would be necessary to carry out more investigations. Specifically, simulations of MRF could be implemented using a 3D system with a real set of interactions including electrostatic, van der Waals, Brownian motion and complete magnetic dipole forces. Such a model could be quite useful for an adequate study of fractal dimensions and for a better knowledge of the relation between three-dimensional fractal dimension and projected fractal dimensions at an anisotropic colloidal system like the used in this work. Moreover, we will focus further investigations on temporal evolution of aggregates’ box-counting and correlation dimension and its dependence with magnetic strength and concentration for the initial stages of aggregation. Acknowledgments. ================ We wish to acknowledge N. Sánchez for providing us with explicit data from his work, as well as his comments; ICMM researchers at CSIC for the VSM magnetometry measurements and J. C. Gómez-Sáez for her correction of the English version of this manuscript. P. Domínguez-García has been supported by a F.P.I. fellowship from M.E.C. This research has been supported by M.E.C. under Project No. BFM2001-0297.\ \[appendix\] Calculating three-dimensional fractal dimension. ================================================ How the values of these 3D and 2D-projected fractal dimensions relate to each other is not an straightforward matter. As we explained before, $D_f$ is usually obtained directly by means of light scattering, which is a very effective experimental method in the study of colloidal suspensions. However, it would be very useful to obtain this three-dimensional fractal dimension using image analysis techniques. Some elaborated techniques have been developed regarding this problem, for instance, the two-slopes dimensional analysis using cumulative size distribution [@EscherichiaColi01] or the relative optical density method [@Tianopticaldensity06]. The main question at this point is how to correlate easily these 2D projected fractal dimensions with the magnitude which is actually useful physically: the three dimensional fractal dimension $D_f$. A possible answer could be that $D_{proj} = \min\{2, D_f\}$ [@Mandelbrot], but this result has been obtained for mathematical infinite self-similarity fractal objects and might not be applicable for real finite fractals, such as aggregates. A mathematical approach to this argument can be consulted on [@MaggiE2004]. Some theoretical studies have been developed in the last years to explore the possibility of obtaining $D_f$ using the projected fractal dimensions. In these works, the authors attempt to find a relation between the three-dimensional fractal dimension and the projected ones, using simulations of aggregation of particles in a three dimensional space. Afterwards, they calculate $D_f$ and the projected dimension and try to find mathematical relations between them. An initial work of the above-mentioned corresponds to Jullien *et al* [@JullienEhrburgerDolle:94], but their results may be not applicable to real fractal aggregates [@MaggiE2004]. As far as we know, the most important approaches to this question appear in the works by Lee and Kramer [@Lee2004], Maggi and Winterwerp [@MaggiE2004] and Sánchez *et al* [@SanchezPerez:2005]. In the first above-mentioned works, Lee and Kramer find the following expressions between $D_f$ with $D_2$ and $D_p$ [@footnote]: \[n=2\] $$\begin{aligned} D_f &= 1.391 + 0.01 e^{2.164 D_2}\label{relation1a}\\ D_f &=-1.628D_p + 4.6 \label{relation1b}\end{aligned}$$ Although these two expressions are praiseworthy, the regression coefficient for Ec. (\[relation1b\]) should be higher than the obtained $r=0.83$, concluding that a reliable value of $D_f$ by means of the projected dimension $D_p$ has been demonstrated. Moreover, Ec. (\[relation1b\]) must verify the boundary conditions for $D_f$ and $D_p$, i.e., for a spherical object, $D_p = 1$ and $D_f=3$, and for a linear object, $D_p=2$ and $D_f=1$. The first boundary condition is approximately verified, but not the second. On the other hand, Ec. (\[relation1a\]), which correlates $D_f$ with $D_2$, has a higher correlation factor ($r=0.96$) and seems to be more reliable. \[fig:regre\] The boundary conditions for $D_f$ and $D_p$ suggest a possible approximate linear expression in the form $D_f \simeq -2 D_p + 5$, which is approximately obtained using the data provided by Sánchez *et al* from their astrophysical-related work. In their study, Sánchez *et al* calculate a relation between $D_p$ and $D_f$ using simulations of random aggregates aiming to obtain the fractal dimension of interstellar molecular clouds by analysing the projected images of these objects. They gather that these relations mostly depend on the image resolution $N_{pix}$, especially at low values of $D_p$ ($1<D_p<1.6$). However, as it can be seen on their work, there is a intermediate zone where there is no apparent dependence on the image resolution for values of $D_p$ contained in the interval $1.6<D_p<1.9$. For these data, a linear regression can be calculated, obtaining the following expression: $$\begin{aligned} \label{relation2} D_f = (-2.09 \pm 0.13 )D_p + (5.15 \pm 0.22);\\ \nonumber \textrm{for}~~1.6<D_p<1.9\end{aligned}$$ The Ec.(\[relation2\]) verifies the two above-mentioned boundary conditions between $D_f$ and $D_p$ and gives an interval of application independent to the resolution. A mathematical approach for obtaining the three-dimensional capacity dimension $D_B(3D)$, from two-dimensional projections of fractal aggregates is present in the work by Maggi and Winterwerp [@MaggiE2004]. For statistical self-similar and non-homogeneous fractals, as fractal aggregates, it is usual to study the generalized dimension of $q$th order, $d_q$ [@HentschelProcaccia:83]. The fractal dimension associated with $q=0$ gives $d_0$, being this dimension the capacity dimension $D_B$. Maggi and Winterwerp apply the current theory of projections of fractals for obtaining the three-dimensional capacity dimension, $D_B(3D)$, that depends on perimeter-based dimension in the following form: $$\label{relation3} D_B(3D) = \sqrt{\frac{a(N_{pix})}{D_p-b(N_{pix})}};~~~~\textrm{for}~~D_p<2$$ where $a(N_{pix})$ and $b(N_{pix})$ are functions of the resolution $N_{pix}$. In the case of infinite resolution $l\rightarrow\infty$, $a=9/8$ and $b=7/8$ is obtained. Therefore, it is possible to apply Ec.(\[relation3\]) with the image resolution of our experiment. For example, for a resolution of $N_{pix}=1024$ px, $a=1.483$ and $b=1.035$ are obtained. An important result deduced of this study is that it is not possible to obtain three-dimensional information from the two-dimensional capacity dimension $D_B(2D)$. This result limits the utility of the box-counting fractal dimension for being compared with another similar quantities. In previous sections, we explained our results for the calculation of 2D projected fractal dimensions by means of image analysis. Afterwards, we calculated and compared the three-dimensional fractal dimensions obtained by the formed chains using the expressions explained in this section. The result that seems to be more simple and applicable to our system is the obtained by Sanchez *et al* [@SanchezPerez:2005] which provide an approximate linear expression in the form $D_p \simeq -2D_p +5$ on the range of $1.6 < D_p < 1.9$ and which is independent of image resolution. This result provides a value for three-dimensional fractal dimension of $\left<D_f\right> = 1.28 \pm 0.04$, compatible with light scattering studies of similar frameworks on MRF [@MartnezPedreroAspects:2005; @MartinezPedrero2006]. [55]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , ** (, ). , ** (, ). , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ** (, ), ed. , ** (, ), ed. , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , **** (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , <http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/>. , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , **** (). , ** (, ), ed. , ****, (). , , , (), , , , ****, (). , Ph.D. thesis, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). . , ****, ().

--- abstract: 'Dirac, Schwinger and Zwanziger theories of electric and magnetic charges are obtained via duality transformation. Analogous construction for three Euclidean dimensions, with magnetic charges interacting with electric currents, is also done. The role of Dirac strings as dislocations in the configurations of gauge potential is emphasized.' author: - | Chandrasekhar Chatterjee$^{a}$[^1], Indrajit Mitra$^{b}$[^2]  and H. S. Sharatchandra$^{a}$[^3]\ \ $^a$ The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, C.I.T. Campus, Taramani P.O.,\ Chennai 600113, India\ $^b$ Department of Physics, University of Calcutta,\ 92 A.P.C. Road, Kolkata 700009, India title: '**Two-potential theory of electric and magnetic charges via duality transformation**' --- Keywords: duality transformation, two-potential theory. **Introduction** ================ In this paper we obtain Dirac, Schwinger and Zwanziger theories [@dirac; @Zwanziger:1968rs] of electric and magnetic charges via duality transformation. Our aim is to build unified techniques for handling a field and its dual on an equal footing. The reason is that the dual field plays an important role in many contexts. It behaves as a disorder parameter and drives the properties of the theory in some phases. The dual field couples locally to certain topological configurations of the original field. Therefore by keeping them we will be able to naturally handle some non-perturbative aspects of the theory. A plasma or condensate of such topological configurations may be qualitatively and quantitatively relevant in some phases. By having a formalism which has both fields, we can handle such effects on the original field. Also combinations of the field and its dual close together often have exotic properties and play crucial role for the properties of the theory. We illustrated our techniques for a scalar field in two Euclidean dimensions in [@Chatterjee:2011vd]. The end point of a line discontinuity is the source for the dual field, much like the end point of a Dirac string behaving as a magnetic monopole in electrodynamics [@dirac]. The two-dimensional local Lagrangian involving both the scalar field and its dual [@kane] is the analogue of Zwanziger’s [@Zwanziger:1968rs] two-potential local theory of electric and magnetic charges [@cabibbo; @singleton]. The dislocation line becomes invisible for a quantization of dual charges as in Dirac theory of magnetic monopoles. The correlation of the field with its dual has unusual properties. All these show that the two-potential formalism is not restricted to electrodynamics. Any field theory can be recast as a local theory of the fields and their duals present together. This is important for quantum chromodynamics because confinement property is expected to be driven by topological configurations such as monopoles and vortices. We need to be able to see their effects on gluons and quarks. Therefore a formalism with both fields together is very useful. The scheme of this paper is as follows. We use Euclidean formalism throughout this paper to highlight the role played by $ \sqrt{-1} $. In Sec. \[sec:2\], we start with a real massless scalar field in three Euclidean dimensions. We relate it to Abelian gauge theory by a duality transformation. Point sources for the scalar field are mapped to Dirac strings acting as dislocation lines in the configurations of the gauge potential. We further relate this to a local theory with both the scalar and gauge potential present simultaneously and coupling locally to the magnetic charges and electric currents. We demonstrate how the interactions amongst magnetic charges and electric currents is recovered. In Sec. \[sec:3\], we begin with the Abelian gauge theory in three Euclidean dimensions and recover the same formalism. Here the electric currents act as sources of surface dislocations in the configuration of magnetic scalar potential. In Sec. \[sec:4\], we obtain the Dirac, Schwinger and Zwanziger formulations of electric and magnetic charges via duality transformation in four Euclidean dimensions. We discuss the relevance of our techniques in Sec. \[sec:5\]. In the Appendix, we give some techniques useful for handling the Dirac potential of a magnetic monopole. \[sec:2\]Line dislocation and a local action with both the ‘photon’ and the ‘dual photon’ in three Euclidean dimensions ======================================================================================================================= We begin with a free massless real scalar field $\chi(x)$ in three Euclidean dimensions. Its correlation functions can be obtained from the functional integral $$\begin{aligned} \Z[\rho] = N_1 \int\D\chi(x)\, e^{\int d^3x\left[-\frac{1}{2} \left(\vec\nabla\chi(x)\right)^2 + i \rho(x) \chi(x)\right]}\,. \label{N1} \end{aligned}$$ Here $ N_1 $ is a normalization factor such that $ \Z[\rho=0] = 1 $, and $ \rho(x) $ is an external source coupling locally to $ \chi(x) $. We have deliberately included $ \sqrt{-1} $ in this source term for convenience in performing the duality transformation below. We linearize the dependence on $ \chi(x) $ in the exponent in equation (\[N1\]) by introducing an auxiliary field $ \vec{B}(x) $: $$\begin{aligned} \Z[\rho] = N_2 \int \D\vec{B}(x)\D\chi(x) e^{\int d^3x\left[ -\half \vec{B}(x)^2 - i \vec{B}(x)\cdot\vec\nabla\chi(x) + i\rho(x)\chi(x)\right]}\,. \label{N2}\end{aligned}$$ A formal integration over $ \chi(x) $ gives $$\begin{aligned} \Z[\rho] = N_3 \int \D\vec{B}\prod_{\vec{x}}\delta(\vec\nabla\cdot\vec{B}(x) + \rho(x))e^{\int d^3x\left[ -\half \vec{B}(x)^2\right]}\,. \label{N22}\end{aligned}$$ For a point source $$\begin{aligned} \rho(x) = g \delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec{y}), \label{ps1}\end{aligned}$$ the $ \delta $-functional constraint in (\[N22\]) corresponds to a magnetic monopole of strength $ g $ at the point $ \vec{y} $. For solving it, we choose the particular integral in the form of a Dirac string from $ \vec{y} $ along the $-$ve $ z $-direction. This singular solution gives a net flux $ g $ through any surface enclosing $ \vec{y} $. Thus the solution for a general $\rho(x)$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{monopole1} \vec{B}(x)= \vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x) - \hat{n_3} \d_3^{-1}\rho(x)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \d_3^{-1}\rho(x)= - \int_{x_3}^\infty\, dx'_3 \,\rho(x_1, x_2, x'_3) \label{monopole2}\end{aligned}$$ and $\hat{n_3}$ is the unit vector in the 3-direction. The use of equation (\[monopole1\]) in equation (\[N22\]) rewrites the massless scalar theory of (\[N1\]) as an Abelian gauge theory. The gauge field has one transverse degree of freedom in three Euclidean dimensions, matching that of the scalar theory. We shall refer to $\vec{A}(x)$ as the ‘photon’ and $\chi(x)$ as the ‘dual photon’. We are interested in their mutual correlations. We therefore include a source $ \vec{j}(x) $ for $ \vec{A}(x) $: $$\begin{aligned} \label{N4} \Z[\rho,\vec{j}] = N_4\int\D\vec{A}\,e^{\int d^3x\left[-\half\left(\vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x) - \hat{n_3} \d_3^{-1}\rho(x)\right)^2 + i\vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}(x)\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ The dual photon $ \chi(x)$ couples locally to the magnetic monopole density $\rho(x)$. Thus equation (\[N4\]) gives a (gauge) theory with both electric current and magnetic charges. Equation (\[N4\]) shows that a point magnetic charge at $ \vec{y} $ has the effect of a line dislocation (the Dirac string) starting at $ \vec{y}$ in the configuration space of the gauge potential. As a consequence of these singular dislocation lines, the configurations $ \vec{A}(x) $ which matter in the functional integral (\[N4\]) are not the usual plane waves. For the action to be finite, $ \vec\nabla\times\vec{A} $ should also be singular and cancel the Dirac string singularities. Thus the configurations which matter are precisely the Dirac potential $ \vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})$ due to a magnetic monopole at $ \vec{y} $ and its distortions. This is explicitly seen as follows. Let us shift $ \vec{A}(x) $ to $\vec{a}(x)$ as $$\begin{aligned} \vec{A}(x) &=& \vec{a}(x) + \int d^3y \vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\rho(y) \,. \label{Aa}\end{aligned}$$ Now use the representation of $ \vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})$ in the form of Green function for $\partial_3 \nabla^2$, as given in (\[Axx’\]). This leads to $$\begin{aligned} \vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x) &=& \vec\nabla\times\vec{a}(x) + \frac{1}{4\pi} \int d^3y \frac{\vec{x}-\vec{y}}{|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|^3}\rho(y) + \hat{n_3} \d_3^{-1}\rho(x). \label{AaB}\end{aligned}$$ So this shift cancels the Dirac string in (\[N4\]). The second term on the r.h.s of (\[AaB\]) is simply the magnetic field at $ \vec{x} $ due to a magnetic monopole density $ \rho(y) $. It is the gradient $ -\vec\nabla\chi(x) $ of a scalar potential $$\begin{aligned} \chi(x) &=& \int d^3y\, \Delta(\vec{x} - \vec{y}) \rho(y),\\ \Delta(\vec{x} - \vec{y}) &=& \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{1}{|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|}. \label{delta}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] = N_4\int\D\vec{a}\, e^{\int d^3x\left[-\half\left(\vec\nabla\times\vec{a}(x) -\vec\nabla\chi(x)\right)^2 + i\vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{a}(x)\right] + i\int d^3x d^3y \vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\rho(y)}\,. \label{aphi1}\end{aligned}$$ Now $$\begin{aligned} \left(\vec\nabla\times\vec{a}(x)-\vec\nabla\chi(x)\right)^2 = (\vec\nabla\times\vec{a}(x))^2 -2\vec\nabla\cdot(\chi(x) \vec\nabla\times \vec a(x)) +\vec\nabla\cdot(\chi\vec\nabla\chi)+\chi(x)\rho(x) \label{aphi2}\end{aligned}$$ as $\nabla^2\chi(x)=-\rho(x)$. There is no boundary contribution from the total divergence terms. So we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{N4a} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] = N_4\int\D\vec{a} e^{\left[\int d^3x\left(-\half\left(\vec\nabla\times\vec{a}(x)\right)^2 + i\vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{a}(x)\right) -\int d^3x d^3y\left(\half\rho(x)\Delta(\vec{x} - \vec{y})\rho(y) - i \vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\rho(y)\right)\right]}\end{aligned}$$ which has a conventional action for the new fluctuations $\vec{a}(x)$. This completes our contention that the configurations that contribute to (\[N4\]) are the Dirac potential $ \int d^3y \vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\rho(y) $ and its fluctuations. We may fix a gauge for $ \vec{a}(x) $ as usual and integrate over $ \vec{a}(x) $ in (\[N4a\]). This gives $$\begin{aligned} \label{rj} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] = N_5 \, e^{\int d^3x d^3y\left[-\half j^i(x)\Delta_{ij}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})j^j(y) -\half\rho(x)\Delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\rho(y) + i \vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\rho(y)\right]}\,, \label{monocurr}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \Delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) $ and $ \Delta_{ij}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) $ are respectively the propagator for a massless real scalar and the Abelian gauge potential in three Euclidean dimensions [@bmk]. It shows the electric currents $ \vec{j}(x) $ interacting via the Biot-Savart law. (Gauge fixing permits us to extend the law to currents that need not be conserved.) It also has the magnetic monopoles interacting via the Coulomb potential. In addition it shows that the magnetic monopoles $ \rho(x) $ interact with electric current $ \vec{j}(x) $ through the Dirac potential $ \vec{A}^D(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) $. ( Note the $ \sqrt{-1} $ in this term in equation (\[rj\]), even in our Euclidean theory. It is not strange as the interaction of the current $ \vec{j} $(x) with a gauge potential $ \vec{A}(x) $ is given by $ i\vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}(x)$ even in the Euclidean theory.) This represents the net effect of the line discontinuity (the Dirac string) in the configurations of the gauge potential. Only the end point of the string matters and behaves like a magnetic monopole. The magnetic charge density $ \rho(x) $ has a non-local coupling to the ‘photon’ field $ \A $ in (\[N4\]), though it couples locally to the dual photon $ \chi(x) $ in (\[N1\]). We now present a local action that has both the photon and the dual photon fields present together. For this we rewrite (\[N4\]) introducing an auxiliary field $\vec{b}(x)$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{bA} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] = N_6\int\D\vec{b}\D\vec{A}\, e^{\int d^3x\left[ -\half \vec{b}(x)^2 + i \vec{b}(x)\cdot \left(\vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x) - \hat{n_3} \d_3^{-1}\rho(x)\right) +i \vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}(x)\right]}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $ \rho(x) $ couples locally to $ \d_3^{-1}b_3(x) $, which is to be identified with the dual photon $ \chi(x) $: $$\begin{aligned} \chi(x) = \d_3^{-1}b_3(x)\,.\end{aligned}$$ We may integrate back over $ b_1(x) $ and $ b_2(x) $, to get $$\begin{aligned} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] = N_7\int\D\chi\D\vec{A}\, e^{\int d^3x\left[ -\half (\d_3\chi(x))^2 - \half \left(\hat n_3\times(\vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x))\right)^2 + \,i\d_3\chi(x)\hat n_3\cdot \vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x) + i \vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}(x) + i\rho(x)\chi(x)\right]}\,. \label{phiA1}\end{aligned}$$ This gives the local field theory of electric currents and magnetic charges in three Euclidean dimensions. It is the analogue of the two-potential formalism in four dimensions [@Zwanziger:1968rs] and of the local field theory involving the scalar field and its dual in two dimensions [@Chatterjee:2011vd; @kane]. Note the following unusual features: - The action is not manifestly rotation invariant. Nevertheless, the rotation covariance is restored for physical observables when the Dirac quantization condition for electric and magnetic charges is met. (See below.) - The ‘kinetic energy’ terms for $ \chi(x) $ and $ \A $ have derivatives only in some directions. However, if we integrate over $ \chi(x) $ (correspondingly $ \A $), we recover the conventional action for $ \A $(correspondingly $ \chi(x) $). - The action in (\[phiA1\]) is not real (even with the imaginary sources switched off). The term bilinear in $ \chi$ and $ \A $ is pure imaginary. The ‘propagators’ can be calculated using Fourier modes, as follows. In the action of equation (\[phiA1\]), we use the identity $(\hat{n_3}\times (\vec\nabla\times\vec A))^2=(\vec\nabla\times\vec A)^2 -(\hat{n_3}\cdot (\vec\nabla\times\vec A))^2$. The resulting $-\frac{1}{2}(\vec\nabla\times\vec A)^2$ term in the action becomes $\frac{1}{2}\vec A\cdot\nabla^2 \vec A$, upon adding the gauge-fixing term corresponding to the Feynman gauge. Also $\hat{n_3}\cdot (\vec\nabla\times\vec A)= (\hat{n_3}\times\vec\nabla)\cdot\vec A$, which is $i\vec k_\perp\cdot\vec A(k)$ in momentum space, where $\vec k_\perp\equiv \hat{n_3}\times\vec k$. Thus we obtain &=& N\_7(k)A(k) d\^3k (-(-k)[k\_3]{}\^2(k) - A\_i(-k)(k\^2 \_[ij]{}-[k\_]{}\_i[k\_]{}\_j)A\_j(k)\ &&+iA\_i(-k)[k\_]{}\_i k\_3 (k) +i j\_i(-k)A\_i(k)+i (-k) (k) ). The propagators are then obtained by the inversion of a matrix: $$\begin{aligned} \label{U} \left[\begin{tabular}{ll} \phantom{xx} $k_3^2$ & \phantom{xxx}$ -ik_3 k_{\perp i}$ \\ $-ik_3 k_{\perp j}$ & $ ~~k^2 \delta_{ij} - k_{\perp i}k_{\perp j}$\\ \end{tabular}\right]^{-1} = \frac{1}{k^2} \left[ \begin{tabular}{ll} $ 1 $ & $ i\frac{k_{\perp i}}{k_3} $ \\ $ i\frac{k_{\perp j}}{k_3} $ & $ \delta_{ij}$\\ \end{tabular}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ In position space, the propagators are $$\begin{aligned} \langle \chi(x)\chi(y)\rangle &=& \Delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\\ \langle A_i(x)A_j(y)\rangle &=& \Delta_{ij}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) = \delta_{ij}\Delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) \\ \label{Aphicorrelation} \langle A_i(x)\chi(y)\rangle &=& iA^D_i(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y})$ is given by (\[delta\]), and we have used (\[Amom\]). Alternatively, we can read off these position space propagators from (\[rj\]). Even though $ \chi(x) $ and $ \A $ are real fields, the propagator $\langle A_i(x)\chi(y)\rangle $ is pure imaginary. This is possible because the action is not real. We see that $ iA^D_i(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) $ serves as the ‘propagator’ connecting the electric currents and magnetic charges. The correlation of $ \chi(x) $ with the ‘magnetic field’ $ \vec{B}(x) = \vec\nabla\times\A $ has the Dirac string singularity: $$\begin{aligned} \langle \vec{B}(x)\chi(0)\rangle = i \left(\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{\vec x}{|\vec x|^3} + \hat{n}_3 \delta(x_1)\delta(x_2)\theta(-x_3)\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Because of the explicit presence of the Dirac string, rotation invariance in (\[Aphicorrelation\]) and (\[monocurr\]) is not manifest. Dirac[@dirac] argued that with a ‘quantization’ of electric ($ e $) and magnetic ($ g $) charges, the Dirac string becomes invisible and rotation covariance is restored. Consider a point magnetic charge given by (\[ps1\]), and a loop $ C $ carrying a current $$\begin{aligned} j_i(x) = e\oint_C d\tau \frac{dX_i(\tau)}{d\tau}\delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec X(\tau)) \label{j_i(x)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is an arbitrary parametrization of the loop $ C $. The contribution to the cross-correlation of $ \exp\left[ie\oint dx^iA_i(x)\right]$ with $\exp\left[ig\chi(y)\right]$ comes from the last term in the exponent of (\[monocurr\]) for the sources (\[ps1\]) and (\[j\_i(x)\]). (This is the analogue of the cross-correlation between the vertex operators for the scalar field and the dual field in two dimensions, which was considered in [@Chatterjee:2011vd].) Thus this cross-correlation equals $ \exp\left[ieg\oint dx^iA^D_i(\vec x-\vec y)\right]$. Using Stokes’ theorem, this is $$\begin{aligned} \exp\left(-i\frac{eg}{4\pi}\Omega(C)\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $ \Omega(C) $ is the solid angle subtended by $ C $ at the site $\vec y$ of the magnetic charge, and the solid angle is to be computed by using a surface bounding $ C $ which does not intersect the Dirac string. Therefore when an infinitesimal loop $C$ does not enclose the string, we get the contribution 1, but when it encloses the string, we get the contribution $e^{-ieg}$. Only with the quantization condition eg = 2n \[eg2pi\] the latter contribution is also 1, and the Dirac string is then invisible to any current loop. \[sec:3\]Surface dislocations and scalar potential theory of electric currents and magnetic charges in three Euclidean dimensions ================================================================================================================================= In Sec. \[sec:2\], we started with a massless real scalar field and obtained the two-potential theory of magnetic charges interacting with electric currents in three Euclidean dimensions. In this Section, we begin with Abelian gauge theory and obtain the same two-potential formalism. This exercise is instructive for the case of four Euclidean dimensions. We begin with $$\begin{aligned} \label{ZA3} \Z[\vec{j}] = N_8\int\D\A e^{\int d^3x\left[-\half (\vec\nabla\times\A)^2 +\, i \vec{j}(x)\cdot\A\right]}\end{aligned}$$ describing the current $\vec{j}(x)$ interacting via the gauge potential $ \A $ in three Euclidean dimensions. Rewriting $$\begin{aligned} \label{bA3} \Z[\vec{j}] &=& N_9\int\D\vec{b}\D\vec{A}\, e^{\int d^3x\left[ -\half \vec{b}(x)^2 + i \vec{b}(x)\cdot \vec\nabla\times\vec{A}(x) + i \vec{j}(x)\cdot\vec{A}(x)\right]}\\ &=& N_{10} \int \D\vec{b}\prod_{\vec{x}}\delta(\vec\nabla\times\vec{b}(x) + \vec{j}(x))e^{\int d^3x\left[ -\half \vec{b}(x)^2\right]}\,. \label{bbb}\end{aligned}$$ The consistency of the constraint requires $$\begin{aligned} \label{conservation} \vec\nabla\cdot\vec{j}(x) = 0. \end{aligned}$$ Choosing the solution $$\begin{aligned} b_i(x) = \d_i\chi(x) - \epsilon_{3il}\d_3^{-1}j_l(x) \label{bi}\end{aligned}$$ for the $ \delta $-functional constraint, we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{chij} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] = N_{11}\int \D\chi\, e^{\int d^3x \left[-\half(\d_1\chi(x)- \d_3^{-1}j_2(x))^2 -\half (\d_2\chi(x)+ \d_3^{-1}j_1(x) )^2 -\half(\d_3\chi(x))^2 + i\rho(x)\chi(x)\right]}\end{aligned}$$ where we now introduced the source for $ \chi $. Note that the component $ j_3(x) $ is not explicitly present. However, by the conservation law (\[conservation\]), we can write $$\begin{aligned} \label{j3} j_3(x) = - \d_3^{-1}(\d_1j_1(x) + \d_2j_2(x)) \label{con2}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore it is implicitly present. Equation (\[chij\]) is giving the interaction of magnetic charges and electric currents using the scalar potential $ \chi(x) $ encountered in magnetostatics. Consider a current loop $ C $ in the 1-2 plane with a charge $e$ flowing in it. Equation (\[chij\]) shows that for the action to be finite in this case, there should be a discontinuity in the scalar potential $ \chi $ in the form of a surface dislocation. This dislocation is along a cylindrical domain wall with $ C $ as the mouth and extending all the way to infinity in the 3-direction. The gradient of the potential jumps by $ e $ across the domain wall. This is the conventional description of using a multivalued magnetic scalar potential in the presence of electric currents [@kleinert]. We linearize (\[chij\]) in a specific way: $$\begin{aligned} \Z[\rho, \vec{j}] =N_{12} \int \D\chi \D\A \prod_x \delta(A_3(x) - \alpha_3(x)) \exp\int_x\Big[ -\half(\d_3\chi(x))^2 - \half(\d_2 A_3(x) - \d_3 A_2(x))^2 \nonumber\\ - \half(\d_3 A_1(x) - \d_1 A_3(x))^2 -i (\d_2 A_3(x) - \d_3 A_2(x))(\d_1\chi(x) - \d_3^{-1} j_2(x)) \nonumber\\ - i (\d_3 A_1(x) - \d_1 A_3(x))(\d_2\chi(x) + \d_3^{-1}j_1(x)) + i\rho(x)\chi(x)\Big] \label{Achij}%\\ %= \int \D\chi \D\A \prod_x \delta(A_3(x) - \alpha_3(x)) \exp\int_x\left[ %-\half(\d_3\chi(x))^2 -\half(\hat{n}_3\times (\nabla\times\A))^2 + i \d_3 \chi(\hat{n}_3\cdot\nabla\times\A)\right.\nonumber\\ % \left. i\vec{j}\cdot\A + i\rho\chi\right] % \label{chiA2}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[chij\]) is reproduced from equation (\[Achij\]) by shifting $A_I$, $I=1,2$ to $ A'_I = A_I - \d_3^{-1} \d_IA_3$ and integrating over $A'_I$. The potential $A_3$ has been introduced in this step to have a gauge-invariant Lagrangian. The gauge-fixing condition $ A_3(x) = \alpha_3(x)$ corresponding to the axial gauge is here the simplest choice as it is not affected by the shift from $A_I$ to $A'_I$. Finally it can be checked, using (\[con2\]), that the action in (\[Achij\]) is equal to the action in (\[phiA1\]). The Lagrangian being gauge-invariant, we can now pass from the axial gauge to any other gauge we find convenient. Instead of choosing an infinite domain wall, we can simply choose a finite surface $ S $ enclosing the current loop $C$ to be the dislocation for the scalar potential. For that case, in the place of (\[bi\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} b_i(x) = \d_i\chi(x)+ \d_i\chi_s(x), \label{bi2}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \chi_s $ in discontinuous across the surface $ S $: $$\begin{aligned} \vec\nabla{\chi_s}(x) = \int_S d^2X(s)\, \hat{n}(s)\,e \,\delta^3(\vec{x}-\vec{X}(s)),\end{aligned}$$ $ \vec X(s) $ being a point on the surface $ S $, and $ \hat n(s) $ the normal to $ S $ at this point. Because of this discontinuity, $(\partial_i\partial_j-\partial_j \partial_i){\chi_s}(x)\neq 0$, and (\[bi2\]) gives $\vec\nabla\times\vec b(x)+\vec j(x)=0$ with $\vec j(x)$ given by (\[j\_i(x)\]). (This can be checked by using the identity $\int d\vec S\times \vec\nabla\psi=\oint d\vec l\,\psi$ where $\psi$ is a scalar function.) When (\[bi2\]) is used in (\[bbb\]), the finiteness of the action requires $\chi$ to have a discontinuity across $S$ so as to cancel the discontinuity in $\chi_s$. Therefore for a loop $ C' $ linked to $ C $, we get $$\begin{aligned} e^{ig\oint_{C'}dx^i\d_i\chi(x)} = e^{iegN_{CC'}} \label{linkingno}\end{aligned}$$ where $ N_{CC'} $ is the linking number: the number of times loop $ C' $ winds around loop $ C $ in the clockwise sense. (This is because the integral of the current $\vec j$ over any open surface bounding the loop $C'$ equals $e N_{CC'}$.) Thus, (\[linkingno\]) equals 1 when the quantization condition (\[eg2pi\]) is satisfied. \[sec:4\]Two-potential theory of electric and magnetic charges in four Euclidean dimensions =========================================================================================== Consider the quantized Abelian gauge field in four Euclidean dimensions: $$\begin{aligned} \Z[j_{\mu}] = N_{13}\int \D A_{\mu} e^{\int d^4x\left[-\frac{1}{4}(\d_\mu A_\nu(x) - \d_\nu A_\mu(x))^2 + ij_\mu A_\mu(x) \right]}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $ j_\mu$ ($\mu= 1,2,3,4 $) is the external current. We have $$\begin{aligned} \Z[j_{\mu}] && = N_{14} \int \D b_i\D e_i \D A_{\mu} \exp \int d^4x\Big[-\half e_i(x)^2 - \half b_i(x)^2 + i e_i(x)(\d_4 A_i(x) - \d_i A_4(x))\nonumber\\ && \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx} + i \epsilon_{ijk} b_i(x)\d_j A_k(x) + ij_i(x) A_i(x) + i j_4(x)A_4(x)\Big]\\ && = N_{15}\int \D b_i\D e_i \prod_x \delta(\d_ie_i(x) + j_4(x))\prod_x\delta(\epsilon_{ijk}\d_j b_k(x) - \d_4 e_i(x) + j_i(x) ) \nonumber\\ &&\phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx} \times\exp \int d^4x\Big[-\half e_i(x)^2 - \half b_i(x)^2\Big]\,. \label{constraint1}\end{aligned}$$ From the $ \delta $-functional constraints we have the consistency condition $$\begin{aligned} \d_ij_i(x) + \d_4j_4(x) = 0\,. \label{con4}\end{aligned}$$ We solve the first constraint in (\[constraint1\]) as $$\begin{aligned} e_i(x) = \epsilon_{ijk}\d_jC_k(x) - \delta_{i3} \d_3^{-1}j_4(x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to choosing the Dirac string along the 3-direction (similar to (\[monopole1\])). Using this, the second constraint becomes $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{ijk}\d_j(b_k - \d_4 C_k) = -j_i - \delta_{i3} \d_3^{-1}\d_4j_4\,.\end{aligned}$$ We solve this in the form (similar to (\[bi\])) $$\begin{aligned} b_k(x) - \d_4C_k(x) = -\d_kC_4(x) - \epsilon_{3kl}\d_3^{-1}j_l(x).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{C} \Z[j_\mu,k_\mu] &=& N_{16} \int \D C_\mu \exp\int d^4x \Big[-\half (\d_1 C_2(x) - \d_2 C_1(x) - \d_3^{-1}j_4(x))^2\nonumber\\ &&- \half (\d_I C_3(x) - \d_3 C_I(x))^2 -\half (\d_I C_4(x) - \d_4 C_I(x) + \epsilon_{IJ}\d_3^{-1} j_J(x))^2\nonumber\\ &&-\half (\d_3 C_4(x) - \d_4 C_3(x))^2 + i k_\mu(x) C_\mu(x) \Big]\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced a source $ k_\mu $ for $ C_\mu $. Here the indices $ I,J $ run over only $1$ and $2$. This gives the Dirac and Schwinger formulations. As in Sec. \[sec:4\], we linearize (\[C\]) in a particular way. The first term in the Lagrangian is linearized to -(\_3 A\_4(x) - \_4 A\_3(x))\^2+i(\_3 A\_4(x) - \_4 A\_3(x)) (\_1 C\_2(x) - \_2 C\_1(x) - \_3\^[-1]{}j\_4(x))while the third term is linearized to -(\_3 A\_I(x) - \_I A\_3(x))\^2 +i\_[IJ]{}(\_3 A\_I(x) - \_I A\_3(x)) (\_J C\_4(x) - \_4 C\_J(x) + \_[JK]{}\_3\^[-1]{} j\_K(x)).The axial gauge condition is imposed on $A_3$. (We get back (\[C\]) by shifting $A_4$ and $A_I$, and then integrating.) This linearized form of (\[C\]), on using (\[con4\]), is equal to $$\begin{aligned} \Z[j_\mu,k_\mu] &=& N_{17}\int \D C_\mu \D A_\mu \prod_x \delta(A_3(x) - \alpha_3(x)) \exp\int d^4x \Big[-\half (\d_I A_3(x) - \d_3 A_I(x))^2 \nonumber\\ && -\half (\d_3 A_4(x) - \d_4 A_3(x))^2 - \half (\d_I C_3(x) - \d_3 C_I(x))^2 -\half (\d_3 C_4(x) - \d_4 C_3(x))^2 \nonumber\\ && + i (\d_3 A_4(x)-\d_4 A_3(x))(\d_1 C_2(x) - \d_2 C_1(x))\nonumber\\ && + i \epsilon_{IJ} (\d_3 A_I(x) - \d_I A_3(x))(\d_J C_4(x) - \d_4 C_J(x)) + ij_\mu(x) A_\mu(x) + i k_\mu(x) C_\mu(x) \Big]\,.\nonumber\\ \label{dual4D}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have recovered Zwanziger’s two-potential theory of electric and magnetic changes via a duality transformation. If we had chosen $ \hat{n} $ as the direction of the Dirac string instead of the $-$ve z-axis, we would have got for the exponent on the r.h.s of (\[dual4D\]) $$\begin{aligned} \int d^4x & \Big[-\half(\hat{n}\cdot\vec{E}(x))^2 -\half(\hat{n}\times\vec{B}(x))^2 - \half(\hat{n}\cdot\vec{\mathcal E}(x))^2 - \half(\hat{n}\times\vec{\mathcal B}(x))^2 + i(\hat{n}\cdot\vec{\mathcal B}(x))(\hat{n}\cdot\vec{E}(x)) \nonumber\\ & + i(\hat{n}\times\vec{\mathcal E}(x))\cdot(\hat{n}\times \vec{B}(x)) + ij_\mu(x) A_\mu(x) + i k_\mu(x) C_\mu(x)\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{B} = \vec\nabla\times\vec A$, $~\vec{E} = -\vec\nabla A_4 + \d_4 \vec A$, $~\vec{\mathcal B} = \vec\nabla\times\vec{C}$ and $\vec{\mathcal E}= -\vec\nabla C_4 + \d_4 \vec{C}$. \[sec:5\]Discussion =================== For a variety of reasons, it is useful to have a formulation with both a field and its dual field simultaneously present in a local theory. In [@Chatterjee:2011vd] this was done for a scalar theory in two Euclidean dimensions and the advantages were highlighted. In this paper, we have carried this out for Abelian gauge theory in three and four Euclidean dimensions. The general features are: - The sources for a field are certain types of singular dislocations in the configurations of the dual field and also vice versa. - The role of these dislocations is to force discontinuous boundary conditions on the fields. Thereby new sectors of the field configurations are explored. - A local theory with both the field and its dual present simultaneously has certain unusual features. Though there are more fields, it is equivalent to the original theory and the degrees of freedom are not changed. This happens because the dual fields are hidden in the auxiliary fields as specific non-local combinations. As a consequence correlations of fields with their duals have unusual properties. The theory is not manifestly rotation invariant. However, rotation covariance is recovered for the ‘right’ observables with a quantization of the charges of the field and the dual field. - These features are already known in the context of Dirac’s theory of magnetic monopoles. Our thrust is that they are general properties of dual fields and not restricted to electrodynamics. We have obtained Dirac, Schwinger and Zwanziger formulations of electric and magnetic charges via duality transformations. We have emphasised the role of Dirac string as singular dislocation in the configurations of the gauge potentials. These issues are relevant for non-Abelian gauge theory. Many non-perturbative aspects such as confinement are expected to be driven by topological configurations which couple locally to the dual field. This will be discussed elsewhere. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== I.M. thanks UGC (DRS) for support. \[appendix\]Appendix ==================== In this Appendix, we represent the Dirac vector potential of a monopole in the form of a Green function. The Dirac potential of a monopole located at the origin has the form $$\begin{aligned} \vec A^D(x)= \frac{1 }{4\pi}\frac{\sin\theta}{r(1+\cos\theta)}\hat{\phi} = \frac{1 }{4\pi}\hat{n}_3\times\frac{\ru}{r + x_3} \label{Dp}\end{aligned}$$ with the Dirac string along the $-$ve $z$-direction. Here $r=|\vec x|$ and $\hat r=\vec x/|\vec x|$.. \[For checking (\[Dp\]) and other results below, a useful formula is $\hat{n}_3=\cos\theta\ru-\sin\theta\hat{\theta}$.\] Let us write $$\begin{aligned} \vec{A}^D(x) = \hat{n}_3\times \cbf \label{Ac}\end{aligned}$$ where the vector field $\cbf$ is undetermined upto addition of a vector in the 3-direction. We choose $$\begin{aligned} \cbf=\frac{1 }{4\pi}\frac{\ru+\hat{n}_3}{r+x_3}\end{aligned}$$ so that [@baal] $$\begin{aligned} \cbf = \vec\nabla f, ~~~f= \frac{1}{4\pi}\ln(r+x_3)\,. \label{Ag}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\d_3 f=1/4\pi r$, and so $\d_3 \nabla^2 f=-\delta(x)$. Thus the Dirac potential at $x$ due to a monopole at $x'$ can be expressed in terms of the Green function for the operator $\partial_3 \nabla^2$: $$\begin{aligned} \vec{A}^D(x-x')&=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\hat{n}_3\times\vec\nabla\ln(|x-x'|+x_3-x'_3) \\ &=&- \hat{n}_3\times\vec\nabla [(\partial_3 \nabla^2) ^{-1}(x-x')]\,. \label{Axx'}\end{aligned}$$ \[An alternative form of the Dirac potential is $\vec{A}^D(x) = -\hat{\phi}(1/4\pi r)\cot\theta =-\hat{n}_3\times\ru (x_3/4\pi\rho^2)$, with the Dirac strings along the $\pm z$ directions. Here $\rho^2={x_1}^2+{x_2}^2$. This alternative form is half of the sum of the two forms of $\vec{A}^D(x)$, one having the Dirac string in the $-$ve $z$-direction and the other having the Dirac string in the $+$ve $z$-direction. In this case, we choose $\cbf=(r\hat{n}_3-x_3\ru)/4\pi\rho^2$ in Eq. (\[Ac\]). Then $\cbf = \vec\nabla f$ and $\partial_3 f=1/4\pi r$ continue to hold, but with $f=(1/8\pi)\ln((r+x_3)/(r-x_3))$. So equation (\[Axx’\]) is still valid\] The result given in Eq. (\[Axx’\]) can also be seen by going over to the Fourier space. For the potential of Eq. (\[Dp\]), $$\begin{aligned} \vec\nabla \times \vec{A}^D(x) = \frac{\ru}{4\pi r^2}+\hat{n}_3 \delta(x_1) \delta(x_2)\theta(-x_3)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the Fourier transform, we get $$\begin{aligned} \vec{k} \times \vec{A^D}(\vec{k})=-\frac{\vec{k}}{k^2}+\frac{\hat{n}_3}{k_3 }\,.\end{aligned}$$ (The Fourier transform of the theta function can be obtained using $d\theta(x)/dx=\delta(x)$.) We now evaluate $\vec{k} \times $ both sides and use $\vec{k}\cdot \vec{A^D}(\vec k)=0$ (since $\vec\nabla\cdot\vec{A}^D(x)=0$) to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \vec{A^D}(\vec{k})= \frac{ \hat{n}_3\times \vec{k}}{k_3 k^2}\,. \label{Amom}\end{aligned}$$ This agrees with Eq. (\[Axx’\]). [99]{} P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) [**A 133**]{}, 60 (1931); Phys. Rev. [**74**]{}, 817 (1948).\ J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**144**]{}, 1087 (1966). D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev.  [**176**]{}, 1489 (1968); Phys. Rev.  D [**3**]{}, 880 (1971).\ R. A. Brandt, F. Neri and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev.  D [**19**]{}, 1153 (1979). C. Chatterjee, E. Harikumar, M. Mathur, I. Mitra and H. S. Sharatchandra, arXiv:1111.5218 \[hep-th\]. C.L. Kane, ‘Lectures on Bosonization’ (Boulder Summer School lectures, 2005, on Physics of Mesoscopic Systems), equation (74);\ C.L. Kane and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 15233 (1992). The two-potential approach was introduced by N. Cabibbo and E. Ferrari, Nuovo Cimento [**23**]{}, 1147 (1962). For more references and later work on the two-potential theory, see D. Singleton, Int.J.Theor.Phys. [**34**]{}, 37 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9701044\]; Am.J.Phys. [**64**]{}, 452 (1996) \[arXiv:1106.1505 \[hep-th\]\]. This partition function was derived in Abelian lattice gauge theory by T. Banks, R. Myerson and J. Kogut, Nucl. Phys. B [**129**]{}, 493 (1997). H. Kleinert, ‘Multivalued fields in condensed matter, electromagnetism, and gravitation,’ World Scientific, Singapore (2008), Chapter 4. P. van Baal, arXiv:hep-th/0202182. [^1]: E-mail: chandra@imsc.res.in [^2]: E-mail: indrajit.mitra@saha.ac.in, imphys@caluniv.ac.in [^3]: E-mail: sharat@imsc.res.in

--- abstract: 'In this paper, the third in a series illustrating the power of generalized linear models (GLMs) for the astronomical community, we elucidate the potential of the class of GLMs which handles count data. The size of a galaxy’s globular cluster population ([[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}) is a prolonged puzzle in the astronomical literature. It falls in the category of count data analysis, yet it is usually modelled as if it were a continuous response variable. We have developed a Bayesian negative binomial regression model to study the connection between [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and the following galaxy properties: central black hole mass, dynamical bulge mass, bulge velocity dispersion, and absolute visual magnitude. The methodology introduced herein naturally accounts for heteroscedasticity, intrinsic scatter, errors in measurements in both axes (either discrete or continuous), and allows modelling the population of globular clusters on their natural scale as a non-negative integer variable. Prediction intervals of 99 per cent around the trend for expected [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}comfortably envelope the data, notably including the Milky Way, which has hitherto been considered a problematic outlier. Finally, we demonstrate how random intercept models can incorporate information of each particular galaxy morphological type. Bayesian variable selection methodology allows for automatically identifying galaxy types with different productions of GCs, suggesting that on average S0 galaxies have a GC population 35 per cent smaller than other types with similar brightness.' author: - '\' title: 'The Overlooked Potential of Generalized Linear Models in Astronomy-III: Bayesian Negative Binomial Regression and Globular Cluster Populations' --- \[firstpage\] -1.3cm methods: statistical, data analysis–galaxies: globular clusters Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ The current era of astronomy marks the transition from a data-deprived field to a data-driven science, for which statistical methods play a central role. An efficacious data exploration requires astronomers to go beyond the traditional Gaussian-based models which are ubiquitous in the field. Gaussian distributional assumptions fail to hold when the data to be modelled come from *exponential family* distributions other than the Normal/Gaussian[^1] [@Hil12; @Hilbe2014]. For non-Gaussian regression problems there exist powerful solutions already widely used in medical research [e.g., @lindsey1999], finance [e.g., @Jong2008], healthcare [e.g., @gri04] and biostatistics [e.g., @Marschner12], but vastly under-utilized to-date in astronomy. These solutions are known as generalized linear models (GLMs). Despite the ubiquitous implementation of GLMs in general statistical applications, there have been only a handful of astronomical studies applying GLM techniques such as logistic regression (e.g. @Rai12 [@Rai14; @lan14; @deSouza2014]), Poisson regression (e.g. @and10), gamma regression [@Elliott2015] and negative binomial (NB) regression [@ata14]. The methodology discussed herein focuses on Bayesian count response models (Poisson and NB), suited to handle discrete, count-based data sets applied to a catalogue of globular clusters (GCs). Globular clusters are among the oldest stellar systems in the Universe (formed at $z>2$, @kruijssen14), are pervasive in nearby massive galaxies, (@bs06) and can be found in massive galaxy clusters not necessarily associated to one of its galaxies (e.g., @durrell14). Hence, understanding their properties is of utmost importance for drawing a complete picture of galaxy evolution. The past few decades have seen considerable interest in the apparent correlation between the mass of the black hole at the centre of a galaxy, [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}, and the velocity dispersion of the central stellar bulge, $\sigma$ [e.g., @Gebhardt2000]. As part of the process of understanding the nature and origin of the so-called [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}–$\sigma$ relation, astronomers have investigated links between other properties of the host galaxy. In particular, the correlation between the size of globular cluster populations, [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}, and [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}is tight, possibly more so than the [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}–$\sigma$ relation, and may reflect an underlying connection to the bulge mass, binding energy, host galaxy stellar mass and total luminosity [@Burkert2010; @Harris2011; @Snyder2011; @Rhode2012; @Harris2013; @harris14]. This may go some way to explaining the huge range in scales of the regions involved. One notorious outlier is our own Milky Way galaxy, for which there are far too many globular clusters given the mass of its central supermassive black hole, despite the fact that both are accurately measured. Nevertheless, the otherwise small scatter found in such relations deserves a closer look since it cannot be easily explained by simple scaling relation arguments. The connection between [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and the global properties of their host galaxies is an extant astronomical puzzle involving count models, but is treated as a continuous one. Such correlation studies are commonly based on taking pairs of parameters (x,y) in log-log space and searching for solutions in the normal form $y = \alpha +\beta x$, despite the fact that this regression technique assumes continuous variables and a Gaussian error distribution, e.g. $\chi^2$–minimisation [@Tremaine2002]. Our method surpasses the previous $\chi^2$-minimisation approach in several ways. The most obvious being the ability to handle count data without the need of logarithmic transformations of a discrete variable. Hence, we can take into account the cases with zero counts, instead of removing them to accommodate the logarithm transformation, or adding an arbitrary data shift in the form log(x+$\epsilon$), with $\epsilon$ commonly taken as unity. Our method naturally handles errors in variables in both the $x$ and $y$ axes accommodating the heteroscedasticity of the errors in [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}[^2]. As a further analysis, we introduce one of the most important extensions of GLMs known as generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). This is done to include in the model information about each galaxy morphological type, allowing discrimination among classes of objects requiring additional adjustments in their regression coefficients. The outline of this paper is as follows. In section \[sec:glm\] we provide a brief introduction of generalized linear models in the context of exponential family distributions. An overview of count data along with Poisson and NB GLMs are presented in section \[sec:count\]. The dataset used in our analysis is summarized in section \[sec:catalog\]. In section \[sec:analysis\] we discuss the necessary steps to build our Bayesian model. In section \[sec:GLMMs\], we discuss GLMMs in the context of random intercepts models. Finally in section \[sec:end\], we present our conclusions. Generalized Linear Models {#sec:glm} ========================= Classical response-with-covariates models, that is, general (not generalized) linear models, assume that the response variable and the residual errors, following a normal distribution, are linear in the model parameters and have constant variance. This allows model parameter estimation with ordinary least squares (OLS) methods. As described above, many data sets have response variables that violate one or more of these assumptions. While remedial measures such as transformations on the response variable or the covariates may be applied, these measures may fall short of satisfying the OLS requirements. For data sets for which classical models are ill-suited, the extended class of models, GLMs, are used with model parameters often estimated using maximum likelihood methods [for a brief overview of GLMs in an astronomical context, see e.g., @deSouza2014; @Elliott2015]. @nel72 introduced an unification of models characterised by being linear on the systematic component (model predictors). For example logistic and probit analysis for binomial variates, contingency tables for multinomial variates, and regression for Poisson- and gamma- distributed variates, each a form of the GLM. The random response variable, $Y_i,~i=1,2,\ldots,n$, may be represented as \[eq:glm\] &Y\_i \~f(\_i, a() V(\_i)) ,\ &g(\_i) = \_i,\ &\_i \_i\^T = \_0+\_1x\_1++\_px\_p. In equation (\[eq:glm\]), $f$ denotes a response variable distribution from the exponential family (EF), $\mu_i$ is the response variable mean, $\phi$ is the EF dispersion parameter in the dispersion function $a(\cdot)$, $V(\mu_i)$ is the response variable variance function, $\eta_i$ is the linear predictor, the $\boldsymbol{x}_i^T=\{{\en{x_{{i}1}},~\en{x_{{i}2},\ \ldots,~\en{x_{{i}p}}}} \}^T$ is the vector of explanatory variables (covariates or predictors), $\boldsymbol{\beta}=\{{\en{\beta_1},~\en{\beta_2},\ \ldots,~\en{\beta_{p}}} \}$ is the vector of covariates coefficients, and $g(\cdot)$ is the link function, which connects the mean to the predictor. If $V(\mu_i)$ is a constant for all $\mu_i$, then the mean and variance of the response are independent, which allows using a Gaussian response variable. If the response is Gaussian, then $g(\mu) = \mu$. The general form of the GLM thus allows Gaussian family, $\mathcal{N}$, linear regression as a subset, taking the form: \[eq:lm\] &Y\_i \~(\_i, \^2) ,\ &\_i = \_0+\_1x\_1++\_px\_p. The subset of GLMs for count data are the Poisson regression models and the several incarnations of the NB regressions. Poisson regression models assume the count response variable follows a Poisson probability distribution function. Similarly, the NB regression models assume the count response variable follows a NB probability distribution function. Descriptions of the Poisson and NB models follow. [l | a | b | a |b]{} & Normal & Log-normal & Poisson & Negative binomial\ Response variable & Real & Positive & Non-negative integer & Non-negative integer\ Null values && & &\ Sample variance & Homoscedastic & Homoscedastic & Heteroscedastic & Heteroscedastic\ Overdispersion & & & &\ Modelling count data {#sec:count} ==================== Astronomical quantities can be measured on different scales: nominal (e.g., classes of objects: Type Ia/II supernovae, elliptical/spiral galaxies); ordinal, (e.g., ordering planets according to their size or distance to the star); and metric (e.g., galaxy mass, stellar temperature). Observations that have only right-skewed, non-negative integer values belong to a subclass of the metric scale known as count data. Distances between counts are meaningful, hence the counts are metric, but they are not continuous and must be treated as such. Astronomical count data are often log-transformed to satisfy Gaussian parametric test assumptions rather than modelled on the basis of a count distribution. Despite the fact that GLMs are better suited to describe count data, a log-transformation of counts has the additional problem of dealing with zeros as observations. With just one observation with value zero, the entire data set needs to be shifted by adding an arbitrary value before transformation. It is well known that such transformations perform poorly, leading to bias in the estimated parameters [@OHara2010]. We begin our discussion of regression models for count data with the subset of GLMs known as Poisson regression. A common condition accompanying count data is overdisperson, it occurs when the variance exceeds the mean. This condition in Poisson regression suggests that remedial measures, such as the use of NB regression, may be appropriate. Poisson Regression ------------------ Poisson regression was the first model specifically used to deal with count data and still stands as basis for many types of analyses. It assumes a discrete response described by a single parameter distribution which represents the mean or rate, $\mu$; i.e., the expected number of times an event occurs within a fixed time-interval. Another important feature is the assumption of equidispersion which implies the equality of mean and variance, and can be quantified by the Pearson $\chi^2$ dispersion statistic (see § \[sec:overdispersion\].). The Poisson distribution function is typically displayed as $$f(y;\mu) = \frac{\mu^y\mathrm{e}^{-\mu}}{y!},$$ where the mean and variance are given by $$\rm{Mean} = \mu,\qquad \rm{Variance} = \mu,$$ representing a particular case of equation (\[eq:glm\]) with $V(\mu) = \mu$ and $a(\phi) = 1$. Thus, a regression equation derived from equation (\[eq:glm\]) may be used as a GLM for a count response, $y$. The usual link function, $g(\mu)$, is the natural log function such that $\mu = e^\eta$ [see e.g., @Hil12]. It is worth noting that GLMs are not simple log transforms of the response variable, but rather, the expected counts from a Poisson regression is an exponentiated linear function of $\eta$, thereby keeping the response variable on its original scale. Often, count data do not enjoy the Poisson assumption of equidispersion resulting in a Poisson dispersion statistic (see section \[sec:overdispersion\]) with a value greater than one. Overdispersion {#sec:overdispersion} -------------- Overdispersion in Poisson models occurs when the response variance is greater than the mean. It may arise when there are violations in the distributional assumptions of the data such as when the data are clustered, thereby violating the likelihood requirement of the independence of observations. Overdispersion may cause standard errors of the estimates to be deflated or underestimated, i.e. a variable may appear to be a significant predictor when it is in fact not. A key approach for checking overdispersion is by means of the dispersion statistic, $\mathcal{D}$, $$\mathcal{D} = \frac{\chi^2}{N-N_p},$$ where $N$ is the number of observations and $N_p$ is the number of parameters in the model. Then $N-N_p$ represents the residual degrees of freedom. For a Poisson GLM, the Pearson $\chi^2$ value is $$\chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{(Y_i-\mu_i)^2}{\mu_i},$$ where $Y_i$ represents the observed values, and $\mu_i$ is the mean and variance of $Y_i$. Poisson overdispersion occurs when the variation in the data exceeds the expected variability based on the Poisson distribution, resulting in $\mathcal{D}$ being greater than 1. Small amounts of overdispersion are of little concern; a rule of thumb is: if $\mathcal{D} > 1.25$, then a correction may be warranted [@Hilbe2014]. If overdispersion is observed, then there are several corrective measures in common practice. Options are adjusting the standard errors by scaling, applying sandwich or robust standard errors, or bootstrapping standard errors for the model. However, only the standard errors will be adjusted and not the regression coefficients, $\mathbf{\beta}$, which often can be affected by overdispersion as well [e.g., @Hilbe2011]. This paper examines the efficacy of using Bayesian estimation methods on a more general discrete distribution known as the NB. The NB distribution contains a second parameter called the dispersion or heterogeneity parameter which is used to accommodate Poisson overdispersion as described below. Negative Binomial Regression ---------------------------- The NB distribution has long been recognized as a full member of the exponential family, originally representing the probability of observing $y$ failures before the $rth$ success in a series of Bernoulli trials. It can also be formulated as a Poisson model with gamma heterogeneity [@Hilbe2011]. The NB model, as a Poisson–gamma mixture model, is appropriate to use when the overdispersion in an otherwise Poisson model is thought to take the form of a gamma shape or distribution, i.e., $a(\phi) = 1 / k$, with $k > 0$. The NB probability distribution function is then given by: $$f(y;k,\mu) = \frac{\Gamma(y+k)}{\Gamma(k)\Gamma(y+1)}\left(\frac{k}{\mu+k}\right)^k\left(1-\frac{k}{\mu+k}\right)^y.$$ The distribution function has two parameters, $\mu$ and $k$, allowing more flexible models than the Poisson distribution. The symbol $\Gamma$ represents the gamma function[^3]. The mean and variance are given by $$\rm{Mean} = \mu;\qquad \rm{Variance} = \mu+\frac{\mu^2}{k} = \mu+\alpha\mu^2.$$ The NB distribution has distributional assumptions similar to the Poisson distribution with the exception that it has a dispersion parameter $\alpha = 1/k$ to accommodate wider count distribution shapes than allowed by the Poisson model. As the dispersion parameter, $\alpha$, approaches 0, $\displaystyle \lim_{\alpha \to 0}\alpha\mu^2 = 0$ or $\displaystyle \lim_{k \to \infty}\mu^2/k = 0$, then the variance equals the mean which recovers the Poisson distribution. It should be noted that if different clusters of counts have different gamma shapes, indicating differing degrees of correlation within data, and if the NB Pearson $\chi^2$ dispersion statistic is greater than one, then the NB model may itself be overdispersed; i.e the data may be both Poisson and NB overdispersed. Random effects and mixed effects Poisson and NB models are then reasonable alternatives [@Hilbe2014]. An additional situation should also be mentioned. If the Poisson dispersion statistic is less than one, this is evidence of Poisson under-dispersed data. The NB model is not appropriate for handling Poisson under-dispersion; however, the generalized Poisson model is. We do not discuss under-dispersed data in this article, but the subject warrants future study as to how it applies to astrophysical data. To guide the reader, Table \[tab:assumptions\] displays the main assumptions of the OLS, OLS with a log-transformed response variable, Poisson, and NB regression models discussed in the previous sections. Dataset {#sec:catalog} ======= As a study case, we use the catalogue of globular clusters presented in [@Harris2013] (see also @harris14)[^4]. The data are composed of 422 galaxies with published measurements of their globular cluster populations. There is a range of galaxy morphologies from which we indexed 247 as elliptical (E), 94 as lenticular (S0), 55 as spirals (S) and 26 as irregulars (Irr) galaxies for illustrative purposes. Note that the original catalogue presents 69 different subcategories of morphological classifications which will be discussed in section \[sec:GLMMs\]. This is a compilation of literature data from a variety of sources obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope as well as a wide range of other ground based facilities. Beyond [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}, we select the following properties for our analysis: central black hole mass, dynamical bulge mass, bulge velocity dispersion, and absolute visual magnitude as described in Table \[tab:var\]. [l | a ]{} Parameter & Definition\ [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}& Number of globular clusters\ $M_V$ & Absolute visual magnitude\ $\sigma$ & Bulge velocity dispersion\ [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}& Central black hole mass\ $M_{\rm dyn}$ & Dynamical mass\ $\epsilon_{{{\ensuremath{N_{\mathrm{GC}}}\xspace}}}$ & Uncertainty in [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}\ $\epsilon_{M_V}$ & Uncertainty in $M_V$\ $\epsilon_{\sigma}$ & Uncertainty in $\sigma$\ $\epsilon_{{{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}\xspace}}}$ & Uncertainty in [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}\ Modelling the population size of globular clusters {#sec:analysis} ================================================== ![Total number of globular clusters, [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}, plotted versus the central black hole mass, [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}. The dashed line represents the expected value of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}for each value of [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}using Poisson GLM regression, while the shaded areas depicts 50%, 95%, and 99% prediction intervals. Galaxy types are coded by shape and colour as follows: Ellipticals (E; blue solid circles), spirals (S; red open triangles), and lenticulars (S0; orange asterisks). An ArcSinh transformation is applied in the y-axis for better visualization of the whole range of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}values, including the null ones. []{data-label="fig:fitpois"}](JAGS_pois.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} ![A graphical model of equation (\[eq:HBM\]) representing the hierarchy of dependencies for a data set of galaxies indexed by the subscript $i$. The sinusoidal curves represent stochastic dependencies, while straight arrows a deterministic ones. To save space, we replace [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}by $M_{\bullet}$ in the diagram. []{data-label="fig:HBM"}](hierarch_diagram_errors.pdf){width="0.85\columnwidth"} Within this section we demonstrate the application of Bayesian GLM regression for modelling the relationship between [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and the following galaxy properties: [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}, $\sigma$, $M_V$ and $M_{\rm dyn}$. Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, the analysis is made using a sub-sample of 45 objects from which we have observations for all the property predictors. In section \[sec:all\] an additional analysis uses the entirety of the available data. A few common terms in statistical modelling need to be reviewed to facilitate our model applications. The analysis focus is the prediction of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}as a function of the global galaxy properties. Therefore, [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}represents the count (i.e., a non-negative integer) response variable, while $M_V$, [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}and $M_{\rm dyn}$ are interchangeably called covariates, explanatory variables or predictors. If included in the model, the galaxy morphological type is also considered a nominal categorical predictor (see section \[sec:count\]). The whole analysis is performed using JAGS (Just Another Gibbs Sampler)[^5], a program for analysis of Bayesian hierarchical models using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) framework[^6]. For each regression case, we initiate three Markov chains by starting the Gibbs samples at different initial values sampled from a normal distribution with zero mean and standard deviation of 10. The initial adapting and burning phases were set to 22,000 steps followed subsequently by 50,000 steps, which was sufficient to guarantee convergence of each chain for all studied cases. We now use the relationship between [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}and [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}as an example to illustrate how the statistical model is built. To motivate the use of the more general NB distribution, we start the analysis assuming a GLM Poisson regression model neglecting the uncertainties in measurements at this stage for simplicity[^7]. This leads to the following model: \[eq:pois\] &N\_[;i]{}\~Poisson(\_i);\ &\_i = e\^[\_i]{};\ &\_i = \_0+\_1M\_[;i]{};\ &\_0 \~N(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_1 \~N(0,10\^[6]{});\ &i = 1,,N. This set of equations reads as follows: each galaxy in the dataset, composed of $N$ objects, has its globular cluster population sampled from a Poisson distribution whose expected value, $\mu$, relates to the central black hole mass through a linear relation expressed by $\eta$. Since we don’t have previous information about the values of the coefficients $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$, we assigned non-informative Gaussian priors with zero mean and standard deviation equal to $10^6$. We refer the reader to appendix \[app:JAGS\] for an example of how to implement a Poisson GLM in JAGS. The fitted curve for this model is displayed in Fig. \[fig:fitpois\]. The grey shaded areas represent 50%, 95%, and 99% prediction intervals, which are the regions where a future observation will fall with these given probabilities[^8]. Note that the areas in the plot are too narrow to be visually discriminated. A visual inspection clearly indicates that the Poisson model isn’t adequate to explain the data variability since most of the data fall outside the three prediction intervals. Also, the dispersion statistic for this model is $\mathcal{D} = 1039$, which is a strong indication of an inadequate model. All other covariates, $\sigma$, and $M_V$ and $M_{\rm dyn}$, lead to models with similarly high levels of Poisson overdispersion. Hence, hereafter we discuss construction of the full model based on the NB family to mitigate overdispersion and to include the uncertainties in the observational quantities. Unlike the Poisson model, by employing a NB distribution we allow the incidence rate of globular clusters to be itself a random variable. Continuing with our working example, we keep the discussion using the relationship between [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}, but see appendix \[app:hbm\] for descriptions of the other models. The first step is to understand how to include information about the uncertainties in the measurements [see e.g., @Andreon2013 for a review of measurement errors in astronomy]. Measurement errors in the response count variable are the trickiest part to be modelled. The classical model with an additive error term $y = y^{*} \pm \varepsilon$ is inappropriate since it does not ensure that the observed value $y$ is non-negative. The appropriate model is described below and its graphical representations are displayed in Fig. \[fig:HBM\]: \[eq:HBM\] &N\_[;i]{}\~NB(p\_i,k);\ &p\_i = ;\ &\_i = e\^[\_i]{} + \_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_i = \_0+\_1M\_[;i]{}\^\*;\ & k \~(0,5);\ &M\_[;i]{} \~(M\_[;i]{}\^\*,e\_[;i]{}\^2);\ &\_[N\_;i]{} \~(0.5, 2 e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{}) - e\_[N\_;i]{};\ &\_0 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_1 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &M\_[;i]{}\^\* \~(\_0,\_0);\ &\_0 \~(0.01,0.01);\ &\_0 \~(0.01,0.01);\ &i = 1,,N. The above is slightly more complex than the model displayed in equation (\[eq:pois\]) and reads as follows. Each galaxy in the dataset with $N$ objects, has its globular cluster population sampled from a NB distribution whose expected value, $\mu$, relates to the central black hole mass through the linear predictor $\eta$. The additional transformation $p_i = k/(k+\mu_i)$ is required due to how the NB distribution is parametrized in JAGS. The uncertainties related to the counts, $\epsilon_{N_{\mathrm{GC}};i}$, are taken to be associated with the mean, $\mu$, of the NB distribution and are modelled using a shifted binomial distribution, $\mathcal{B}$, with zero mean and taking on integer values in the range $[-e_{N_{GC};i}, +e_{N_{GC};i}]$ [see e.g., Chapter 13 from @Cameron2013 from which this approach is loosely based.]. Uncertainties associated with the observed predictor $M_{BH;i}$ are modelled using a Gaussian distribution with unobserved mean given by the “true black hole mass”, $M_{BH;i}^*$, and standard deviations given by the reported uncertainties in the observed black hole mass, $e_{M_{BH};i}$. Since $M_{BH;i}^*$ is itself an unobserved variable, we add a non-informative $\Gamma$ prior on top of which we added non-informative hyperpriors for the shape, $\alpha_0$, and rate, $\theta_0$, parameters of the $\Gamma$ distribution. The choice of a $\Gamma$ prior is motivated by the fact that the black hole mass is a continuous, but non-negative quantity which makes $\Gamma$ a more suitable distribution. For the shape parameter $k$, we assigned a non-informative uniform prior, $\mathcal{U}$, as suggested in @zuu13. For the coefficients $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ we assigned non-informative Gaussian priors with zero mean and standard deviation equal to $10^6$. Adapting the model above for each combination of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and a given galaxy property generates the fitted curves displayed in Fig. \[fig:fit\_negbin\]. The grey shaded area represents 50%, 95%, and 99% prediction intervals, while the dashed line represents the expected value of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}for each value of the covariate. Note the remarkable agreement between the model and the observed values with prediction intervals enclosing the entirety of the data, including objects that have been previously declared outliers and even removed from analysis, such as our own Milky Way [e.g., @Burkert2010; @Harris2011; @harris14]. {width="1\columnwidth"} {width="1\columnwidth"} {width="1\columnwidth"} {width="1\columnwidth"} Fit diagnostics --------------- If the Markov chains are all representative of the posterior distribution of the fitted parameters, they should overlap each other. Traceplots, Fig. \[fig:traceplot\], and density plots, Fig. \[fig:density\] are two useful visual diagnostics that are commonly used to test for chain convergence. We can see that the chains do mix well after the burn-in period, suggesting that the chains are producing representative values from the posterior distribution for $\beta_0$, $\beta_1$ and $k$. Additionally, we used a more quantitative check, viz., the so-called Gelman-Rubin statistic [@gelman1992]. The underlying idea is that if the chains have reached convergence, the average difference between the chains should be similar to the average difference across steps within the chains. The statistic equals unity if the chains are fully converged. As a rule, values above 1.1 indicate that the chains have failed to properly converge. The Gelman-Rubin statistic fell below 1.05 for all estimated parameters in our analysis. Hence, once we convince ourselves that the model is working properly, the next step in the analysis is to add interpretations to the fitted coefficients as we discuss now. Interpretation of the coefficients ---------------------------------- The exponentiated coefficients $e^{\beta_i}$ of Poisson and NB regressions are also known as rate ratios, or incidence rate ratios, which quantify how an increase of unity in the predictor variable affects the number of occurrences of the response variable. From Table \[tab:betas\], displaying the means and respective 95% credible intervals of the posterior distribution for each parameter, the exponentiated coefficient $\beta_1 = 1.59$ of the [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}predictor gives a rate ratio of $e^{1.59}=4.9$. Therefore, according to the model, a galaxy whose central black hole has a mass of, e.g., $\approx 10^8 M_{\bigodot}$ has on average approximately five times more globular clusters than a galaxy whose ${{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}\xspace}}\approx 10^7 M_{\bigodot}$[^9]. In other words, one dex[^10] variation increase in the [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}leads to an approximately five times increase in the incidence of globular clusters in a given galaxy. Likewise, an increase of one dex in $M_{dyn}$ leads to an increase of $e^{2.19}=8.9$ times in the population size of globular clusters. Another way to state this is, given two galaxies with a difference in dynamical mass of one dex, the more massive one has a production rate of globular clusters 8.9 times more efficient on average. Similar interpretation can be made on the other parameters. Another question of interest is how to determine the best predictor of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}. In the following, we discuss how to address this problem from a Bayesian perspective. \[tab:coef\] [l c c c ]{} Predictor & $\beta_0$ & $\beta_1$ & k\ \ [[$M_{\mathrm{BH}}$]{}]{}& $-6.49\pm 2.6$ & $1.59\pm 0.30$ & $1.53\pm 0.60$\ $M_{\rm dyn}$ & $-17.72\pm 2.75$ & $2.19\pm 0.24$ & $2.46\pm 0.97$\ \[0.75ex\] $\sigma$ & $2.99\pm 0.78$ & $0.02\pm 0.003$ & $1.52\pm 0.59$\ \[0.75ex\] $M_{V}$ & $-20.50\pm 3.9$ & $-1.28\pm 0.17$ & $2.23\pm 1.1$\ \[0.75ex\] ![Illustration of MCMC diagnostics. Three chains were generated by starting the Gibbs algorithm at different initial values sampled from a normal distribution with zero mean and standard deviation 10. Steps 42,000-72,000 are shown here. The figure displays the results for the model [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}vs $M_{\rm BH}$, with the traceplots for $\beta_0$, $\beta_1$ and $k$ displayed from top to bottom. []{data-label="fig:traceplot"}](chain_NB_new.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} Model Comparison ---------------- To find the best predictors for the globular cluster population, we compare the models using the dispersion statistics $\mathcal{D}$ defined in section \[sec:overdispersion\], and the deviance information criterion [DIC; @Spiegelhalter02]. The latter represents a compromise between the goodness of fit and model complexity. It is defined as: $$DIC = \overline{Dev}+p_D,$$ where the $\overline{Dev}$ is the average of the deviance $Dev(\mathbf{\theta})$ defined as $Dev(\mathbf{\theta}) = -2\log\mathcal{L}(\rm{data}|\mathbf{\theta})$, with $\mathcal{L}$ representing the likelihood function. The effective number of parameters, $p_D$, is calculated as: $$p_D = \overline{Dev}-Dev(\mathbf{\theta}),$$ where $\mathbf{\theta}$ is the vector of model parameters (${\beta_0,\beta_1, k}$ for the case in study here). The preferred model has the smallest value for the DIC statistic. Figs. \[fig:Disp\] and \[fig:DIC\] depict the results for the model comparison using the same dataset. The black hole mass displays the lowest values for $\mathcal{D}$ and DIC, with dispersion statistics as low as $\mathcal{D} = 1.05$. Although derived from an independent analysis, these findings corroborate previous claims about the tight connection between the central black hole mass and globular cluster population [@Burkert2010]. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that this is not in agreement with a previous analysis performed by @Harris2013 using the same catalogue, where they found $M_{\rm dyn}$ as a better predictor for [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}than $M_{\rm BH}$[^11]. ![Dispersion statistics, $\mathcal{D}$, for each model. Values above 1 represent overdispersion, while values below 1 indicate underdispersion. []{data-label="fig:Disp"}](Dispersion_stat.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} ![Deviance information criterion, DIC, for each model. Smaller DIC values correspond to preferred models. []{data-label="fig:DIC"}](DIC.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} Further analysis with the entire data set {#sec:all} ----------------------------------------- Hereafter, we provide a more extensive analysis using the entire catalogue of 422 galaxies. The only quantities available for all objects are the [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}, galaxy morphological type and $M_V$ [@Harris2013]. The advantage of using count models for this type of analysis is apparent from the six galaxies for which no globular clusters were detected. Such a scenario is naturally accommodated by discrete likelihoods while avoiding the failings of logarithmic transformations to the response. The statistical model we use is the same as that discussed in the beginning of this section and can be described as: \[eq:HBMMV\] &N\_[;i]{}\~NB(p\_i,k);\ &p\_i = ;\ &\_i = e\^[\_i]{} + \_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_i = \_0+\_1M\_[V;i]{}\^\*;\ & k \~(0,5);\ &M\_[V;i]{} \~(M\_[V;i]{}\^\*,e\_[M\_[V]{};i]{}\^2);\ &\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{} \~(0.5, 2 e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{}) - e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_0 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_1 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &M\_[V;i]{}\^\* \~(-26,-10);\ &i = 1,,N. Overall, the model is similar to the one described in equation (\[eq:HBM\]). The difference is in the prior for the unobserved true absolute visual magnitude, $M_{V;i}^*$, to which we assigned a uniform prior over the range of magnitudes covered by the catalogue. The fitted model shows remarkable agreement with the data as displayed in Fig. \[fig:MV\_full\]. Very few objects fall outside the prediction intervals over a wide range of galaxy brightnesses. The dispersion statistics for this model is $\mathcal{D} = 1.15$, and the credible intervals for the fitted $\beta$ coefficients and scaling parameter, $k$, are shown in Fig. \[fig:density2\]. Likewise, as in the previous section, we can interpret the $\beta$ coefficient as follows. The mean value of $\beta_1$ exponentiated is $\approx 0.4$, which implies that a galaxy whose absolute visual magnitude is one unit greater than another reference galaxy has on average 0.4 times less globular clusters; i.e., a galaxy brighter by one magnitude over another has on average 2.5 times more globular clusters. Likewise, a galaxy with $M_V = -20$ has on average $2.5^5 \approx 100$ times more globular clusters than a galaxy with $M_V = -15$, which is consistent with a visual inspection of Fig. \[fig:MV\_full\]. Another advantage of our approach is the possibility to extrapolate the regression solution without making non-physical predictions. The fitted model predicts a nearly zero occurrence of globular clusters for galaxies with $M_V \geqslant -11$. Considering the total galaxy luminosity, $L = 10^{0.4(M_{V_{\bigodot}}-M_V)}L_{\bigodot}$, with $M_{V_{\bigodot}} = 4.83$, the model suggests that galaxies with $L \leqslant 2\times 10^6~L_{\bigodot}$ are unlikely to host populations of globular clusters, thus agreeing with the literature [e.g., @Harris2013]. The use of Bayesian prediction intervals allow us to make some interesting predictions: for instance from Fig. \[fig:MV\_full\], we can state that galaxies with luminosities $L \leqslant 8.5\times 10^7~L_{\bigodot}$ (or $M_{V_{\bigodot}} \geqslant -15$) should not contain more than 10 globular clusters with 99% probability. The analysis performed so far did not account for information regarding different galaxy morphological types. Therefore, we are implicitly assuming a pooled estimate [e.g., @Gelman2007]: all different galaxy types are sampled from the same common distribution ignoring any possible variation among them. On the other extreme, performing an independent analysis for each class would mean making the assumption that each morphological type is sampled from independent distributions and that variations between them cannot be combined. In the next section we discuss a more flexible approach together with a brief overview of generalized linear mixed models. ![Globular cluster population, $N_{\rm GC}$ plotted against visual absolute magnitude $M_V$. The dashed line represents the expected value of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}for each value of $M_V$, while the shaded areas depicts 50%, 95%, and 99% prediction intervals. Galaxy types are coded by shape and colour as follows: Ellipticals (E; blue solid circles), spirals (S; red open triangles), lenticulars (S0; orange asterisks), and irregulars (Irr; green open circles). An ArcSinh transformation is applied in the y-axis for better visualization of the whole range of $N_{\rm GC}$ values, including the null ones. []{data-label="fig:MV_full"}](M_Vxfull.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} Generalized Linear Mixed Models {#sec:GLMMs} =============================== As our final analysis, we introduce one of the most important extensions of the GLM methodology known as generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). In particular, we focus on one of the simplest GLMM incarnations known as the random intercepts model. The random intercepts model, in our context, includes an additional term $\zeta_j$ to account for a class (galaxy type) specific deviation from the common intercept $\beta_0$: $$\eta_{ij} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times M_{V;i} + \zeta_j, \label{eq:intercept}$$ where the index $j$ runs from 1 to 69 representing each of the different galaxy subtypes reported in @Harris2013. A standard approach to modelling $\zeta_j$ in a standard linear mixed regression model is to assume the conditional normality of the random intercepts with $\zeta_j \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1/\tau)$, and $\tau \sim \Gamma(0.01,0.01)$. Our intention in incorporating this extra term into the model is not to simply adjust the data, but rather the aim is to identify any particular galaxy sub-type which deviates from the overall population mean. For this purpose, we employed a popular method for variable selection from a Bayesian perspective known as least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) which is discussed in the following section. Bayesian LASSO -------------- The original LASSO regression was proposed by @Tibshirani96 to automatically select a relevant subset of predictors in a regression problem by shrinking some coefficients towards zero [see also @Uemura2015 for a recent application of LASSO for modelling Type Ia supernovae light curves]. For a typical linear regression problem: $$y_i=\beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\cdots+\beta_{p}x_p+\epsilon,$$ with $\epsilon$ denoting Gaussian noise, LASSO estimates linear regression coefficients $\mathbf{\beta} = \beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\cdots+\beta_{p}x_p$ by imposing a $L_1$-norm penalty in the form: $${\arg\!\min}_{\beta} \left \{\sum_{i=1}^N\left(y_i-\sum_{j=1}^p\beta_jx_{ij}\right)^2+\kappa\sum_{j=1}^p|\beta_j| \right \},$$ where $\kappa\geq 0$ is a tunable constant that controls the level of sparseness of the solution. The number of zero coefficients thereby increases as $\kappa$ increase. @Tibshirani96 also noted that the LASSO estimate has a Bayesian counterpart when the $\mathbf{\beta}$ coefficients have a double-exponential prior (i.e., a Laplace prior) distribution, $$f(\mathbf{\zeta};\tau) = \frac{1}{2\tau}\exp\left(-\frac{|\zeta_j|}{\tau}\right),$$ where $\tau = 1/\kappa$. The idea was further developed and is known as Bayesian LASSO [see e.g., @Park2008]. Hereafter, we use the LASSO formulation for a slightly different purpose, viz., variable selection for random intercept models [see e.g., @bernardo2011 pg. 165]. The underlying idea is to discriminate between galaxy types that follow the overall population mean, i.e. $\zeta_1 = 0$, and galaxies that require an additional adjustment in the intercept, i.e. $\zeta_i \neq 0$. In order to include this information, we replace the linear predictor $\eta$ by equation (\[eq:intercept\]) and add the following equations in the model described by equation (\[eq:HBMMV\]): \[eq:lasso\] &\_j \~Laplace(0,);\ &= 1/;\ &\~(0.01,0.01);\ &j = 1,,69. The role of the Laplace prior is to assign more weight to regions either near to zero or in the distribution tails as compared to a normal prior. A visual inspection on Fig. \[fig:priors\] confirms this notion. For the parameter $\kappa$, we assigned a diffuse (non-informative) gamma hyperprior in the form $\kappa \sim \Gamma(0.01,0.01)$, which avoids the need of an ad hoc choice of $\kappa$. Note that other possibilities exist such as, e.g., iteratively finding $\kappa$ via cross-validation to maximize predictive power. Analysis results are displayed on Fig. \[fig:random\]. Overall, it suggests that we do not need to add an additional intercept for predicting [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}from $M_V$. This is consistent with the fact that prediction intervals in Fig. \[fig:MV\_full\] enclose $\sim 98.8\%$ of the data set without any need of a random intercept. Nevertheless, the following galaxy types require systematic adjustments: spirals galaxies with moderate size of nuclear bulge (Sb), barred lenticulars (SB0), lenticulars (S0) and dwarf elliptical galaxies (dE0N and dE1N). MG represents one single object. Also, UGC 3274 is the brightest galaxy of the galaxy cluster ACO 539 [@Lin2004]. Fig. \[fig:MV\_fullout\] shows that the dE0N and dE1N objects have a large number of GCs on average when compared to other galaxy types with similar luminosities, while the lenticulars have systematically fewer GCs than expected for the overall galaxy population. This can be quantified by looking at the mean value of $\zeta$ in Fig. \[fig:random\]. For S0 galaxies the mean value of $\zeta$ is -0.42 indicating that, on average, S0 galaxies have 34% ($1-e^{-0.42}$) fewer GCs than other galaxy types in the same range of luminosities. Generally speaking, galaxy types with 95% credible intervals falling on the right side of the dashed grey vertical line in Fig. \[fig:random\] have more GCs than the overall population mean, while galaxy types on the left side have fewer GCs than the population mean. While a detailed investigation of the causes of this behaviour is beyond the scope of this work, it is important to stress the ability of hierarchical Bayesian models to explore the multilevel statistical properties of the objects under study in an unified way. ![Illustrative comparison between Laplace and Gaussian priors. The Gaussian distribution is represented by dashed lines, while the Laplace distribution by solid lines. For all curves we assign a zero mean, and the scale (or standard deviation, $\sigma$, for the Gaussian case) parameters 0.25 (dark blue lines) and 0.5 (cyan lines). []{data-label="fig:priors"}](Laplace_prior.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} ![Caterpillar plot for the random intercepts $\zeta_i$ versus the subcategories of galaxy morphological classifications. The thick and thin horizontal lines represent 90% and 95% credible intervals respectively. []{data-label="fig:random"}](random_LASSO.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} ![Globular cluster population, [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}plotted against visual absolute magnitude $M_V$. The dashed line represents the expected value of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}for each value of $M_V$, while the shaded areas depicts 50%, 95%, and 99% prediction intervals. Galaxy types are coded by colours as follows: Ellipticals (E; blue), spirals (S; red), lenticulars (S0; orange), and irregulars (Irr; green). Asterisks represent galaxies belonging to sub-types whose random intercept $\zeta$ is consistent with zero, while circles represent the ones with $\zeta \neq 0$. An ArcSinh transformation is applied in the y-axis for better visualization of the whole range of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}values, including the null ones. []{data-label="fig:MV_fullout"}](M_Vxfull_out.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} Conclusions {#sec:end} =========== We employed a Bayesian negative binomial regression model to analyse the population size of globular clusters in the presence of galactic attributes such as central black hole mass, brightness, and morphological type. Hence, demonstrating how generalized linear models designed to represent count data provide reliable outcomes and interpretations. The main scientific results and features of our analysis can be summarized as follows: - The population size of GC is on average 35% lower on S0 galaxies if compared to other galaxies with similar luminosities. - The relationship between the number of globular clusters and other galaxy properties has more variation than expected by a Poisson process, but can be well modelled by a negative binomial GLM. - The Bayesian modelling herein employed naturally accounts for heteroscedasticity, intrinsic scatter, and errors in measurements in both axes (either discrete or continuous). - Predicted intervals around the trend for expected [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}envelope the data, including the Milky Way, which was previously considered an outlier. - The random intercepts model (with a Bayesian LASSO) applied to the correlation between GC population and brightness allow us to account for the presence of 69 different galaxy subcategories of morphological classifications, and automatically identifies particular types not following the overall population mean. Galaxy types dE1N, dE0N, E/cD, S0, Sb0 and Sb show significant deviations from the general trend. Based on the sample studied here, we advise these types to be further scrutinized in order to clarify if there is any physical mechanism behind such deviations or merely an observational bias[^12]. - By employing a hierarchical Bayesian model for the random intercepts and unobserved covariates (e.g., true black hole mass), we allow the model to borrow strength across units. This happens via their joint influence on the posterior estimates of the unknown hyper-parameters. - If extrapolated, the fitted model predicts a suppression in the presence of GCs for galaxies with luminosities $L \lesssim 2\times 10^6~L_{\bigodot}$. - The central black holes mass is in fact a good predictor of the number of GCs. One dex increase in $M_{BH}$ leads to an approximate 5 times increase in the incidence of globular clusters. The origin of such correlation it is still a matter of debate. One possible explanation is that both properties are associated with a common event such as major mergers, thus galaxies experimenting a recent major merger should have a large $M_{BH}$ mass and GC populations [e.g., @Jahnke2011]. The total mass of GCs and the central black hole mass can also correlate with the bulge binding energy in elliptical galaxies [e.g., @Snyder2011; @Saxton2014]. Rapid growth of the nuclear black hole of a galaxy might be fuelled by a massive inflow of cold gas towards the centre of the galaxy. The gas inflow would trigger star formation and the formation of GCs. Hence, leading to an indirect correlation between the total number of GCs and the $M_{BH}$. Scrutinizing which one among these and other possibilities, if any, are responsible for this correlation (causal or not) is beyond the purposes of this work. However, it does provide a clear example on how the adoption of modern statistical methods can point to intriguing astrophysical questions. A statistical model is based on an appropriate probability distribution function assumed to generate or describe a data set. Hence, the parameter estimating likelihood function must specify a probability distribution on the appropriate scale under study. Discrete data, and count data in particular, are not continuous as are data described by the Gaussian distribution. The most appropriate way to model count data is by using a discrete probability distribution, e.g., a Poisson or negative binomial likelihood, otherwise the model will likely be biased and misspecified — the price to be paid for employing the wrong likelihood estimator for the data of interest. Generalized linear models are a cornerstone of modern statistics, and an invaluable instrument for astronomical investigations given their potential application to a variety of astronomical problems beyond Gaussian assumptions. A prompt integration of these methods into astronomical analyses will allow contemporary statistical techniques to become common practice in the research of $\rm 21^{st}$ century astronomy. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We thank Johannes Buchner for careful revision and constructive comments. The IAA Cosmostatistics Initiative (COIN)[^13] is a nonprofit organization whose aim is to nourish the synergy between astrophysics, cosmology, statistics and machine learning communities. EEOI is partially supported by the Brazilian agency CAPES (grant number 9229-13-2). ACS acknowledges funding from a CNPq, BJT-A fellowship (400857/2014-6). MK acknowledges support by the DFG project DO 1310/4-1. This work was written on the collaborative `Overleaf` platform[^14], and made use of the GitHub[^15] repository web-based hosting service and `git` version control software. Work on this paper has substantially benefited from using the collaborative website AWOB (http://awob.mpg.de) developed and maintained by the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics and the Max-Planck Digital Library. The bibliographic research was possible thanks to the tools offered by the NASA Astrophysical Data Systems. Andreon S., Hurn M., 2013, Statistical Analysis and Data Mining, 6, 15 S., [Hurn]{} M. A., 2010, , 404, 1922 M., [Kitaura]{} F.-S., [M[ü]{}ller]{} V., 2015, , 446, 4250 Bernardo J., Bayarri J., Berger J., Dawid A., Heckerman D., 2011, Bayesian Statistics 9. Oxford science publications, OUP Oxford J. P., [Strader]{} J., 2006, , 44, 193 A., [Tremaine]{} S., 2010, , 720, 516 A. C., [Trivedi]{} P. K., 2013, Regression analysis of count data, second edition. Cambridge University Press R. S., Cameron E., Killedar M., Hilbe J., Vilalta R., Maio U., Biffi V., Ciardi B., Riggs J., 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 21 P. R., [C[ô]{}t[é]{}]{} P., [Peng]{} E. W., [Blakeslee]{} J. P., [Ferrarese]{} L., [Mihos]{} J. C., [Puzia]{} T. H., [Lan[ç]{}on]{} A., [et al.]{} 2014, , 794, 103 J., [de Souza]{} R. S., [Krone-Martins]{} A., [Cameron]{} E., [Ishida]{} E. E. O., [Hilbe]{} J., 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 61 K., [Bender]{} R., [Bower]{} G., [Dressler]{} A., [Faber]{} S. M., [Filippenko]{} A. V., [Green]{} R., [Grillmair]{} C., [Ho]{} L. C., [Kormendy]{} J., [Lauer]{} T. R., [Magorrian]{} J., [Pinkney]{} J., [Richstone]{} D., [Tremaine]{} S., 2000, , 539, L13 Gelman A., Hill J., 2007, Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Analytical methods for social research, Cambridge University Press, New York Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, Statist. Sci., 7, 457 Griswold M., Parmigiani G., Potosky A., Lipscomb J., 2004, Biostatistics, 1, 1 Hardin J. W., Hilbe J. M., 2012, Generalized Linear Models and Extensions, 3rd edn. StataCorp LP G. L. H., [Harris]{} W. E., 2011, , 410, 2347 G. L. H., [Poole]{} G. B., [Harris]{} W. E., 2014, , 438, 2117 W. E., [Harris]{} G. L. H., [Alessi]{} M., 2013, , 772, 82 Hilbe J., 2014, Modeling Count Data. Cambridge University Press Hilbe J. M., 2011, Negative binomial regression, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press K., [Macci[ò]{}]{} A. V., 2011, , 734, 92 Jong P. D., Heller G. Z., 2008, Generalized Linear Models for Insurance Data. Cambridge University Press J. M. D., 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31, 244006 Lansbury G. B., Lucey J. R., Smith R. J., 2014, , 439, 1749 Y.-T., [Mohr]{} J. J., 2004, , 617, 879 Lindsey J. K., 1999, Statistics in medicine, 18, 2223 Marley J. K., Wand M. P., 2010, Journal of Statistical Software, 37, 1 Marschner I. C., Gillett A. C., 2012, Biostatistics, 13, 179 Nelder J. A., Wedderburn R. W. M., 1972, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 135, 370 O’Hara R. B., Kotze D. J., 2010, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 118 Park Trevor Casella George 2008, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 681 A., [Andreon]{} S., 2012, , 543, A19 A., [Andreon]{} S., 2014, , 570, A123 K. L., 2012, , 144, 154 C. J., [Soria]{} R., [Wu]{} K., 2014, , 445, 3415 G. F., [Hopkins]{} P. F., [Hernquist]{} L., 2011, , 728, L24 Spiegelhalter D. J., Best N. G., Carlin B. P., Van Der Linde A., 2002, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64, 583 Tibshirani R., 1996, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 58, 267 S., [Gebhardt]{} K., [Bender]{} R., [Bower]{} G., [Dressler]{} A., [Faber]{} S. M., [Filippenko]{} A. V., [Green]{} R., [Grillmair]{} C., [Ho]{} L. C., [Kormendy]{} J., [Lauer]{} T. R., [Magorrian]{} J., [Pinkney]{} J., [Richstone]{} D., 2002, , 574, 740 M., [Kawabata]{} K. S., [Ikeda]{} S., [Maeda]{} K., 2015, , 67, 55 Zuur A., Hilbe J., Ieno E., 2013, A Beginner’s Guide to GLM and GLMM with R. Highland Statistics JAGS model {#app:JAGS} ========== #### Poisson GLM {#poisson-glm .unnumbered} The basic JAGS syntax for a Poisson GLM model: GLM.pois<-model{ #Priors for regression coefficients beta.0~dnorm(0,0.000001) beta.1~dnorm(0,0.000001) #Poisson GLM Likelihood for (i in 1:N){ eta[i]<-beta.0+beta.1*x[i] log(mu[i])<-eta[i] y[i]~dpois(mu[i]) } } #### Negative Binomial GLM {#negative-binomial-glm .unnumbered} The basic JAGS syntax for a NB GLM model: GLM.NB<-model{ #Priors for regression coefficients beta.0~dnorm(0,0.000001) beta.1~dnorm(0,0.000001) k~dunif(0.001,10) #NB GLM Likelihood for (i in 1:N){ eta[i]<-beta.0+beta.1*x[i] log(mu[i])<-eta[i] p[i]<-k/(k+mu[i]) y[i]~dnegbin(p[i],k) } } Another approach to fit a NB model in JAGS is via a combination of a Gamma distribution with a Poisson distribution in the form [see e.g., @Marley2010; @Hilbe2011]: GLM.NB<-model{ #Priors for regression coefficients beta.0~dnorm(0,0.000001) beta.1~dnorm(0,0.000001) k~dunif(0.001,10) #NB GLM Likelihood for (i in 1:N){ eta[i]<-beta.0+beta.1*x[i] log(mu[i])<-eta[i] rateParm[i]<-k/mu[i] g[i]~dgamma(k,rateParm[i]) y[i]~dpois(g[i],k) } } Bayesian model for each covariate {#app:hbm} ================================= #### Dynamical mass versus globular cluster population {#dynamical-mass-versus-globular-cluster-population .unnumbered} Bayesian NB GLM model for the relationship between [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and galaxy dynamical mass $M_{dyn}$. Since, there is no information about the uncertainties in the measurements of $M_{dyn}$, we neglect this in this particular model. \[eq:HBMMdyn\] &N\_[GC;i]{}\~NB(p\_i,k);\ &p\_i = ;\ &\_i = e\^[\_i]{} + \_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_i = \_0+\_1M\_[dyn;i]{};\ & k \~(0,5);\ &\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{} \~(0.5, 2 e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{}) - e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_0 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_1 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_0 \~(0.01,0.01);\ &\_0 \~(0.01,0.01);\ &i = 1,,N. #### Bulge velocity versus globular cluster population {#bulge-velocity-versus-globular-cluster-population .unnumbered} Bayesian NB GLM model for the relationship between [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}and bulge dispersion velocity $\sigma$. \[eq:HBMsigma\] &N\_[GC;i]{}\~NB(p\_i,k);\ &p\_i = ;\ &\_i = e\^[\_i]{} + \_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_i = \_0+\_1\_i\^\*;\ & k \~(0,5);\ &\_i \~(\_i\^\*,e\_[\_i]{}\^2);\ &\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{} \~(0.5, 2 e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{}) - e\_[N\_[GC]{};i]{};\ &\_0 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_1 \~(0,10\^[6]{});\ &\_i\^\* \~(\_0,\_0);\ &\_0 \~(0.01,0.01);\ &\_0 \~(0.01,0.01);\ &i = 1,,N. [^1]: The exponential family comprises a set of distributions ranging from both continuous and discrete random variables (e.g., Gaussian, Poisson, Bernoulli, Gamma, etc.) [^2]: Heteroscedastic error structures may remain even after transformation, thus violating the Gaussian assumption of homogeneity of error variance. [^3]: If $n$ is a positive integer, $\Gamma (n) = (n-1)!$. [^4]: The complete catalogue can be obtained at <http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/~harris/GCS_table.txt>. [^5]: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags [^6]: Note that count models can be approached by other methods, such as a full maximum likelihood algorithm [see @Hilbe2011 for a review] [^7]: Neglecting the errors at this point does not affect the conclusions regarding the level of Poisson overdispersion. [^8]: Not to be confused with the commonly used confidence interval in frequentist statistics. A 95% confidence interval will contain the sample mean with 95% probability. In other words, a larger number of repeated samples from the data would contain the sample mean 95% of the time. [^9]: Note that the analysis was made using $\log{{{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}\xspace}}}$. [^10]: A dex difference of a given quantity x is a change by a factor of $10^x$. [^11]: It is important to note that we are not modelling the same relationship as @Harris2013 who modelled $\log N_{GC}$, the logarithm transformation of [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}, while we model [[$N_{\mathrm{GC}}$]{}]{}in the original scale. [^12]: Type MG also shows significant deviation, but this is probably a consequence of small sample size (MG corresponds to only 1 object). [^13]: <https://asaip.psu.edu/organizations/iaa/iaa-working-group-of-cosmostatistics> [^14]: [www.overleaf.com](www.overleaf.com) [^15]: [www.github.com](www.github.com)

--- abstract: 'An effective theory to treat the dense nuclear medium by the perturbative expansion method is proposed as a natural extension of the Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory (HBChPT). Treating the Fermi momentum scale as a separate scale of the system, we get an improved convergence and the conceptually clear interpretation. We compute the pion decay constant and the pion velocity in the nuclear medium, and find their characters different from what the usual HBChPT predicts. We also obtain the Debye screening scale at the normal nuclear matter density, and the damping scale of the pion wave. Those results indicate that the present theory, albeit its improvement over the HBChPT, has the limitation yet to go over to the medium of about 1.3 times of normal matter density due to the absence of the intrinsic density dependence of the coupling constants. We discuss how we overcome this limitation in terms of the renormalization method.' --- DPNU-04-17\ SNUTP-04-019\ [**An Effective Field Theory\ at Finite Density**]{} Masayasu Harada$^{\rm(a)}$[^1], Dong-Pil Min$^{\rm(b)}$[^2], Tae-Sun Park$^{\rm(c)}$[^3], Chihiro Sasaki$^{\rm(a)}$[^4] and Chaejun Song$^{\rm(d)}$[^5] 0.5cm $^{\rm(a)}$[*Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan*]{}\ $^{\rm(b)}$[*School of Physics, Seoul National University, 151-747, Korea*]{}\ $^{\rm(c)}$[*School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-012, Korea*]{}\ $^{\rm(d)}$[*Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea* ]{} 0.5cm Introduction ============ Low-energy nuclear processes that involve a few nucleons can be described in a systematic and consistent way, thanks to the heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBChPT) which has been initiated by the pioneering work of Weinberg [@weinberg90]. This noble approach has been applied to many low-energy processes with great successes; see, for example, Refs. [@handbook; @force; @excs; @hep]. Motivated with these successes, many already applied the chiral perturbation theory to dilute systems [@pjm; @hammer; @oller; @MOW; @fraga] and also to systems around the saturation density [@lutz; @weise]. When the density and the corresponding Fermi momentum $p_F$ increases, however, the convergence of free-space HBChPT becomes questionable. This is because HBChPT is a derivative expansion scheme with the expansion parameter $Q/\Lambda_\chi$; $Q$ stands for the typical momentum scale (and/or the pion mass) of the process, and $\Lambda_\chi\sim 4\pi f_\pi\simeq 1$ GeV is the chiral scale. In nuclear matter, $Q\sim p_F$ even for small fluctuations whose typical energy-momentum scale is much smaller than $p_F$. For such fluctuations, the contribution of the nucleons whose momenta far from the Fermi surface is however irrelevant. It is thus desirable to build an effective field theory (EFT) by integrating out such “[*massive*]{} degrees of freedom”, $|\vec{p}| - p_F > \Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is the cutoff of the theory. The resulting EFT has two expansion parameters, $Q_{ext}/\Lambda_\chi$ and $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$, where $Q_{ext}$ represents the energy-momentum scale of the external probes and/or the pion mass, $Q_{ext} \le \Lambda$. The resulting EFT is thus meaningful only when $Q_{ext} < \Lambda < p_F$ and $p_F < \Lambda_\chi$. These expansion parameters will emerge naturally in the power counting rule of the matrix elements of the physical processes, and the perturbative expansion will follow this counting rule as is the case in the HBChPT where only the expansion scale is $Q_{ext} < \Lambda_\chi$. As we shall see later, the new expansion scale $p_F < \Lambda_\chi$ could be threatened to approach to one when the density of the nuclear medium becomes large. But as we shall show later, the power counting rule shows that the matrix elements depends on the $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$ to twice of the number of loops that consist only of nucleon lines. This guarantees the rapid convergence in the dilute situation. In this work, however, we limit ourselves to a modest case where $Q_{ext} \ll p_F \ll \Lambda_\chi$, which allows the expansion both in $Q_{ext}/\Lambda_\chi$ and in $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$. This is the region that can be treated by the HBChPT. However, the EFT that we are developing here has two important advantages over the HBChPT. Firstly, the EFT has only relevant degrees of freedom (integrating out the irrelevant ones), which is the key aspect of EFTs that enables us to describe the nature systematically and consistently in a transparent manner. Secondly, since the convergence with respect to powers of $Q_{ext}/\Lambda_\chi$ is much faster than that of $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$, substantial reduction of the relevant diagrams can be achieved. The coefficients of the resulting EFT Lagrangian, [*i.e.*]{}, low-energy constants (LECs), will be in general different from those in the vacuum and must be determined from QCD. At this moment, we do not have any suitable ways to match our EFT directly with QCD. Instead we fix them by matching the EFT with the HBChPT; the Fermi momentum of the matching point should be upper-bounded by the validity region of HBChPT and lower-bounded by that of our EFT. Once the LECs are fixed, we determine the $p_F$-dependences of the physical quantities by including the (nucleon-)loop corrections. Before going further, we acknowledge that the idea of building EFT near the Fermi surface is not new at all. For example, the familiar Landau-Migdal Fermi theory is one of such. The work of Schwenk [*et al*]{}. [@schwenk] also is worthy to be noted, where the notion of the $V_{low-k}$ [@bogner] has been applied to derive the parameters of the Landau-Migdal theory. Especially our work shares much in common with the high density effective theory (HDET) developed by Hong [@Hong] and by Schäfer [@schaefer], which is an EFT for quark matter at high-dense region where the matching with the (perturbative) full QCD is possible. Compared to the HDET, our prime interests lie in the intermediate density (rather than the asymptotic) region where the (almost massless) Goldstone bosons exist and the relevant Fermion degrees of freedom are still nucleons. However, our approach may extend its applicability to the region where the chiral quarks are the relevant degrees of freedom. Our present study might be relevant for the recent pionic atom experiment at GSI with heavy nuclei, where the pion decay constant is interpreted to decrease that may signal the partial chiral symmetry restoration in medium [@yamazaki]. We present in this paper our first step to make the in-medium EFT. Our explicit degrees of freedom are nucleons near the Fermi surface, $|\vec{p}|-p_F \leq \Lambda$ and the Goldstone bosons. As is claimed recently by one of us (MH) [@HKR], the role played by vector mesons at high density should not be underestimated to realize the important phase of matter at the transition, the Vector Manifestation (VM) [@HY:VM; @HY:PRep]. Especially, we believe it is very important to understand how this phase is connected from the normal nuclear matter. Our model indeed stems from the purpose of its realization. In the present report, we are however much modest to consider only the pion degrees of freedom. The underlying rationale lies in the decimation process at hand. Our theory will allow the shallow excitation nearby the Fermi surface up to, say, the pionic mass scale. Those modes beyond it will be integrated out from the beginning. In a sense, our model will meet the limit of the applicability if the actual mass of certain integrated-out degrees of freedom becomes lighter as the density increases. This phenomena will emerge in our EFT when the parameters do not satisfy the [*naturalness*]{}. In this respect, it will be sought in the forthcoming work to include the chiral partner of pion in the dense limit. It is worth mentioning some of our ansätze. We are dealing with a dilute system in which loop corrections to the 4-Fermi type interaction are suppressed by some powers of $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$. Furthermore, the most important channel is assumed to be the forward scattering one as in the Fermi liquid [@shankar], which builds Landau’s Fermi liquid theory [@migdal]. In the present analysis, we neglect BCS phenomena. The incorporation of the BCS channel is postponed to the next step. This paper is organized as follows: We give a brief illustration to define the field expressing the fluctuation mode of the nucleon in section \[sec:CQF\] and list first few terms in section \[list\]. In section \[pcount\], we build the power counting rule for our effective Lagrangian and list more higher order terms. The in-medium modification of the vector correlator is studied shortly in section \[vcorr\]. In section \[sec:CPP\], we study the corrections to the pion decay constants and the pion velocity using our EFT. The bare parameters for the decay constants will be determined through the matching between our EFT and the HBChPT. In section \[mass\], we consider the mass(-like) terms and check the change in quark condensate due to mass term in our theory. We summarize our works in section \[disc\]. Nucleon and its fluctuation fields {#sec:CQF} ================================== In this section, we will define the field corresponding to soft modes of the fluctuation around the Fermi surface and obtain the higher order correction terms in the present model scheme. Let us begin with the free Lagrangian for the nucleon without interaction at non-zero density: $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L} = \bar{\psi} \left( i \partial_\mu \gamma^\mu - m_N + \mu \gamma_0 \right) \psi \ , \label{Lag 0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is the baryon chemical potential and $m_N$ the nucleon mass. Fermi momentum $\vec{p}_F$ is related to the mass $m_N$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ as in $$p_F \equiv \left\vert \vec{p}_F \right\vert = \sqrt{ \mu^2 - m_N^2 } \ .$$ In the dense medium of interacting nucleons, we should use the in-medium nucleon mass, say $m_N^{\ast}$, instead of the one in vacuum [@Brown-Rho:91]. But for the notational simplicity, we refer to $m_N$ as the in-medium mass $m_N^\ast$ throughout this paper. In order to consider the fluctuation mode around the Fermi surface, we introduce the following field $\psi_1$: $$\psi(x) = \sum_{\vec{v}_F} e^{i \vec{p}_F \cdot \vec{x}} \, \psi_1(x;\vec{v}_F) \ , \label{def psi'}$$ where the Fermi velocity $\vec{v}_F$ is related to the Fermi momentum $\vec{p}_F$ as $$\vec{v}_F \equiv \frac{1}{\mu} \, \vec{p}_F \ . \label{vF}$$ Simply the sum of $\vec{v}_f$ means the angle sum on the Fermi surface. By using the field $\psi_1(x;\vec{v}_F)$ in Eq. (\[def psi’\]), the Lagrangian in Eq. (\[Lag 0\]) is rewritten as $${\cal L} = \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\psi}_1 \left( i \partial_\mu \gamma^\mu - \vec{p}_F \cdot \vec{\gamma} - m_N + \mu \gamma_0 \right) \psi_1 \ , \label{Lag 1}$$ where $\vec{\gamma} = (\gamma^1, \gamma^2, \gamma^3)$. To delete off-diagonal components of the $\gamma$ matrices between $\bar{\psi}_1$ and $\psi_1$ we introduce the following unitary transformation: $$\psi_1(x;\vec{v}_F) = U_F(\vec{v}_F) \, \psi_2(x;\vec{v}_F) \ , \label{def psi}$$ where $$U_F(\vec{v}_F) \equiv \cos \theta - \frac{\vec{v}_F\cdot\vec{\gamma}}{ \bar{v}_F } \, \sin \theta = \cos \theta - \frac{\vec{p}_F\cdot\vec{\gamma}}{ p_F } \, \sin \theta \ ,$$ with $\bar{v}_F = |\vec{v}_F|$ and $\theta$ satisfying $$\cos \theta = \sqrt{ \frac{\mu+m_N}{2\mu} } \ , \quad \sin \theta = \sqrt{ \frac{\mu-m_N}{2\mu} } \ .$$ By using the field $\psi_2(x;\vec{v}_F)$ in Eq. (\[def psi\]), the Lagrangian in Eq. (\[Lag 1\]) is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L} =\sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\psi}_2 \Biggl[ i \partial_0 \gamma^0 + i \partial_j v_F^j + i \partial_j \left( \gamma_\perp^j + \frac{m_N}{\mu} \gp^j \right) + \mu \gamma_0 - \mu \Biggr] \psi_2 \ , \label{Lag 2}\end{aligned}$$ where summations over $j$ are implicitly taken and $v_F^j$ denote components of $\vec{v}_F$ as $\vec{v}_F = (v_F^1, v_F^2, v_F^3)$. From now on, the indices $i$ and $j$ run over $1$, $2$ and $3$. Two $\gamma$ matrices representing the parallel and the orthogonal components to the Fermi velocity, $\gamma_\parallel^j$ and $\gamma_\perp^j$, are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \gp^j &\equiv& \frac{1}{\bar{v}_F^2} v_F^j (\vec{v}_F\cdot\vec{\gamma}) \ , \label{def gam para} \\ \gamma_\perp^j &\equiv& \gamma^j - \frac{1}{\bar{v}_F^2} v_F^j (\vec{v}_F\cdot\vec{\gamma}) \ . \label{def gam perp}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we decompose the $\psi_2$ field into two parts as $$\psi_{\pm}(x;\vec{v}_F) \equiv P_{\pm} \, \psi_2(x;\vec{v}_F) \ ,$$ where the projection operators $P_{\pm}$ are defined as $$P_{\pm} \equiv \frac{ 1 \pm \gamma_0}{2} \ . \label{def proj}$$ $\psi_+$ and $\psi_-$ represent particle and antiparticle fields in low energy, respectively. By using the fields $\psi_{\pm}(x;\vec{v}_F)$, the Lagrangian in Eq. (\[Lag 2\]) is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L} &=& \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \biggl[ \bar{\psi}_{+} \, V_F^\mu \, i \partial_\mu \, \psi_+ + \bar{\psi}_{-} \left( - \tilde{V}_F^\mu \, i \partial_\mu - 2 \mu \right) \psi_- \nonumber\\ && {}+ \bar{\psi}_{-} \left( \gamma_\perp^j + \frac{m_N}{\mu} \, \gp^j \right) \, i \partial_j \psi_+ + \bar{\psi}_{+} \left( \gamma_\perp^j + \frac{m_N}{\mu} \, \gp^j \right) \, i \partial_j \psi_- \biggr] \ , \label{Lag 3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$V_F^\mu = (1, \vec{v}_F) \ , \quad \tilde{V}_F^\mu = (1, - \vec{v}_F) \ . \label{def VF barVF}$$ The Lagrangian (\[Lag 3\]) shows that the field $\psi_+$ expresses the fluctuation mode of the nucleon around the Fermi surface, and the field $\psi_-$ corresponds to the anti-nucleon field carrying the effective mass of $2 \mu$ which is large compared with the momentum scale we are considering. Then, we can solve out the $\psi_-$ field in studying the low-momentum region to obtain the Lagrangian including the $\psi_+$ field. It is to be noted that $\partial_0 \, \psi_+$ is of same scale as $\partial_i \, \psi_+ $, thanks to the projection. In the next section, we will construct the general Lagrangian in terms of the $\psi_+$ field. Here to have an idea on the higher order terms, we solve out the $\psi_-$ field in the Lagrangian (\[Lag 3\]) at tree level. Using equation of motion for the $\psi_-$ field $$\psi_-= \frac{\gn^j+\frac{m_N}{\m}\gp^j}{i\tilde{V}_F^\mu \partial_\mu+2\m} i\del_j\psi_+\ ,$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L} &=& \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \Biggl[ \bar{\psi}_{+} \, V_F^\mu \, i \partial_\mu \, \psi_+ -\bar\p_+\, \frac{(\tilde{\g}^j\del_j)^2}{2\m} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left( -\frac{i\tilde{V}_F^\m\del_\m}{2\m} \right)^n\p_+ \Biggr], \label{free exp}\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{\g}=\gn+\frac{m_N}{\m}\gp$. This shows that the terms in the right-hand-side (RHS) other than the first term are suppressed by $Q/\mu$, where $Q$ denotes the typical momentum scale we are considering. Therefore, the first term is the leading order term, which leads to the following propagator for the fluctuation field $\psi_+$ [@Hong]: $$i S_F(p) = \frac{1}{ - V_F \cdot p - i \epsilon p_0 } \, P_+ \ ,$$ where $\epsilon \rightarrow + 0$ and $P_+$ is the projection operator defined in Eq. (\[def proj\]). Other terms are regarded as the higher order terms. Thus, the leading correction to the first term of the RHS is already suppressed considerably at any density. Effective Lagrangian {#list} ==================== In this section, we will present our effective Lagrangian. As stressed in Introduction, we are considering the moderate density region. So the mesons other than the pion are expected to be still heavier than the pion, i.e., the pion is the only light mesonic degree of freedom realized as the pseudo Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson associated with the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. In the present analysis, therefore, we build an effective Lagrangian including the field expressing the fluctuation of the nucleon around the Fermi surface, $\psi_+$, together with the NG boson field, based on the non-linear realization of chiral symmetry by assuming that all the other mesons are integrated out. As we illustrated in Introduction, we are considering the nucleon carrying the momentum inside the thin shell of size $\Lambda_{||}$ around the Fermi surface. Then, the momentum of the fluctuation parallel to the Fermi velocity at the reference point is restricted to be smaller than $\Lambda_{||}$. Furthermore, we only consider the situation where the momentum of the fluctuation mode perpendicular to the Fermi velocity is also smaller than $\Lambda_{\perp}\sim\Lambda_{||}$ by assuming that effects from mode carrying large perpendicular momenta are already integrated out and included in the parameters of the effective Lagrangian. This idea is based on Landau’s Fermi liquid theory where the forward scattering channel is most important[@shankar] and which works well in nuclear physics [@migdal]. And such a scheme is being used in HDET for quark matter [@Hong]. Thus, in the present analysis, we divide the thin shell around the Fermi surface into small boxes, each of which is characterized by the point on the Fermi surface with the characteristic vector, $\vec{v}_F$. Since the size of each box is $\Lambda_{||}\Lambda_{\perp}^2$, the momentum of pion is restricted to be small and the nucleon interacting with pion cannot escape from the box. #### Terms without fermion   The pion is introduced as the NG boson associated with the chiral symmetry breaking of $\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm L}\times\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm R} \rightarrow \mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm V}$ through the matrix valued variable $\xi$ $$\xi = e^{i\pi/F_\pi^t} \ , \label{def xi}$$ where $\pi = \sum_{a=1}^{3} \pi_a T_a$ denotes the pion fields, and $F_\pi^t$ the parameter corresponding to the temporal component of the pion decay constant. Here the wave function renormalization of the pion field is expressed by $F_\pi^t$ [@MOW; @Sasaki]. Under the chiral symmetry, this $\xi$ transforms nonlinearly as $$\xi \rightarrow \xi^{\prime} = h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L})\, \xi\, g_R = g_{\rm L}\, \xi\, h^{\dag}(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) \ ,$$ where $h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L})$ is an element of $\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm V}$ to be uniquely determined. There are two 1-forms constructed from $\xi$: $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{A}^{\mu} &\equiv& \frac{1}{2i} \left( {\cal D}^\mu \xi \cdot \xi^\dag - {\cal D}^\mu \xi^\dag \cdot \xi \right) \ , \label{al perp} \\ \alpha_{V}^{\mu} &\equiv& \frac{1}{2i} \left( {\cal D}^\mu \xi \cdot \xi^\dag + {\cal D}^\mu \xi^\dag \cdot \xi \right) \ , \label{al para}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal D}_\mu \xi$ and ${\cal D}_\mu \xi^\dag$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal D}_\mu \xi &=& \partial_\mu \xi + i \xi {\mathcal R}_\mu \ , \nonumber\\ {\mathcal D}_\mu \xi^\dag &=& \partial_\mu \xi^\dag + i \xi^\dag {\mathcal L}_\mu \ , \label{covariant derivative pi}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathcal L}$ and ${\mathcal R}$ being the external gauge fields for the chiral $\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm L}\times\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm R}$ symmetry. These 1-forms transform as $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{A}^{\mu} &\rightarrow& h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L})\, \alpha_{A}^{\mu} \, h^\dag(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) \ , \nonumber\\ \alpha_{V}^{\mu} &\rightarrow& h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L})\, \alpha_{V}^{\mu} \, h^\dag(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) - \frac{1}{i} h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L})\, \partial^{\mu} \, h^\dag(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ By using these 1-forms the general form of the chiral Lagrangian including pion fields can be constructed. The Lagrangian at the leading order of the derivative expansion is given by $${\mathcal L}_{A0} = \left[ \left( F_\pi^t \right)^2 u_\mu u_\nu + \left( F_\pi^t F_\pi^s \right) \left( g_{\mu\nu} - u_\mu u_\nu \right) \right] \mbox{tr} \left[ \alpha_{A}^{\mu} \alpha_{A}^{\nu} \right] \ , \label{Lag A0}$$ where $u_\mu = (1,\vec{0})$ indicates the rest frame of medium, and $F_\pi^t$ and $F_\pi^s$ denote the parameters corresponding to the temporal and spatial pion decay constants. In our notation $\langle 0 |\partial_\mu A^\mu |\pi \rangle\propto F_\pi^t p_0^2-F_\pi^s\vec{p}^2 = 0$ for on-shell pions by axial vector current conservation [@PT:96] so the pion velocity is expressed as $V_\pi^2 = F_\pi^s/F_\pi^t$. It should be noted that since $F_\pi^t$ is the wave function renormalization constant of the pion field, the chiral symmetry breaking scale is characterized by $$\Lambda_\chi \sim 4\pi F_\pi^t .$$ #### Fermion kinetic term   Now, let us consider the terms of the effective Lagrangian including the field for expressing the fluctuation mode of the nucleon around the Fermi surface. In the following, for notational simplicity, we use $\Psi$ for expressing the fluctuation mode which was expressed by $\psi_+$ field in the previous section. Under the chiral symmetry the fluctuation mode $\Psi$ transforms as $$\Psi \rightarrow h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L})\, \Psi \ , \label{Psi trans}$$ where $h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) \in \mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm V}$. Then the kinetic term of the $\Psi$ field is expressed as $${\cal L}_{\rm kin} = \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \, V_F^\mu \, i D_\mu \Psi \ , \label{Lag kin}$$ where the covariant derivative is defined by $$D_\mu \Psi = \left( \partial_\mu - i \alpha_{V\mu} \right) \Psi \ , \label{cov der}$$ with $\alpha_{V\mu}$ defined in Eq. (\[al para\]). #### Interactions of fermions with mesons   We consider the interactions of $\Psi$ and $\bar{\Psi}$ to the $\pi$ field. The possible forms of the interaction among $\Psi$, $\bar{\Psi}$ and $\alpha_{A }^{\mu}$ defined in Eq. (\[al perp\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L}_{A} &=& \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \Bigl[ i\, \kappa_{A0} \bar{\Psi} (\vec{v}_F\cdot \vec{\gamma}) \gamma_5 {\alpha}_{A}^0 \Psi + i \, \kappa_{A\parallel} \bar{\Psi} \gamma_{\parallel}^i \gamma_5 {\alpha}_{A i} \Psi + i \, \kappa_{A\perp} \bar{\Psi} \gamma_{\perp}^i \gamma_5 {\alpha}_{A i} \Psi \Bigr] \ , \label{Lag A}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_{A0}$, $\kappa_{A\parallel}$ and $\kappa_{A\perp}$ are dimensionless real constants, and $\gamma_{\parallel}^i$ and $\gamma_{\perp}^i$ are defined in Eqs. (\[def gam perp\]) and (\[def gam para\]). [^6] Note that $\bar{\Psi} \alpha_{A}^0 \Psi$, $\bar{\Psi} v_F^i \alpha_{A i} \Psi$ and $\bar{\Psi} \left[ v_F^i \gamma_i \,,\, \alpha_A^j \gamma_j \right] \Psi$ are prohibited by the parity invariance. #### Four Fermi interaction   For constructing four-Fermi interactions, the following relations are convenient: $$\begin{aligned} && \bar{\Psi} \gamma_0 \Psi = \bar{\Psi} \Psi \ , \quad \bar{\Psi} \gamma_i \Psi = 0 \ , \nonumber\\ && \bar{\Psi} \gamma_5 \Psi = 0 \ , \quad \bar{\Psi} \gamma_5 \gamma_0 \Psi = 0 \ , \nonumber\\ && \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma_0 \,,\, \gamma_i \right] \Psi = 0 \ , \quad \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma_i \,,\, \gamma_j \right] \Psi = 2 i \varepsilon_{ijk} \, \bar{\Psi} \gamma_5 \gamma^k \Psi \ , \nonumber\\ && \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma_i \,,\, \gamma_j \right] \gamma_5 \Psi = 0 \ , \quad \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma_0 \,,\, \gamma_i \right] \gamma_5 \Psi = 2 \bar{\Psi} \gamma_i \gamma_5 \Psi \ \label{rel bP P}.\end{aligned}$$ Although the excitation momentum of the nucleon included in each pair of particle and hole is restricted to be small in the present analysis, Fermi velocity of one pair can be different from that of another pair. Thus, using the relation in Eq. (\[rel bP P\]), we can write the four-fermion interactions as $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L}_{4F} &=& \frac{F_S}{(F_\pi^t)^2} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \Psi \right)^2 +\frac{F_A}{(F_\pi^t)^2} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \Psi \right)^2 \nonumber\\ &&{} +\frac{F_T}{(F_\pi^t)^2} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} V_F^\mu \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \Psi \right)^2 +\frac{G_S}{(F_\pi^t)^2} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi}\vec\tau \Psi \right)^2 \nonumber\\ &&{}+\frac{G_A}{(F_\pi^t)^2} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5\vec\tau \Psi \right)^2 +\frac{G_T}{(F_\pi^t)^2} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} V_F^\mu \gamma_\mu \gamma_5\vec\tau \Psi \right)^2 \ . \label{4Fermi 2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{\tau}/2$ is the generator of SU(2). It should be noticed that the above four-Fermi interactions allow two pairs of particle and hole, each of which resides in different box. Here we introduce the dimensionless parameters by rescaling the dimensionful parameters by the temporal component of the bare pion decay constant. This is natural since we are constructing the EFT in the chiral broken phase [@manohar]. Power counting {#pcount} ============== In this section, we first present the power counting theorem in our EFT, which provides that the terms listed in the previous section are actually the ones of leading order. Then, we provide the next order terms according to the power counting. Power counting {#power-counting} -------------- Let us consider the matrix element $M$ with $E_N$ external nuclear lines, $E_\pi$ external $\pi$ lines and $E_E$ lines corresponding to the external fields such as ${\mathcal L}_\mu$ and ${\mathcal R}_\mu$ in Eq. (\[covariant derivative pi\]). Here, for simplicity we assume that all the mesonic external fields carry the dimension one and that all the nucleonic external fields the dimension 3/2.  [^7] To derive a power counting rule for $M$, we first observe that the pion and nucleon propagators that carry the momenta of order of $Q$ are of order of $Q^{-2}$ and $Q^{-1}$, respectively. Furthermore, we can count loops that consist at least one pion propagator as of order of $\int d^4 q \sim \pi^2 Q^4$, where the factor $\pi^2$ is due to the angle integration. In fact, these observations can also be applied to free-space HBChPT. In our EFT, the integral is realized as $$\int d^4 p = \sum_{{\vec v_F}} \int d{\vec l}_\perp^2\, \int d l_\parallel^2 \sim 4 \pi p_F^2 \, \int d^2 l_\parallel\ ,$$ since the summation over ${\vec v}_F$ and the integral over the perpendicular space corresponds to the area of the Fermi surface. For the integrations over the momentum parallel to the Fermi momentum $l_\parallel$ and the energy $l_0$, we assign $\int d l_0 \,d l_\parallel \sim \pi\, Q^2$, where the overall factor $\pi$ can be understood either by the angle integration in 2-D space or by the residue calculation for the integration over $l_0$. Recalling the fact that each loop is accompanied by $(2\pi)^{-4}$, we are thus led to the following equation for the counting of a Feynman diagram expressing $M$, $$\begin{aligned} M \, \propto Q^{-2 I_\pi-I_N} \cdot \left(\frac{Q^4}{16 \pi^2}\right)^{L-L_N} \, \left(\frac{Q^2 p_F^2}{4\pi^2}\right)^{L_N} \, Q^{d}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{\pi}$ ($I_N$) denotes the number of the pion (nucleon) propagators, $L$ the number of loops, and $d$ is the sum of the number of derivatives at $i$-th vertex $d_i$. $L_N$ is the number of fermionic loops, each of which carries independent Fermi velocity $\vec{v}_F$, i.e., number of summations over $\vec{v}_F$. We note that we are working in the chiral limit, so that the pion mass does not appear in the above formula. Using the techniques developed in HBChPT, we can simplify the above equation as $$\begin{aligned} M \,\sim\, \left(\frac{Q}{\Lambda_\chi}\right)^\nu\, \left(\frac{2 p_F}{\Lambda_\chi}\right)^{2L_N} \ ,\label{power}\end{aligned}$$ with [^8] $$\begin{aligned} \nu&=& 2 - \left(\frac{E_N}{2} + E_E\right) + 2 (L-L_N) + \sum_i \nu_i\ , \nonumber \\ \nu_i &\equiv& d_i + \frac{n_i}{2} + e_i - 2 \ . \label{powernu}\end{aligned}$$ Here $n_i$ ($e_i$) is the number of nucleons (external fields) at $i$-th vertex. For the detailed derivation of the above counting rule, we refer Ref. [@weinberg90; @excV; @hep]. Note that we have replaced $4\pi F_\pi^t$ by $\Lambda_\chi$. It is worth while mentioning on the comparison of our counting rule with that of the HDET [@schaefer]. HDET has only one scale $p_F=\mu$ and the quark loop contributions related to four-quark interaction is of ${\cal O}(1)$ so all such loop contributions should be summed. However, the same fermionic loop contributions are of ${\cal O}((2p_F/\Lambda_\chi)^{2L_N})$ in our theory. Though $2p_F/\Lambda_\chi$ is not related to $Q$ directly, it is a small quantity at moderate densities which satisfy $p_F\ll \Lambda_\chi$. So $L_N$ is also a good counting parameter and one-fermionic loop calculation is enough for moderate density regions, in which $$Q \, \ll \, p_F \, \ll \, \Lambda_\chi$$ is satisfied. As density increases and $p_F$ becomes larger, we should sum the all fermion loop with the same $\nu$ as we should do in HDET. Furthermore, we may have to include other degrees of freedom which become light in the high density region. Higher order terms {#more} ------------------ One can easily check that all terms listed in the previous section are the leading order interactions with $\nu_i=0$. Here we list higher order terms with $\nu_i=1$ for the next order calculations. #### Terms with two derivatives   Possible terms with two derivatives are given by [^9] $$\frac{C_1}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} D^\mu D_\mu \Psi + \frac{C_2}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left( V_F^\mu D_\mu \right)^2 \Psi - \frac{C_3}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} D^0 D^0 \Psi \ ,$$ where the covariant derivative acting on $\Psi$ is defined in Eq. (\[cov der\]). [^10] Note that the term $\bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma^i \,,\, \gamma^j \right] \left[ D_i \,,\, D_j \right] \Psi$ exists. But this is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma^i \,,\, \gamma^j \right] \left[ D_i \,,\, D_j \right] \Psi = - i \, \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma^i \,,\, \gamma^j \right] \, F_{ij}(\alpha_{V}) \Psi \ , \label{2D Vij}\end{aligned}$$ where $$F_{\mu\nu}(\alpha_{V}) \equiv \partial_\mu \alpha_{V\nu} - \partial_\nu \alpha_{V\mu} - i \, \left[ \alpha_{V\mu} \,,\, \alpha_{V\nu} \right]$$ is the field strength defined from the 1-form $\alpha_{V\mu}$. We will list this term later. #### Terms with one meson field and one derivative   Possible terms including one derivative and one ${\alpha}_A$ field are given by $$\begin{aligned} && \frac{h_A}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left( V_F^\mu D_\mu {\alpha}_{A\nu} \right) \gamma^\nu \gamma_5 \Psi + \frac{\bar{h}_A}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left( \tilde{V}_F^\mu D_\mu {\alpha}_{A\nu} \right) \gamma^\nu \gamma_5 \Psi \ , \label{hA term}\end{aligned}$$ where the derivative $D_\mu$ acts on only ${\alpha}_A$ field as $$D_\mu \alpha_{A\nu} \equiv \partial_\mu \alpha_{A\nu} - i \left[ \alpha_{V\mu} \,,\, \alpha_{A\nu} \right] \ .$$ Furthermore, as we showed in Eq. (\[2D Vij\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} i \, \frac{h_{V0}}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma^i \,,\, \gamma^j \right] \, F_{ij}(\alpha_{V}) \Psi = i \, \frac{h_{V0}}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma^\mu \,,\, \gamma^\nu \right] \, F_{\mu\nu}(\alpha_{V}) \Psi \ . \label{Fmn term}\end{aligned}$$ Note that there are identities: $$\begin{aligned} && D_\mu {\alpha}_{A\nu} - D_\nu {\alpha}_{A\mu} = \widehat{\cal A}_{\mu\nu} \ , \label{rel:perp} \\ && F_{\mu\nu}(\alpha_{V}) = i \left[ {\alpha}_{A\mu} \,,\, {\alpha}_{A\nu} \right] + \widehat{\cal V}_{\mu\nu} \ , \label{rel:parallel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{\cal A}_{\mu\nu}$ and $\widehat{\cal V}_{\mu\nu}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned} && \widehat{\cal V}_{\mu\nu} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \left[ \widehat{\cal R}_{\mu\nu} + \widehat{\cal L}_{\mu\nu} \right] = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \xi {\cal R}_{\mu\nu} \xi^\dag + \xi^\dag {\cal L}_{\mu\nu} \xi \right] \ , \nonumber\\ && \widehat{\cal A}_{\mu\nu} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \left[ \widehat{\cal R}_{\mu\nu} - \widehat{\cal L}_{\mu\nu} \right] = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \xi {\cal R}_{\mu\nu} \xi^\dag - \xi^\dag {\cal L}_{\mu\nu} \xi \right] \ , \label{A V def}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$ and ${\cal L}_{\mu\nu}$ being the field strengths of the external gauge fields ${\mathcal R}_\mu$ and ${\mathcal L}_\mu$. So the $h_{V0}$-term in Eq. (\[Fmn term\]) can be expressed by the term $$i \, \frac{\tilde{h}_{V0}}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left[ \gamma^\mu \,,\, \gamma^\nu \right] \, \widehat{\mathcal V}_{\mu\nu} \Psi$$ and the last term in Eq. (\[2-meson\]) below. #### Terms with two meson fields   Possible terms with including two of $\alpha_{A}$ field are given by $$\begin{aligned} && \frac{h_{AA}^t}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \alpha_{A}^0 \alpha_A^0 \Psi + \frac{h_{AA}^s}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \alpha_{A}^i \alpha_{A i} \Psi + \frac{h_{AA}^{\parallel}}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left( \alpha_{A i} v_F^i \right)^2 \Psi + i \frac{h_{AA}^a}{4\pi F_\pi^t} \bar{\Psi} \left[ \alpha_A^\mu \gamma_\mu \,,\, \alpha_A^\nu \gamma_\nu \right] \Psi \ . \label{2-meson}\end{aligned}$$ #### Six Fermi interaction   Simplest terms expressing the six Fermi interaction are easily obtained by multiplying each term in Eq. (\[4Fermi 2\]) by $\left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \Psi \right)$ or $\left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} V_F^\mu \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \Psi \right)$ like $\frac{F_{6SS}}{4\pi(F_\pi^t)^5} \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \Psi \right)^3$. Other possible terms are expressed as $$\begin{aligned} && \frac{F_{6I}}{4\pi(F_\pi^t)^5} \, i \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\, V_F^\mu \, \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma^\nu \gamma_5 \Psi \right) \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma^\alpha \gamma_5 \Psi \right) \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma^\beta \gamma_5 \Psi \right) \nonumber\\ &&{} + \frac{G_{6I}}{4\pi(F_\pi^t)^5} \, i \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\, V_F^\mu \, \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma^\nu \gamma_5 \vec{\tau} \Psi \right) \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma^\alpha \gamma_5 \vec{\tau} \Psi \right) \left( \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\Psi} \gamma^\beta \gamma_5 \Psi \right) \ . \label{6Fermi2}\end{aligned}$$ Vector current correlator {#vcorr} ========================= We begin to study our EFT with vector current correlation function. In the present case, the vector correlator is simply expressed by the two-point function of the vector external field ${\mathcal V}_\mu$ defined from the external fields ${\mathcal R}_\mu$ and ${\mathcal L}_\mu$ introduced in Eq. (\[covariant derivative pi\]) as $${\mathcal V}_\mu = \frac{1}{2} \left( {\mathcal R}_\mu + {\mathcal L}_\mu \right) \ .$$ Applying our power counting (\[powernu\]) to ${\mathcal V}_\mu$-${\mathcal V}_\nu$ two-point function denoted by $\Pi_{\mathcal V}^{\mu\nu}$ where $E_N=0$ and $E_E=2$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \nu= 2 (L-L_N) + \sum_i \left( d_i + \frac{n_i}{2} + e_i - 2 \right) \ . \label{PC 2}\end{aligned}$$ So the leading loop correction is the fermionic one loop contribution from the covariant kinetic term (\[Lag kin\]), i.e., $\nu =0, L_N=1$ (see Fig. \[fig:vv\](a)): [^11] $$\begin{aligned} \delta_{ab}\Pi_{\mathcal V}^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &=& - \mbox{tr} [ T_a T_b ] \sum_{ \vec{v}_F } 2V_F^\mu V_F^\nu \int \frac{d^4 l}{i(2\pi)^4} \frac{1}{ \left[ - V_F\cdot ( l - \eta_1 p) - i \epsilon (l_0- \eta_1 p_0) \right] } \nonumber\\ && \times \frac{1}{ \left[ - V_F\cdot ( l + \eta_2 p) - i \epsilon (l_0 + \eta_2 p_0) \right] } \ , \label{Pi V 0}\end{aligned}$$ where $u^\mu = (1,\vec{0})$ and $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ are constants satisfying $\eta_1 + \eta_2 = 1$. [^12] In this form the integration over $l_0$ is finite. Performing the integral over $l_0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_{V}^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &=& - \sum_{ \vec{v}_F } V_F^\mu V_F^\nu \frac{1}{ V_F\cdot p + i \epsilon p_0 } \nonumber\\ && \times \int \frac{d^2 \vec{l}_\perp}{(2\pi)^2} \int \frac{ d l_{\parallel}}{2\pi} \left[ \theta \left( - \vec{v}_F \cdot (\vec{l}-\eta_1 \vec{p}) \right) - \theta \left( - \vec{v}_F \cdot (\vec{l}+\eta_2 \vec{p}) \right) \right] \ , \label{pi V 1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta(x)$ represents the step function defined by $$\theta(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 \quad & \mbox{for} \ x > 0 \ , \\ 0 & \mbox{for} \ x < 0 \ . \end{array}\right.$$ In Eq. (\[pi V 1\]) we replaced the integration over the spatial momentum as $$\int \frac{d^3\vec{l}}{(2\pi)^3} = \int \frac{d^2 \vec{l}_\perp}{(2\pi)^2} \int \frac{ d l_{\parallel}}{2\pi} \ , \label{rep mom int}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} l_{\parallel} &\equiv& \frac{ \vec{v}_F \cdot \vec{l} }{\bar{v}_F} \ , \nonumber\\ \vec{l}_\perp &\equiv& \vec{l} - \vec{v}_F \, \frac{ l_{\parallel}}{\bar{v}_F} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{v}_F \equiv \vert \vec{v}_F \vert$. The integration over $l_{\parallel}$ leads to $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_{V}^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &=& - \sum_{ \vec{v}_F } V_F^\mu V_F^\nu \int \frac{d^2\vec{l}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1}{2\pi \bar{v}_F} \frac{\vec{v}_F \cdot \vec{p} }{ V_F\cdot p + i \epsilon p_0 } \ . \label{Pi A 1}\end{aligned}$$ We here consider the integration over $\vec{l}_{\perp}$. Since the momentum $\vec{l}_{\perp}$ lies on the Fermi surface, the combination of the integration over $\vec{l}_{\perp}$ and the summation over the Fermi velocity $\vec{v}_F$ implies that the contribution from overall Fermi surface is included. Thus, it is natural to make the following replacement in the above integral: $$\sum_{ \vec{v}_F } \int \frac{d^2\vec{l}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2} \Rightarrow \frac{p_F^2}{\pi} \int \frac{d \Omega_{\vec{v}_F}}{4\pi} \ . \label{repl perp}$$ Then, we have $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_V^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &=& - \frac{p_F^2}{2 \pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \int \frac{d \Omega_{\vec{v}_F}}{4\pi} V_F^\mu V_F^\nu \frac{\vec{v}_F \cdot \vec{p} }{ V_F\cdot p + i \epsilon p_0 } \ . \label{Pi A 2}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noticed that the above contribution is covariant under the spatial $O(3)$ rotation after the angle integration is done. Then, we can decompose this as $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_V^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &\equiv& u^\mu u^\nu \Pi_{V}^{t}(p_0,\vec{p}) + \left( g^{\mu\nu} - u^\mu u^\nu \right) \Pi_V^{s} (p_0,\vec{p}) \nonumber\\ && {}+ P_L^{\mu\nu} \Pi_V^{L} (p_0,\vec{p}) + P_T^{\mu\nu} \Pi_V^{T} (p_0,\vec{p}) \ , \label{Pi V decomp}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_L^{\mu\nu}$ and $P_T^{\mu\nu}$ are the longitudinal and transverse polarization tensors defined by $$\begin{aligned} P_L^{\mu \nu} &=& - \left( g^{\mu \nu} - \frac{p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2} \right)- P_T^{\mu \nu} \ , \nonumber\\ P_T^{\mu \nu} &=& g^\mu_i \left( \delta _{ij} - \frac{\vec{p_i}\vec{p_j}}{\bar{p}^2} \right) g_j^\nu \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{p} = |\vec{p}|$. By performing the angle integration in Eq. (\[Pi A 2\]), four components of $\Pi_V^{(1)\mu\nu}$ are expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_V^t(p_0,\bar{p}) &=& 0 \ , \nonumber\\ \Pi_V^s(p_0,\bar{p}) &=& - \frac{p_F^2 \bar{v}_F}{6\pi^2}\ , \nonumber\\ \Pi_V^L(p_0,\bar{p}) &=& - \frac{p_F^2 \bar{v}_F}{2\pi^2} \frac{ p^2 }{ \bar{p}^2 } Y(p_0,\bar{p}) \ , \nonumber\\ \Pi_V^T(p_0,\bar{p}) &=& - \frac{p_F^2 \bar{v}_F }{4\pi^2} + \frac{p_F^2}{4\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \frac{ p_0^2 - \bar{v}_F^2 \bar{p}^2 }{ \bar{p}^2 } Y(p_0,\bar{p}) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} Y(p_0,\bar{p}) &\equiv& \int \frac{d \Omega_{\vec{v}_F}}{4\pi} \frac{\vec{v}_F \cdot \vec{p} }{ V_F\cdot p + i \epsilon p_0 } \nonumber\\ &=& - 1 + \frac{p_0}{2 \bar{v}_F \bar{p}} \ln \frac{ p_0 + \bar{v}_F \bar{p} + i \epsilon p_0 } { p_0 - \bar{v}_F \bar{p} + i \epsilon p_0 } \ . \label{def Y}\end{aligned}$$ When the external vector current is electromagnetic, the vector correlator (\[Pi A 2\]) is the photon self-energy and represents the screening effects. Using the formula for the static electric potential energy between two static charges $q_1$ and $q_2$, $$\begin{aligned} V(r)=q_1q_2\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{e^{i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{r}}} {\vec{p}^2+\Pi_V^{00}(p_0\rightarrow 0, \vec{p}^2)}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ in Coulomb gauge, the Debye screening mass squared is m\_D\^2=e\^2 . \[Debey mass\] which gives the Debye screening mass about $50$MeV at normal nuclear matter density. The vector correlator $\Pi_V^{(1)}$ in Eq. (\[Pi V decomp\]) does not satisfy the current conservation, $p_\mu \Pi_V^{(1)\mu\nu} \neq 0$. Like in HDET [@Hong; @schaefer], this is cured by adding a counter term $$\begin{aligned} \La_{CT} &=& \frac{p_F^2}{4\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \int \frac{d \Omega_{\vec{v}_F}}{4\pi} \left(\delta_{ij}-\frac{v_F^iv_F^j}{\bar{v_F}^2}\right) \tr\left[ \alpha_V^\mu \alpha_V^\mu \right] \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{p_F^2}{6\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} (g_{\mu\nu} - u_\mu u_\nu) \mbox{tr} \left[ \alpha_V^\mu \alpha_V^\nu \right] \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We note that inclusion of the above counter term does not change the Debey screening mass in Eq. (\[Debey mass\]). As is well known, the Debey mass comes from the longitudinal component $\Pi_V^L$, which cannot be expressed by a simple local term in the Lagrangian. The above counter term gives a contribution to the spatial component $\Pi_V^s$. Pion decay constants and pion velocity {#sec:CPP} ====================================== In this section we study the correction to the pion decay constants and pion velocity. As shown in, e.g., Refs. [@HKR; @HY:PRep; @Sasaki], these physical quantities are extracted from the two-point function of the axial vector external field ${\mathcal A}_\mu$, of which Feynman diagram is identical to the one in Fig. 1(a) with the external axial vector fields instead of ${\mathcal V}_\mu$. Fermionic one-loop correction {#ssec:FOC} ----------------------------- Now, let us consider the fermionic one-loop correction to the ${\cal A}_\mu$-${\cal A}_\nu$ two-point function. The power counting for the axial vector correlator is the same as the vector correlator case (\[PC 2\]). Then, in the following, we study the fermionic one-loop correction to the ${\mathcal A}_\mu$-${\mathcal A}_\nu$ two-point function. From the interaction term in Eq. (\[Lag A\]), the correction with $\nu = 0$ and $N_L = 1$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \delta_{ab} \Pi_A^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &=& - \mbox{tr} [ T_a T_b ] \sum_{ \vec{v}_F } 2 \Biggl[ \kappa_{A0}^2 \bar{v}_F^2 u^\mu u^\nu + \kappa_{A\parallel}^2 g^\mu_i g^\nu_j \frac{v_F^i v_F^j}{\bar{v}_F^2} \nonumber\\ && \quad {}+ \kappa_{A\perp}^2 g^\mu_i g^\nu_j \left( \delta^{ij} - \frac{v_F^i v_F^j}{\bar{v}_F^2} \right) + \kappa_{A0}\kappa_{A\parallel} \left( u^\mu g^\nu_j v_F^j + u^\nu g^\mu_j v_F^j \right) \Biggr] \nonumber\\ && \times \int \frac{d^4 l}{i(2\pi)^4} \frac{1}{ \left[ - V_F\cdot ( l - \eta_1 p) - i \epsilon (l_0- \eta_1 p_0) \right] } \nonumber\\ && \times \frac{1}{ \left[ - V_F\cdot ( l + \eta_2 p) - i \epsilon (l_0 + \eta_2 p_0) \right] } \nonumber\\ &=& - \delta_{ab}\frac{p_F^2}{2\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \int \frac{d \Omega_{\vec{v}_F}}{4\pi} \Biggl[ \kappa_{A0}^2 \bar{v}_F^2 u^\mu u^\nu + \kappa_{A\parallel}^2 g^\mu_i g^\nu_j \frac{v_F^i v_F^j}{\bar{v}_F^2} \nonumber\\ && \quad {}+ \kappa_{A\perp}^2 g^\mu_i g^\nu_j\left( \delta^{ij} - \frac{v_F^i v_F^j}{\bar{v}_F^2} \right) + \kappa_{A0}\kappa_{A\parallel} \left( u^\mu g^\nu_j v_F^j + u^\nu g^\mu_j v_F^j \right) \Biggr] \nonumber\\ && \times \frac{\vec{v}_F \cdot \vec{p} }{ V_F\cdot p + i \epsilon p_0 } \ . \label{Pi A 2 b}\end{aligned}$$ The contribution to ${\cal A}_\mu$-${\cal A}_\nu$ two-point function at leading order with $\nu = N_L = 0$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_A^{(0)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) = \left( F_\pi^t \right)^2 u^\mu u^\nu + F_\pi^t F_\pi^s \left( g^{\mu\nu} - u^\mu u^\nu \right) \ . \label{Pi A tree}\end{aligned}$$ As is done for the vector current correlator in Eq. (\[Pi V decomp\]), it is convenient to decompose the sum of the above contributions as $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_A^{\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) &\equiv& \Pi_A^{(0)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) + \Pi_A^{(1)\mu\nu} (p_0,\vec{p}) \nonumber\\ &=& u^\mu u^\nu \Pi_{A}^{t}(p_0,\vec{p}) + \left( g^{\mu\nu} - u^\mu u^\nu \right) \Pi_A^{s} (p_0,\vec{p}) {}+ P_L^{\mu\nu} \Pi_A^{L} (p_0,\vec{p}) + P_T^{\mu\nu} \Pi_A^{T} (p_0,\vec{p}) \ . \nonumber\\ \label{Pi A decomp}\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[Pi A 2 b\]) and (\[Pi A tree\]), two components $\Pi_A^t$ and $\Pi_A^s$ are obtained as $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_{A}^{t}(p_0,\vec{p}) &=& (F_\pi^t)^2 + \frac{p_F^2}{ 2\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \left( \kappa_{A0}^2 \bar{v}_F^2 - \kappa_{A0} \kappa_{A{\parallel}} \right) Y(p_0,\bar{p}) \ , \label{Pi At} \\ \Pi_{A}^{s}(p_0,\vec{p}) &=& F_\pi^t F_\pi^s + \frac{p_F^2}{ 2\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \Biggl[ \frac{1}{3} \left( \kappa_{A{\parallel}}^2 - \kappa_{A\perp}^2 \right) \nonumber\\ && \qquad\quad {}+ \left\{ \left( \kappa_{A0}\kappa_{A\parallel} - \frac{\kappa_{A\parallel}^2 - \kappa_{A\perp}^2}{\bar{v}_F^2} \right) \frac{p_0^2}{\bar{p}^2} - \kappa_{A\perp}^2 \right\} Y(p_0,\bar{p}) \ , \label{Pi As}\end{aligned}$$ where the function $Y(p_0,\bar{p})$ is defined in Eq. (\[def Y\]). Using the decomposition of $\Pi_A^{\mu\nu}$ in Eq. (\[Pi A decomp\]), we can construct the axial vector current correlator as $$G_A^{\mu\nu}(p_0,\vec{p}) = P_L^{\mu\nu} G_A^L(p_0,\vec{p}) + P_T^{\mu\nu} G_A^T(p_0,\vec{p}) \ ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} G_A^L(p_0,\vec{p}) &=& \frac{ p^2 \Pi_A^t \Pi_A^s} {-\left[ p_0^2 \Pi_A^t - \bar{p}^2 \Pi_A^s \right] } + \Pi_A^L \ , \nonumber\\ G_A^T(p_0,\vec{p}) &=& - \Pi_A^s + \Pi_A^T \ .\end{aligned}$$ We define the [*on-shell*]{} of the pion from the pole of the longitudinal component $G_A^L$ of axial vector current correlator. Since $\Pi_A^t$ and $\Pi_A^s$ have imaginary parts, we determine the pion energy $E$ from the on-shell of the real part by solving the following dispersion formula: $$\begin{aligned} 0 &=& \left[ p_0^2 \, \mbox{Re} \Pi^{t}_A (p_0,\bar{p}) - \bar{p}^2 \, \mbox{Re} \Pi^{s}_A (p_0,\bar{p}) \right]_{p_0=E} \ . \label{pi on shell}\end{aligned}$$ The pion velocity is defined by the relation v\_(|[p]{}) E/|[p]{}and is then obtained by solving $$v_\pi^2(\bar{p}) = \frac{ \mbox{Re} \Pi^{s}_A (p_0=E,\bar{p})} { \mbox{Re} \Pi^{t}_A (p_0=E,\bar{p})} \ . \label{vpi}$$ From the expressions of $\Pi^{t}_A (p_0,\bar{p})$ and $\Pi^{s}_A (p_0,\bar{p})$ in Eqs. (\[Pi At\]) and (\[Pi As\]), $\mbox{Re} \Pi^{t}_A (p_0=E,\bar{p}) = \mbox{Re} [f_\pi^t]^2$ and $\mbox{Re} \Pi^{s}_A (p_0=E,\bar{p}) = \mbox{Re} [f_\pi^t f_\pi^s]$ are expressed as $$\begin{aligned} && \mbox{Re} [f_\pi^t]^2 = \mbox{Re} \Pi^{t}_A (p_0=E,\bar{p}) = (F_\pi^t)^2 + \frac{p_F^2}{2 V_{\pi} } \left( \kappa_{A0}^2 \bar{v}_F^2 - \kappa_{A0} \kappa_{A{\parallel}} \right) X\left( \frac{\bar{v}_F}{V_{\pi}} \right) \ , \label{Pi At os} \\ && \mbox{Re} [f_\pi^t f_\pi^s] = \mbox{Re} \Pi^{s}_A (p_0=E,\bar{p}) = F_\pi^t F_\pi^s + \frac{p_F^2}{ 6\pi^2 \bar{v}_F} \left( \kappa_{A{\parallel}}^2 - \kappa_{A\perp}^2 \right) \nonumber\\ && \qquad \qquad {}+ \frac{p_F^2}{2 V_{\pi} } \left\{ V_{\pi}^2 \left( \kappa_{A0}\kappa_{A\parallel} - \frac{\kappa_{A\parallel}^2 - \kappa_{A\perp}^2}{\bar{v}_F^2} \right) - \kappa_{A\perp}^2 \right\} X\left( \frac{\bar{v}_F}{V_{\pi}} \right) \ , \label{Pi As os}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\pi} \equiv \sqrt{ F_\pi^s/F_\pi^t }$ is the bare pion velocity and the function $X(r)$ is defined by $$X(r) \equiv \frac{1}{ \pi^2 r } \left[ - 1 + \frac{1}{2 r} \ln \left\vert \frac{ 1 + r }{ 1 - r} \right\vert \right] \ .$$ Note that we have replaced $v_\pi(\bar{p})$ with $V_{\pi}$ in the one-loop contribution in Eqs. (\[Pi At os\]) and (\[Pi As os\]) since the difference is of higher order. The damping factor of the pion, $\gamma(\bar{p})$, can be defined from the imaginary part of the denominator of the longitudinal axial vector current correlator as $$\gamma(\bar{p}) = \frac{ \bar{p} }{ 2 \mbox{Re} \Pi_A^t(p_0=E,\bar{p}) } \, \mbox{Im} \left[ \Pi_A^t(p_0=E,\bar{p}) - \Pi_A^s(p_0=E,\bar{p}) \right]$$ By substituting the expressions of $\Pi^{t}_A (p_0,\bar{p})$ and $\Pi^{s}_A (p_0,\bar{p})$ in Eqs. (\[Pi At\]) and (\[Pi As\]), this is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{ \gamma(\bar{p}) }{ \bar{p} } &=& \frac{1}{ 2 \mbox{Re} \Pi_A^t(p_0=E,\bar{p}) } \frac{V_\pi p_F^2 }{ 2 \pi \bar{v}_F^2 } \,\theta ( \bar{v}_F - V_\pi ) \nonumber\\ && \qquad \times \Biggl[ \left\{ \kappa_{A0}^2 \bar{v}_F^2 - \kappa_{A0} \kappa_{A{\parallel}} \right\} - \left\{ V_\pi^2 \left( \kappa_{A0}\kappa_{A\parallel} - \frac{\kappa_{A\parallel}^2 - \kappa_{A\perp}^2}{\bar{v}_F^2} \right) - \kappa_{A\perp}^2 \right\} \Biggr] \ . \label{damp}\end{aligned}$$ Determination of parameters --------------------------- We should stress that the parameters of the EFT must be determined from QCD. One way to determine them is the Wilsonian matching [@HY:WM; @HY:PRep], in which the current correlators in the EFT are matched with those obtained in the operator product expansion (OPE) around 1GeV. As is stressed in Refs. [@HS:VMT; @HKR], when we make the matching in the presence of hot and/or dense matter, the parameters of the EFT generally depend on the temperature and/or density (the intrinsic temperature and/or density dependence). In the present case, however, the cutoff of our EFT is around a few hundred MeV at most, so that we cannot make the matching between our EFT and QCD directly. So, here we consider the matching between our EFT and the HBChPT to determine the parameters included in our EFT. We require that the temporal and spatial pion decay constants calculated in our EFT agree with those calculated in the HBChPT at a matching point, say $\rho_M$. In the HBChPT at one-loop, the temporal and spatial pion decay constants are expressed as [@MOW] $$\begin{aligned} f_\pi^{{\rm(HB)}t} &=& f_\pi \left[ 1 + \frac{2\rho}{f_\pi^2} \left( c_2 + c_3 - \frac{g_A^2}{8m_N} \right) \right] \ , \label{fpt HB} \\ f_\pi^{{\rm(HB)}s} &=& f_\pi \left[ 1 - \frac{2\rho}{f_\pi^2} \left( c_2 - c_3 + \frac{g_A^2}{8m_N} \right) \right] \label{fps HB}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant at zero density. The matching conditions are given by equating Eq. (\[Pi At os\]) with Eq. (\[fpt HB\]) and Eq. (\[Pi As os\]) with Eq. (\[fps HB\]) at $\rho = \rho_M$: $$\begin{aligned} \left. \mbox{Re}[f_\pi^t]^2 \right\vert_{\rho = \rho_M} = \left. \left[ f_\pi^{{\rm(HB)}t} \right]^2 \right\vert_{\rho = \rho_M} \ , \nonumber\\ \left. \mbox{Re}[f_\pi^t f_\pi^s] \right\vert_{\rho = \rho_M} = \left. \left[ f_\pi^{{\rm(HB)}t} f_\pi^{{\rm(HB)}s} \right] \right\vert_{\rho = \rho_M} \ . \label{match cond 0}\end{aligned}$$ The above conditions are not enough to determine all the parameters, so we adopt the following ansatz to determine the values of $\kappa_{A0}$, $\kappa_{A\parallel}$ and $\kappa_{A\perp}$ \[see footnote \[foot kappa\]\]: $$\kappa_{A0} = \kappa_{A\parallel} = g_A \ , \quad \kappa_{A\perp} = \frac{m_N}{\mu} g_A \ , \label{approx kappa}$$ where $g_A$ is the axial coupling. Here we use the following values of $m_N$ and $g_A$ in the matter free vacuum: [^13] $$m_N = 939\, \mbox{MeV}\,, \qquad g_A = 1.267 \ . \label{mN,gA}$$ In the approximation (\[approx kappa\]), the temporal and spatial pion decay constants in Eqs. (\[Pi At os\]) and (\[Pi As os\]) become $$\begin{aligned} && \mbox{Re} [f_\pi^t]^2 = (F_\pi^t)^2 - \frac{p_F^2}{2 v_{\pi0} } \frac{m_N^2}{\mu^2} \, g_A^2\, X\left( \frac{\bar{v}_F}{v_{\pi0}} \right) \ , \label{Pi At os 2} \\ && \mbox{Re} [f_\pi^t f_\pi^s] = F_\pi^t F_\pi^s + \frac{p_F^2}{ 6\pi^2 } \bar{v}_F g_A^2 - \frac{p_F^2}{2 v_{\pi0} } \frac{m_N^2}{\mu^2} \, g_A^2\, X\left( \frac{\bar{v}_F}{v_{\pi0}} \right) \ . \label{Pi As os 2}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that the damping factor of pion vanishes when we take the ansatz in Eq. (\[approx kappa\]) with $\mu=\sqrt{p_F^2+m_N^2}$: $$\gamma(\bar{p}) = 0 \ .$$ Now, by using the matching conditions in Eq. (\[match cond 0\]) together with the ansatz in Eq. (\[approx kappa\]), we determine the values of the parameters $F_\pi^t$ and $F_\pi^s$ for given matching density $\rho_M$. We take the values for the low-energy constants in the HBChPT as $c_2 = 3.2 \pm 0.25\,\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$ [@Fettes:1998ud; @Fettes:2000xg] and $c_3 = -4.70 \pm 1.16\,\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$  [@Buttiker:1999ap; @Rentmeester:1999vw]. Substituting these values into Eqs. (\[fpt HB\]) and (\[fps HB\]), we can reduce them to [@MOW] $$\begin{aligned} &&f_\pi^{{\rm (HB)}t} = f_\pi \Biggl[ 1 - \frac{\rho}{\rho_0} (0.26 \pm 0.04) \Biggr], \\ &&f_\pi^{{\rm (HB)}s} = f_\pi \Biggl[ 1 - \frac{\rho}{\rho_0} (1.23 \pm 0.07) \Biggr],\end{aligned}$$ where we take the pion decay constant in the vacuum as $f_\pi = 92.4\,\mbox{MeV}$ and the nucleon mass as Eq. (\[mN,gA\]), and $\rho_0$ denotes the normal nuclear density. When we take the matching density as $\rho_M / \rho_0 = 0.2, 0.3$ and $0.4$, the values of $F_\pi^t$ and $F_\pi^s$ are obtained by solving the matching conditions Eq. (\[match cond 0\]) as follows: $$(F_\pi^t, F_\pi^s) = \left\{ \begin{array}{@{\,}ll} (88.3\,\mbox{MeV},\, 69.6\,\mbox{MeV}) \quad \mbox{for} \quad \rho_M / \rho_0 = 0.2 \,, \\ (87.1\,\mbox{MeV},\, 59.1\,\mbox{MeV}) \quad \mbox{for} \quad \rho_M / \rho_0 = 0.3 \,, \\ (87.3\,\mbox{MeV},\, 50.6\,\mbox{MeV}) \quad \mbox{for} \quad \rho_M / \rho_0 = 0.4 \,. \end{array} \right.$$ Density Dependence of the Pion Decay Constants and Pion Velocity ---------------------------------------------------------------- In this subsection, we study the pion decay constants and pion velocity in dense matter. Strictly speaking, the parameters of the EFT generally have the intrinsic density dependence. In our construction of the present EFT, we expand the Lagrangian by $1/\mu$ and refer to the coefficient of each power of $1/\mu$ as the parameter. Then, the density dependences of the parameters are moderate. As a result, the density dependences of the physical quantities are dominated by the dense effect from the fluctuating nucleon loop in the density region not so much higher than the matching point $\rho_M \sim (0.2-0.4)\rho_0$. Based on this, we use the values of the parameters obtained in the previous subsection to obtain the density dependences of the pion decay constants and pion velocity through the dense loop correction from the fluctuation mode. We show the density dependences of the temporal and spatial pion decay constants in Fig. \[fig:fpi\]. \(a) (b) (c) Until the matching density $\rho_M$, the behavior of physical quantities is described by the HBChPT. The HBChPT breaks down at the density where $f_\pi^s$ vanishes, around $0.8 \rho_0$. Before the HBChPT breaks down, we should switch the theory from the HBChPT to our EFT in which the dominant density dependences of the physical quantities come from the nucleon fluctuating near the Fermi surface. As one can see from the expressions of Eqs. (\[fpt HB\]) and (\[fps HB\]), the density dependence of the pion decay constants in the HBChPT is proportional to $p_F^3$. This is the reflection that the nucleon inside Fermi sphere contributes to physical quantities. While the pion decay constants in our EFT have the density dependence of $p_F^2$ \[see Eqs. (\[Pi At os 2\]) and (\[Pi As os 2\])\], [^14] which is a consequence that our EFT includes the effects of the nucleon near Fermi surface. Thus the density dependence of physical quantities becomes gentle and then the available region extends as shown in Fig. \[fig:fpi\]. As well as the HBChPT, our EFT also breaks down at the density where $f_\pi^s$ becomes zero. Figure \[fig:fpi\](c) shows that the EFT is not applicable at $\rho \simeq 1.3 \rho_0$. Even if $f_\pi^s$ is still finite, the EFT is not valid at the density where $f_\pi^s$ becomes larger than $f_\pi^t$ because of the inconsistency with causality. From Fig. \[fig:fpi\](a) and (b), we find that the EFT breaks down at $\rho \simeq 1.3 \rho_0$ and $\rho \simeq 1.8 \rho_0$, respectively. Here in order to check the availability of our EFT, we compare one-loop correction with tree contribution. Looking for the density where the ratio of one-loop correction to tree contribution becomes $0.5$, we find such density as follows [^15]: $\rho \simeq 1.2 \rho_0$ (for $\rho_M / \rho_0 = 0.3$) and $\rho \simeq 0.8 \rho_0$ (for $\rho_M / \rho_0 = 0.4$). As we mentioned above, Fig. \[fig:fpi\](a) shows that our EFT breaks down at $\rho \simeq 1.3 \rho_0$. Then in the case (a) our EFT becomes invalid before perturbative expansion becomes unreliable \[The ratio at $\rho \simeq 1.3 \rho_0$ in this case is $0.2 - 0.3$, which is still small\]. Thus in any case our EFT describes physical quantities until around the normal nuclear density $\rho_0$. Note that we just calculate $\nu=0$ and $L_N=1$. We need to sum all the fermion loops with the same $\nu$ as the density increases. 1.3$\rho_0$ indicates how far we can keep $L_N$ as a counting parameter, not how far we can go with counting parameter $\nu$. By summing fermion loops with 4-Fermi interactions, we can formally extend our theory much further. In the high density region, however, the intrinsic density dependence of the parameters of the EFT will be important. It is crucial for studying the density dependences of the physical quantities that we include the intrinsic density dependences of the parameters in some way. Furthermore, we may have to include other degrees of freedom which becomes light in the high density region. From Eq. (\[vpi\]) and the above results on $f_\pi^t$ and $f_\pi^s$, we can determine the pion velocity $v_\pi$. Figure \[fig:vpi\] shows the density dependence of $v_\pi$. \(a) (b) (c) The pion velocity becomes smaller with increasing density in low density region. Since the low-energy constant $c_2$ in the HBChPT is comparable with tree contribution, the pion velocity largely decreases. In the region described by our EFT, the pion velocity scarcely change with respect to density. This behavior is quite similar to the one predicted by the skyrmion approach in the moderate density region [@LPMV]. Mass(-like) terms and condensate {#mass} ================================ Two mass terms -------------- In section 2, we have deleted the original mass term. But the transformation property of $\Psi$ given in Eq. (\[Psi trans\]) does not prohibit the existence of the term $\bar{\Psi} \Psi$. Then, one might think that we should include the mass term of the fluctuation field $\Psi$ as $${\mathcal L}_{\bar{\mu}} = \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \bar{\mu} \bar{\Psi} \Psi$$ where $\bar{\mu}$ denotes the mass parameter. Since $\bar{\Psi}\Psi = \Psi^\dag \Psi$, the effect of $\bar{\mu}$ should be included into the definition of the chemical potential $\mu$ and this term should be omitted in the Lagrangian. Furthermore, we have another type of mass term which comes from the existence of the explicit chiral symmetry breaking due to the current quark mass. In the ordinary chiral perturbation theory the current quark mass is included by the vacuum expectation value of the scalar external source field ${\cal S}$. For two flavor case this is given by $$\langle {\cal S} \rangle = {\cal M} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} m_u & \\ & m_d \end{array} \right) \ .$$ In the present analysis we work in the chiral limit, so that we take $$\langle {\cal S} \rangle = 0 \ .$$ This scalar source field ${\cal S}$ combined with the pseudoscalar source field ${\cal P}$ has the following transformation property under the chiral symmetry: $${\cal S} + i {\cal P} \rightarrow g_L \left( {\cal S} + i {\cal P} \right) g_R^\dag \ ,$$ where $g_L$ and $g_R$ are elements of chiral $\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm L,R}$ groups. To include ${\cal S}+i{\cal P}$ into the Lagrangian, we define $$\widehat{\cal M} \equiv \xi^\dag \, \left( {\cal S} + i {\cal P} \right) \,\xi^\dag \ .$$ This $\widehat{\cal M}$ transforms as $$\widehat{\cal M} \rightarrow h(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) \cdot \widehat{\cal M} \cdot h^\dag(\pi,g_{\rm R},g_{\rm L}) \ .$$ Then, the term including this $\widehat{\cal M}$ field is written as $${\cal L}_{\cal M} = \sum_{\vec{v}_F} C_{\cal M} \, \bar{\Psi} \left[ \widehat{\cal M} + \widehat{\cal M}^\dag \right] \Psi \ , \label{Lag M}$$ where $C_{\cal M}$ is a dimensionless real constant. [^16] Note that, for constructing the above term, we used the parity invariance after summing over the Fermi velocity $\vec{v}_F$ (and integrating over $\vec{x}$ as usual): The transformation properties of $\Psi$ and $\widehat{\cal S}$ under parity are given by $$\begin{aligned} \Psi(x_0,\vec{x};\vec{v}_F) \ \mathop{\rightarrow}_{P}\ \Psi(x_0,-\vec{x};-\vec{v}_F) \ , \nonumber\\ \widehat{\cal M}(x_0,\vec{x}) \ \mathop{\rightarrow}_{P}\ \widehat{\cal M}^\dag(x_0,-\vec{x}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned} && \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int d^4\vec{x}\, \bar{\Psi}(x_0,\vec{x};\vec{v}_F) \widehat{\cal M}(x_0,\vec{x}) \Psi(x_0,\vec{x};\vec{v}_F) \nonumber\\ && \quad \ \mathop{\rightarrow}_{P}\ \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int d^4\vec{x} \, \bar{\Psi}(x_0,-\vec{x};-\vec{v}_F) \widehat{\cal M}^\dag(x_0,-\vec{x}) \Psi(x_0,-\vec{x};-\vec{v}_F) \nonumber\\ && \quad = \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int d^4\vec{x} \, \bar{\Psi}(x_0,\vec{x};\vec{v}_F) \widehat{\cal M}^\dag(x_0,\vec{x}) \Psi(x_0,\vec{x};\vec{v}_F) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Since the current quark masses are assigned as ${\cal O}(Q^2)$ in the ordinary chiral perturbation theory, it is natural to assign ${\cal O}(Q^2)$ to the field $\widehat{\cal M}$. Then, we count the term in Eqs. (\[Lag M\]) as ${\cal O}(Q^2)$: $${\cal L}_{\cal M} \ \sim \ {\cal O}(Q^2) \ ,$$ or equivalently this term carries $\nu_i=3$ in the power counting given in Eq. (\[powernu\]). Quark condensate ---------------- The quark condensate can be read from the one-point function of the external source field ${\cal S}$. In the present paper we decompose ${\cal S}$ as $${\cal S} = \frac{1}{N_f} {\cal S}^0 + \sum_{a=1}^{N_f^2-1} {\cal S}^a T_a \ ,$$ where $T_a$ is the generator of $\mbox{SU}(N_f)$ normalized as $\mbox{tr}[ T_a T_b ]= \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ab}$. Then, the one-point function of ${\cal S}^0$ provides the quark condensate per one flavor. From the interaction in Eq. (\[Lag M\]), one-loop correction to one-point function of ${\cal S}^0$ is expressed as $$\Delta = - 4 C_{\cal M} \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int \frac{d^4 l}{ i (2\pi)^4} \frac{1}{ - V_F\cdot l - i \epsilon l_0 } \ . \label{def Delta}$$ This integral is divergent, so that we here define the regularization to perform the integral. We first replace the momentum integral as in Eq. (\[rep mom int\]). Then, we introduce the cutoff for $l_{\parallel}$ and $l_0$ as $- \Lambda_{\parallel} < l_{\parallel} < \Lambda_{\parallel}$ and $- \Lambda_0 < l_0 < \Lambda_0$. By using this regularization method, Eq. (\[def Delta\]) is written as $$\begin{aligned} \Delta &=& - 4 C_{\cal M} \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int \frac{d^2\vec{l}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2} \int \frac{ d l_{\parallel}}{2\pi} \theta( \Lambda_{\parallel} - \vert l_{\parallel} \vert ) \int \frac{ d l_0 }{2\pi i} \theta( \Lambda_0 - \vert l_0 \vert ) \frac{1}{ - l_0 + \bar{v}_F l_{\parallel}- i \epsilon l_0 } \ . \label{reg Delta}\end{aligned}$$ Performing the $l_0$ integral, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \Delta &=& - 4 C_{\cal M} \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int \frac{d^2\vec{l}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2} \int \frac{ d l_{\parallel}}{2\pi} \theta( \Lambda_{\parallel} - \vert l_{\parallel} \vert ) \nonumber\\ && \ {}\times \Biggl[ - \theta( - \bar{v}_F l_{\parallel} ) \theta( \Lambda_0 - \vert \bar{v}_F l_{\parallel} \vert ) + \frac{1}{2} \nonumber\\ && \qquad {}+ \frac{1}{2\pi i} \left\{ \ln \left( \Lambda_0 + ( \bar{v}_F l_{\parallel} )(1-i\epsilon) \right) - \ln \left( \Lambda_0 - ( \bar{v}_F l_{\parallel} )(1-i\epsilon) \right) \right\} \Biggr] \ .\end{aligned}$$ By taking the $\Lambda_0 \rightarrow \infty$ limit, this expression is reduced to the following finite form: $$\begin{aligned} \Delta &=& - 4 C_{\cal M} \sum_{\vec{v}_F} \int \frac{d^2\vec{l}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2} \int \frac{ d l_{\parallel}}{2\pi} \theta( \Lambda_{\parallel} - \vert l_{\parallel} \vert ) \left[ - \theta( - \bar{v}_F l_{\parallel} ) + \frac{1}{2} \right] \ .\end{aligned}$$ Now, performing the $l_{\parallel}$ integral, we obtain $$\Delta = 0 \ .$$ This implies that the number density of the fluctuation mode at one-loop level is zero in chiral limit. It is a kind of a symptom that we choose a proper vacuum in matter. Discussions {#disc} =========== As the density of the nuclear medium increases, the Fermi momentum $p_F$ emerges as an additional scale of the system, which deserves to be treated differently from the small scale $Q$ of HBChPT, for a more transparent and better chiral expansion scheme. In this work, we have considered the cases where $p_F$ is much larger than $Q$ but still much smaller than the chiral symmetry breaking scale, $Q\ll p_F \ll \Lambda_\chi$. We studied the vector and the axial vector correlators in the nuclear medium, and we could calculate the Debye screening mass, pion velocity and the modification of the pion decay constant. The density-dependence of those quantities is found to be highly different from that of the HBChPT, even at the moderate density region. Instead of having the leading linear density dependence as was the case in HBChPT, we have observed rather mild dependence. This may be understood by a following simple consideration: At very low density, the response of the external probe would be proportional to the number of particles in the system, or to the volume of the Fermi sea. When density increases, however, excitations are limited around the Fermi surface due to the Pauli blocking, and the response would now be proportional to the area of the Fermi surface. The present study enables us to describe the nuclear matter up to the density comparable to $\rho_0$, the normal nuclear matter density. To extend the applicable region of the theory, we need to do RPA type of calculations to sum all the contributions with respect to $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$, for a given order of $Q/\Lambda_\chi$. This step will result in a very rapid convergence for the processes where $Q/\Lambda_\chi\ll 1$, regardless of the density. The actual calculation can in fact be done rather easily. But this step makes our results to be dependent on the coefficients of the four-fermion interactions. And thus we need a more complete study including the renormalization of those coefficients to have any meaningful predictions. In addition to this, as the density increases, the intrinsic density dependence of our theory can play a crucial role, and thus should be properly treated. The notion of the [*decimation*]{} [@rho-brown], and the renormalization-group running and additional matching conditions might be necessary to address this issue. Studies on these subjects are left for the future work. In the high density region in which the RPA is needed, the perturbative structure of the chiral effective theory will be most likely modified with the necessity of choice of the relevant degrees of freedom that we play with. Indeed, we may need to introduce the light vector meson degrees of freedom as claimed to do for the matching with the QCD in the phase of the Vector Manifestation [@HY:VM]. Even with the chiral partner of the pion is incorporated, the perturbative scheme should stay unchanged as shown in the counting rule. However, when the chiral phase transition is approached, we have to reconsider the change of the representative scales of the medium from what is considered in this work. Namely, the $4\pi f_\pi$ is reduced eventually to be zero, and thus it cannot serve as the “heavy scale” of the system. In this case, the relevant expansion parameter would be the ratio of the typical momentum transfer compared to the chemical potential, $Q/\mu$, which results in a theory with the same scale dependence as the HDET [@schaefer]. The transmutation of the scales could be realized by considering the second decimation as is suggested by Brown [*et al*]{} [@BLR:decimation]. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The authors would like to thank Mannque Rho and Deog Ki Hong for useful discussions and comments. Four of the authors (M.Harada, D.P.Min, T.S.Park and C.Sasaki) would like to thank the members of ECT\* for warm hospitality during their stay, where the final part of this work was done. M.Harada and C.Sasaki would like to thank the members of nuclear theory group in Seoul National University for warm hospitality. The work of M.Harada, D.-P.Min, C.Song was supported in part by the BK21 project of the MOE, Korea and by BP Korea program, KOFST. The work of M.Harada and C.Sasaki is supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (c) (2) 16540241, and by the 21st Century COE Program of Nagoya University provided by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15COEG01). The work of DPM is supported by KOSEF-R01-1999-000-00017-D, KRF-2001-015-DP0085. [99]{} S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B [**251**]{} (1990) 288. S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, W. C. Haxton, D. R. Phillips and M. J. Savage, “From hadrons to nuclei: Crossing the border,” in: M. Shifman (Ed.), At the frontier of particle physics, World Scientific, Singapore, 2001, pp 133-269. E. Epelbaum, W. Glockle, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, “The two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order”, arXiv:nucl-th/0405048; P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.  [**52**]{} (2002) 339 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0203055\]; E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Gloeckle, H. Kamada, U. G. Meissner and H. Witala, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{} (2002) 064001 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0208023\]; D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{} (2003) 041001 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0304018\]. K. Kubodera and T. S. Park, “The solar He p process,” arXiv:nucl-th/0402008, to appear in Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci; Y. H. Song and T. S. Park, “Hen Process in Effective Field Theory,” arXiv:nucl-th/0311055; S. Ando, Y. H. Song, T. S. Park, H. W. Fearing and K. Kubodera, Phys. Lett. B [**555**]{} (2003) 49 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0206001\]. T. S. Park [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{} (2003) 055206 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0208055\]. T. S. Park, H. Jung and D. P. Min, J. Korean Phys. Soc.  [**41**]{} (2002) 195 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0101064\]. H. W. Hammer and R. J. Furnstahl, Nucl. Phys. A [**678**]{} (2000) 277 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0004043\]. J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{} (2002) 025204 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0101204\]. U. G. Meissner, J. A. Oller and A. Wirzba, Annals Phys.  [**297**]{} (2002) 27 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0109026\]. E. S. Fraga, Y. Hatta, R. D. Pisarski and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{} (2004) 035211 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0303019\]. M. Lutz, B. Friman and C. Appel, Phys. Lett. B [**474**]{} (2000) 7 \[arXiv:nucl-th/9907078\]. N. Kaiser, S. Fritsch and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A [**697**]{} (2002) 255 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0105057\]; P. Finelli, N. Kaiser, D. Vretenar and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A [**17**]{} (2003) 573 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0205016\]; D. Vretenar and W. Weise, Lect. Notes Phys.  [**641**]{} (2004) 65 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0312022\]. A. Schwenk, G. E. Brown and B. Friman, Nucl. Phys. A [**703**]{} (2002) 745 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0109059\]. S. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, L. Coraggio, A. Covello and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{} (2002) 051301. D. K. Hong, Phys. Lett. B [**473**]{} (2000) 118 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9812510\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**582**]{} (2000) 451 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905523\]. T. Schäfer, Nucl. Phys. A [**728**]{} (2003) 251 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0307074\]. K. Suzuki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**92**]{}, 072302 (2004) \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0211023\]. M. Harada, Y. Kim and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 016003 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0111120\]. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**86**]{} (2001) 757 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0010207\]. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept.  [**381**]{} (2003) 1 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0302103\]. R. Shankar, Rev. Mod. Phys.  [**66**]{} (1994) 129. See, e.g., [*Nuclear Theory: the Quasiparticle Method*]{}, by A. B. Migdal (Benjamin, New York, 1968) G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**66**]{} (1991) 2720. C. Sasaki, Nucl. Phys. A [**739**]{} (2004) 151 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0306005\]. R. D. Pisarski and M. Tytgat, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) R2989 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9604404\]. A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B [**234**]{} (1984) 189. T. S. Park, D. P. Min and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**74**]{} (1995) 4153 \[arXiv:nucl-th/9412025\]; Nucl. Phys. A [**596**]{} (1996) 515 \[arXiv:nucl-th/9505017\]. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 014023 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0009163\]. M. Harada and C. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B [**537**]{}, 280 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0109034\]. N. Fettes, U. G. Meissner and S. Steininger, Nucl. Phys. A [**640**]{} (1998) 199 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9803266\]. N. Fettes and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A [**676**]{} (2000) 311 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002162\]. P. Buttiker and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A [**668**]{} (2000) 97 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9908247\]. M. C. Rentmeester, R. G. Timmermans, J. L. Friar and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**82**]{} (1999) 4992 \[arXiv:nucl-th/9901054\]. H. J. Lee, B. Y. Park, M. Rho and V. Vento, Nucl. Phys. A [**741**]{} (2004) 161 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0307111\]. G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rept.  [**396**]{}, 1 (2004) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0305089\]. G. E. Brown, C. H. Lee and M. Rho, “Chemical equilibration in relativistic heavy ion collisions,” arXiv:hep-ph/0405114. [^1]: E-mail:harada@eken.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp [^2]: E-mail:dpmin@phya.snu.ac.kr [^3]: E-mail:tspark@kias.re.kr [^4]: E-mail:sasaki@eken.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp [^5]: E-mail:chaejun@charm.physics.pusan.ac.kr [^6]: It may be useful to compare the interaction terms in Eq. (\[Lag A\]) with those reduced from a simple interaction among pion and nucleons given by $$i g_A \bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \alpha_{A\mu} \psi\ .$$ By performing the same procedure as in section \[sec:CQF\], the above term is reduced to $$i g_A \bar{\Psi} \left[ (\vec{v}_F\cdot\vec{\gamma}) \gamma_5 \alpha_{A0} + \left( \frac{m_N}{\mu} \gamma_\perp^i + \gamma_{\parallel}^i \right) \gamma_5 \alpha_{A i} \right] \Psi \ ,$$ where $\gamma_\perp^j$ and $\gamma_\parallel^j$ are defined in Eqs. (\[def gam perp\]) and (\[def gam para\]). Then, when we match the interaction terms in Eq. (\[Lag A\]) with the above terms, we obtain the following matching conditions: $$\kappa_{A0} = \kappa_{A\parallel} = g_A \ , \quad \kappa_{A\perp} = \frac{m_N}{\mu} g_A \ .$$ \[foot kappa\] [^7]: We perform the Fourier transformation for each operator associated with the external field. [^8]: There is ambiguity for the overall factor, and thus one may replace “$2p_F/\Lambda_\chi$” by $p_F/\Lambda_\chi$ in Eq. (\[power\]). [^9]: Note that the term $\bar{\Psi} \gamma^i D_i \gamma_5 D^0 \Psi$ is prohibited by the parity invariance. [^10]: It should be noted that the free fermion model provides $C_1=C_2=C_3= 4\pi F^t_\pi/\mu\sim 1$. [^11]: There are no contributions with $\nu = L_N = 0$. The contributions with $\nu=2$ and $L_N=0$ are expressed by the sum of the tree diagram and the pion one-loop diagram. The tree diagram given in Fig. \[fig:vv\](b) is constructed from the Lagrangian of the following form: $$\begin{aligned} \left[ 2 z_1^L \, u_\mu u_\alpha g_{\nu\beta} + z_1^T \left( g_{\mu\alpha}g_{\nu\beta} - 2 u_\mu u_\alpha g_{\nu\beta} \right) \right] \,\mbox{tr} \left[ \hat{\mathcal V}^{\mu\nu} \hat{\mathcal V}^{\alpha\beta} \right] \ , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\mathcal V}^{\mu\nu}$ is defined in Eq. (\[A V def\]). The pion one-loop diagram in Fig. \[fig:vv\](c) is constructed from the leading order Lagrangian in Eq. (\[Lag A0\]). [^12]: In the present integration, we cannot make the shift of the integration momentum in the direction of the Fermi velocity. If we were able to make it, we would be able to show that the integration in Eq. (\[Pi V 0\]) vanishes. Then, one might worry that the result of the integral depends on the routing of the momentum in each fermion line, which would imply that the final result depend on $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$. However, as we will show below, the dependence on $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ will disappear in the final result, which indicates that the routing of the loop momentum can be done freely at least at one-loop level. [^13]: In the high density region, $m_N$ should be replaced with $m_N^{\ast}$. Here we consider the density region up until around the normal nuclear matter density, so that the vacuum mass will give a good approximation. The experimental date shows that there is a $10\,\%$ decrease in $f_\pi$ due to the in-medium modification [@yamazaki]. Thus if $m_N^\ast$ decreases by $10\,\%$, our results may be changed by a few %. [^14]: The baryon chemical potential $\mu$ and function $X(\bar{v}_F / V_\pi)$ have the implicit $p_F$ dependences. However these density dependences are small as compared with $p_F^2$. [^15]: The ratio for $f_\pi^t$ is almost same as that for $f_\pi^s$. [^16]: We define the chemical potential $\mu$ at the chiral limit, so that we include the term in Eq. (\[Lag M\]) into the Lagrangian.

--- abstract: 'We present a detailed analysis of the electronic and optical properties of two-electron quantum dots with a two-dimensional Gaussian confinement potential. We study the effects of Coulomb impurities and the possibility of manipulating the entanglement of the electrons by controlling the confinement potential parameters. The degree of entanglement becomes highly modulated by both the location and charge screening of the impurity atom, resulting in two regimes: one of low entanglement and other of high entanglement, with both of them mainly determined by the magnitude of the charge. It is shown that the magnitude of the oscillator strength of the system could provide an indication of the presence and characteristics of impurities and, therefore, the degree of entanglement.' address: | Instituto de Modelado e Innovación Tecnológica (CONICET-UNNE)\ and Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales y Agrimensura, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Avenida Libertad 5400, W3404AAS Corrientes, Argentina author: - 'Diego S. Acosta Coden, Rodolfo H. Romero, Alejandro Ferrón and Sergio S. Gomez' title: 'Impurity Effects in Two-Electron Coupled Quantum Dots: Entanglement Modulation' --- Introduction ============ Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are excellent candidates for realizing qubits for quantum information processing because of the potential for excellent manipulability and scalability. In contrast to real atoms and molecules, in QDs the electronic and optical properties are highly tunable. Tremendous advances in semiconductor technology allow the preparation of complex structures and give the possibility to the experimentalists to have a great control on the parameters that define the electrical and optical properties of these systems [@QD1]. It is known that the presence of impurity centers has a great influence on the optical and electronic properties of nanostructured materials. Since the pioneering work of Bastard [@bast] many authors have investigated the effects of impurities on different properties of artificial atoms and molecules. A recent work [@dasarma1] studied the effects of having unintentional charged impurities in two-electron laterally coupled two-dimensional double quantum-dot systems. They analyzed the effects of quenched random-charged impurities on the singlet-triplet exchange coupling in two-electron double quantum-dots. Although there is an enormous interest in applying these systems in quantum information technologies, there are few works trying to quantify the effect of charged impurities on this kind of tasks. The existence of unintentional impurities, which are always present in nanostructured devices, affects seriously the possibility of using these devices as quantum bits. Although the distribution and concentration of impurities in these systems result unknown parameters, there are some recent works that propose the possibility of experimentally control these issues [@ex1; @ex2; @ex3]. Impurity doping in semiconductor materials is considered as a useful technology that has been exploited to control optical and electronic properties in different nanodevices. It is worth to mention that, due to environmental perturbations, these systems lose coherence. For example, confined electrons interact with spin nuclei through the hyperfine interaction leading, inevitably, to decoherence [@PettaDec]. Even, having just one charged impurity could induce qubit decoherence if this impurity is dynamic and has a fluctuation time scale comparable to gate operation time scales [@dasarma1]. Decoherence is a phenomenon that plays a central role in quantum information and its technological applications [@dec1; @dec2; @dec3; @dec4; @dec5; @dec6; @dec7]. The entanglement, which is one of the most curious phenomena in quantum mechanics, is being considered in recent years as a physical resource that can be used for quantum information processes as teleportation of quantum states [@tichi; @amico; @damico1]. There exists the possibility of manipulate the amount of entanglement in a QD molecule by controlling the nanostructure parameters that define the nanodevice. Zunger and He [@zu1] studied the effect of interdot distance and asymmetry on the spatial entanglement of two-electron coupled quantum dots. They showed that the asymmetry in these systems significantly lowers the degree of entanglement of the two electrons. Two-electron entanglement of different quantum dots atoms and molecules have been studied by several authors in the last decade [@damico1; @zu1; @zu2; @damico2; @damico3; @os1; @os2; @fos1; @pots; @pos; @ana]. The presence of nearby charged impurities, as Das Sarma and Nguyen show, have an important effect on the singlet-triplet coupling, with unwanted impact in quantum information tasks. One of the main goals of this paper is the calculation of the spatial entanglement [@damico1; @damico2; @os1] of the two electrons in a double QD molecule in presence of charged impurities. Experimentally, results very difficult to measure the amount of entanglement of two electron in a coupled QD directly. There exist several techniques that allows one to measure the possibility of double occupation [@zu1] and the optical properties such as the dipole transition, the oscillator strength and the photoionization cross section [@opt1; @opt2; @opt3; @opt4; @opt5; @opt6] of these systems. If we know the relationship between these quantities and the degree of entanglement, we can have information about the amount of entanglement of our system. The possibility of using this information in order to design nanodevices according to the level of entanglement desired results quite difficult because the positions and the strength of the impurities are unknown. Despite this, there are some recent experiments which show the mechanism of dopant incorporation and how the incorporation of impurity defects can be controlled [@ex1; @ex2; @ex4]. The aim of this work is to present a detailed analysis of the electronic and optical properties of a two-dimensional two-electron coupled quantum dot and the effect of impurities. In particular we show that the entanglement of the electrons is strongly modulated by the position and charge of the impurity. We also show that optical measurements would allow to obtain information about the effect of the impurity in these kind of devices. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we introduce the model for the two-dimensional two-electron coupled quantum dot and briefly describe the method used to calculate its electronic structure. In Section III, we calculate the spatial entanglement in the presence of one impurity and discuss its relation to the exchange coupling. Section IV, contains calculations of the oscillator strength, for a range of parameters of the system, that show the modifications of the optical properties in the presence of a charged impurity, with the aim of allowing to correlate optical measurements with the degree of entanglement of the system. Finally, In Section V we summarize the conclusions with a discussion of the most relevant points of our analysis. Model and calculation method ============================ We consider two laterally coupled two-dimensional quantum dots whose centers are separated a distance $d$ from each other, and containing two electrons. In quantum dots electrostatically produced, both their size and separation can be controlled by variable gate voltages through metallic electrodes deposited on the heterostructure interface. The eventual existence of doping hydrogenic impurities, probably arising from Si dopant atoms in the GaAs quantum well, have been experimentally studied [@Ashoori92]. These impurities have been theoretically analyzed with a superimposed attractive $1/ r$-type potential [@im1; @im2]. Furthermore, some avoided crossing and lifted degeneracies in the spectra of single-electron transport experiments have been attributed to negatively charged Coulomb impurities located near to the QD [@ex5]. From fitting the experimental transport spectra to a single-electron model of softened parabolic confinement with a Coulomb charge $q$, a set of parameters are obtained; among them, a radius of confinement of $15.5$ nm, a confinement frequency $\hbar\omega=13.8$ meV and an impurity charge of approximately 1 or 2 electron charges. Indeed, the uncertainty in the parameters and the suppositions introduced in the model does not allow one to precisely ensure the impurity charge, with the screening probably reducing its effective value to less than an electron charge. Therefore, we consider the charge of the doping atom $Ze$ as a parameter varying in the range $0\leq Z \leq 1$, in order to explore its effect on the properties of the system. In this work we model the Hamiltonian of the two-dimensional two-electron coupled quantum dot in presence of charged impurities within the single conduction-band effective-mass approximation [@mod1], namely, $$\label{h1} H=h({\bf r}_1)+h({\bf r}_2)+\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon \varepsilon_0 r_{12}}, \label{Hamiltonian}$$ where ${\bf r}_i=(x_i,y_i)$ ($i=1,2$) and $$\label{h2} h({\bf r})=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^*}\nabla^2+V_L({\bf r})+V_R({\bf r})+V_A({\bf r}),$$ where $h({\bf r})$ is the single-electron Hamiltonian that includes the kinetic energy of the electrons, in terms of their effective mass $m^*$, and the confining potential for the left and right quantum dots $V_L$ and $V_R$, and the interaction of the electrons with the charged impurities, $V_A$. The last term of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\]), represents the Coulomb repulsive interaction between both electrons at a distance $r_{12}=|{\bf r}_2-{\bf r}_1|$ apart from each other, within a material of effective dielectric constant $\varepsilon$. We model the confinement with Gaussian attractive potentials $$\label{h3} V_{i}({\bf r})=-V_0\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2a^2} |{\bf r}-{\bf R}_{i}|^2\right), \ (i=L, R),$$ where ${\bf R}_L$ and ${\bf R}_R$ are the positions of the center of the left and right dots, $V_0$ denotes the depth of the potential and $a$ can be taken as a measure of its range. Along this work, we will consider a single impurity atom centered at ${\bf R}_A$, and modelled as a hydrogenic two-dimensional Coulomb potential $$\label{h4} V_A({\bf r})= -\frac{Ze^2}{4\pi\varepsilon \varepsilon_0 |{\bf R}_A-{\bf r}|}$$ Since the Hamiltonian does not depend on the electron spin, its eigenstates can be factored out as a product of a spatial and a spin part $$\Psi_i({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,m_{s_1},m_{s_2}) = \Psi_i^{S}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) \chi_{S,M},$$ where $S=0$, 1 for singlet and triplet states, respectively, and $M = m_{s_1} + m_{s_2}$ is the total spin projection. The eigenstates of the model Hamiltonian can be obtained by direct diagonalization in a finite basis set [@var1]. The spatial part is obtained, in a full configuration interaction (CI) calculation, as $$\label{variational-functions} \Psi_m^S({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) = \sum_{n=1}^{N_{\rm conf}} c^S_{mn} \Phi^S_{n}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)$$ where $N_{\rm conf}$ is the number of singlet ($S=0$) or triplet ($S=1$) two-electron configurations $\Phi^S_{n}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)$ considered, and $n=(i,j)$ is a configuration label obtained from the indices $i$ and $j$ from a single electron basis, i.e., $$\Phi^S_{n}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ \phi_i({\bf r}_1)\phi_j({\bf r}_2)+(1-2S)\phi_j({\bf r}_1)\phi_i({\bf r}_2)\right]$$ for $i\ne j$, and $\Phi^{S=0}_{n}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)= \phi_i({\bf r}_1)\phi_i({\bf r}_2)$ for the doubly occupied singlet states. We chose a single-particle basis of Gaussian functions, centered at the dots and atom positions ${\bf R}_P$ ($P = L, R, A$), of the type [@sr1; @sr2] $$\label{variational-functions} \phi_{i}({\bf r})=N x^{m_i} y^{n_i} \exp\left(-\alpha_i|{\bf r}-{\bf R}_P|^2\right),$$ where $N$ is a normalization constant, and $\ell_i=m_i+n_i$ is the $z$-projection of the angular momentum of the basis function. The exponents $\alpha_i$ were optimized for a single Gaussian well and a single atom separately, and supplemented with extra functions when used together. For our calculations a basis set of $2s 2p$ functions for the dots, and $5s 5p 1d 1f$ for the atom was found to achieve converged results for the energy spectrum. The numerical results presented in this work refers to those corresponding to the parameters of GaAs: effective mass $m^*=0.067 m_e$, effective dielectric constant $\varepsilon=13.1$, Bohr radius $a^*_B=10$ nm and effective atomic unit of energy 1 Hartree$^*=10.6$ meV [@ex5; @dasarma1]. The depth of the Gaussian potentials modelling the dots are taken as $V_0=4$ Hartree$^*=40.24$ meV, and its typical range $a=\sqrt{2}a_B^*=14.1$ nm. Entanglement entropy and exchange coupling ========================================== The proposed applications of QDs for quantum computing require a large exchange coupling between electrons along separated regions of space. To some extent, both requirements compete with each other. In a simple picture, one could have a large exchange coupling for electrons doubly occupying the same dot or atom. In such a case, the singlet state has the form of a product wave function $\varphi_0({\bf r}_1) \varphi_0({\bf r}_2)$ with the corresponding singlet spin function; the lowest triplet state, however, has the form of the antisymmetrized product of two single-electron functions, $\varphi_0({\bf r}_1) \varphi_1({\bf r}_2)-\varphi_0({\bf r}_2) \varphi_1({\bf r}_1)$, of different single-particle energies $\varepsilon_0$ and $\varepsilon_1$. Thus, the triplet state will have a quite higher energy than the singlet state, thus giving a large exchange coupling. Nevertheless, such a large coupling is not favourable for quantum computing tasks because the states are localized in space. Using electron states as qubits requires, for instance, the feasibility to detect the single or double occupancy of two quantum dots, separated a measurable distance, while keeping both electrons correlated. As the interdot separation increases, the electron-electron interaction diminishes and its relative importance with respect to the confining potential tends to vanish. In the limit of large interdot separations, the Coulomb repulsion is minimized by singly occupying each quantum dots with an electron. In such a limit, the energies of both the singlet $(+)$ and triplet $(-)$ states, $\varphi_0({\bf r}_1) \varphi_1({\bf r}_2) \pm \varphi_0({\bf r}_2) \varphi_1({\bf r}_1)$ approach the sum of singly occupied dots and their difference $J$ tends to zero. In other words, the best conditions for applications to quantum information processing arises from a compromise between a high spatial correlation of pairs of electrons at the longest possible lengths where the exchange coupling $J$ is still sizable. This behaviour is illustrated in Fig. \[f1\], assuming a positively charged impurity of one electron charge ($Z=1$). Fig \[f1\] shows the singlet and triplet ground-state energies for the double QD, separated a distance $d=30$ nm, as a function of impurity position $x_A$. The inset shows the behaviour of the singlet-triplet exchange coupling as a function of the impurity position. These results are in qualitative agreement with those of Ref. [@dasarma1]. The singlet-triplet exchange coupling is strongly affected for the presence of the charged impurity, it has the maximum value when the impurity is centered in between the two dots, and it has a minimum close to zero when the impurity is located at $x_A=d$. Expectedly, the splitting goes asymptotically to the impurity-free double QD case when the impurity atom is located far away from the double QD system. We shall show below that the impurity positions that give high energy splitting, i.e., those near to the middle of the interdot distance, correspond to a two-electron ground state whose spatial wave function is highly localized at the impurity atom, thus having a small spatial entanglement. In what follows we shall restrict ourselves to the impurity located along the interdot $x$-axis, ${\bf R}_A=(x_A,0)$. ![\[f1\] (Color online) Calculated ground-state energy of the two-electron double QD, for an interdot distance $d=30$ nm, with one impurity atom of charge $Z=1$ located along the interdot axis as a function of impurity position. The black line (red-dashed line) shows the singlet (triplet) ground-state energy. The inset shows the singlet-triplet exchange coupling $J$ as a function of impurity position.](Fig1.eps){width="6cm"} We shall study now how the degree of spatial quantum correlation of two electrons in the coupled QD is modified by the position and charge of a screened atomic impurity. As mentioned above, the eigenstate wave functions can be factorized in its orbital and spin part. For the ground state, the spin part is a singlet wave function, which is maximally entangled and constant. Therefore, throughout this work, we will only consider the spatial entanglement [@damico1; @damico2; @os1; @os2; @fos1]. The Von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix quantifies the entanglement for a bipartite pure state and can be calculated using [@damico2; @os1; @os2; @fos1; @pots] $$\label{von-neumann-entropy} S = -\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\rho}^{\mathrm{red}} \log_2{\hat{\rho}^{\mathrm{red}}}) ,$$ where $\hat{\rho}^{\rm red}={\rm Tr}_2|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$ is the reduced density operator, $\Psi$ is the two-electron wave function and the trace is taken over one electron. The Von Neumann entropy could be written as $$\label{von-neumann-entropy2} S = -\sum_i \lambda_i \log_2 \lambda_i ,$$ where $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of the spatial part of the reduced density operator $$\int \rho^{\mathrm{red}}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}^{\prime}_1) \phi_i({\bf r}^ {\prime}_1)\; d{\bf r}^{\prime}_1 = \lambda_i \phi_i({\bf r}_1) \, .$$ where $$\rho^{\mathrm{red}}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_1^{\prime}) = \int \Psi^{\ast}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) \Psi({\bf r}_1^{\prime}, {\bf r}_2) \; d{\bf r}_2.$$ Fig. \[sic\] shows the Von Neumann entropy for two electrons in the double QD as a function of its interdot distance, in absence of impurity (black-dashed line) and with atomic charges $Z=1$ (blue-dashed doted line) and $Z=0.1$ (red solid line) located at the center of the double QD. In all the cases it is observed that, for small interdot separations, the entropy is small, smoothly increasing with the interdot separation. The increase of the spatial entanglement is due to a gradual delocalization of the ground state wave function. For interdot distances between 20 and 40 nm, there is a large increase of the entanglement entropy, signalling a qualitative change of the ground state wave function from a atomic doubly occupied state to a state with both dots singly occupied, reached at large interdot separations ($d\gtrsim 50$ nm), where the entropy saturates to its maximum $S=1$. The variation of $S$ is similar for all the cases, although the presence of the impurity decreases the entanglement for every interdot separation, due to the fact that the atomic potential contributes to localize the electronic density at the center of the system.  Von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix for the two-electron coupled QD as a function of the interdot distance. Black-dashed line shows the entropy when there is no impurity present in the sample, the red line corresponds to the entropy when a single impurity $Z=0.1$ is located at $x=y=0$ and blue-dotted dashed line corresponds to $Z=1.0$.](Fig2.eps){width="6cm"} The effect of the charge and location of the impurity on the spatial entanglement, for fixed QDs geometry, can be observed at Fig. \[svx2z\] where the entropy is depicted as a function of the impurity position. The separation between the two QDs is kept fixed at 30 nm, and two limiting cases are considered: a highly screened atomic charge $Z=0.1$ and a unscreened charge $Z=1$. In both cases, the entanglement entropy increases as the impurity moves off the center of the double QD until a position where $S$ reaches a maximum, finally decreasing to a value $S=0.53$, when the atom is distant from the dots ($x\gtrsim 40$ nm). ![\[svx2z\] Von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix for the two-electron coupled QD as a function of the impurity position (along the interdot axis) for $d=30\, nm$ and different impurities strength: (a) $Z=0.1$ and (b) $Z=1.0$.](Fig3.eps){width="8cm"} The minimum and maximum of entanglement produced by the small charge $Z=0.1$ are less pronounced than those due to the highly charged impurity $Z=1$. This modulation of the entanglement by the impurity position reflects the existence of two regimes: one of low entanglement for impurities at (or near to) the center of the interdot distance, and another of higher (but not maximum) entanglement for atomic positions external to the interdot segment. In Fig. \[svx2z\], this two regions are the ones to the left and the right of the bell-shaped peak of $S$, respectively. The peak position itself depends on the magnitude of the charge. For small charges, the maximum degree of entanglement occurs at $x_A\approx 17$ nm, that is, close to the center of the dot to the right. For the large charge $Z=1$, however, the peak of $S$ occurs at $x\approx 30$ nm. The rationale for it is that, for low charged impurities, the atomic potential is a weak perturbation to the QDs potential wells. Therefore, the entropy varies in a small range ($0.47\leq S \leq 0.56$) around the impurity-free case $S=0.53$. For large impurity charges, nevertheless, the atomic potential is strong and the position of its center greatly determines the spatial wave function. The range of atomic positions ($0\leq x_A \lesssim 20$ nm) along which $S$ remains low, can be understood as due to the localization of the electrons close to the atom. When the atom is inside one of the dots (QD$_R$), the atomic potential reinforces that of the dot well and the electron density localization, thus giving a low degree of entanglement. When the atom moves towards outside the double QD, the strength of the double well competes with the large atomic potential until an atom-double QD distance of [*ca.*]{} 30 nm, where becomes energetically convenient to delocalize the electron wave function, resembling the double QD bond in absence of impurity. To show clearly the influence of the atomic charge on the wave function, let us consider two a bit less extreme situations: $Z=0.2$ and $Z=0.8$. Fig. \[roc\] shows the ground state electron density along the interdot axis when the impurity atom is located at $x_A=15$ nm, for three different interdot separations, $d=15$, 25 and 40 nm. The panels to the left show that for the small charge, as the QDs separate from one another, the electron density develops peaks located at the potential well centers. For the large charge $Z=0.8$, however, the density is always peaked at the impurity position. Therefore, in this last case, the presence of the impurity could spoil the performance of the device for quantum computing tasks due to the high localization of the electron density entails a low degree of entanglement.  Ground state one-electron density along the interdot axis. Left panels show the weak impurity limit $Z=0.2$ and right panels the strong impurity limit $Z=0.8$: (a) and (d) $d=15 nm$, (b) and (e) $d=25 nm$ and (c) and (f) $d=40 nm$ . Red circles show the impurity position $x_A=15 nm$ ](Fig4.eps){width="8cm"} Fig. \[smap\] shows the dependence of the Von Neumann entropy on the impurity charge and interdot distance for a given position of the impurity atom: $x_A=15$ nm. Ideally, providing that the value of the impurity charge could be measured in a given sample, one would be able to choose the optimal interdot distance for a given degree of entanglement. The figure clearly shows the aforementioned regimes of weak ($Z\lesssim 0.6$) and strong ($Z\gtrsim 0.6$) impurity potential, corresponding to low and high degree of entanglement, respectively. For a given (fixed) small impurity charge $Z$, the entropy increases monotonically as the interdot distance $d$ increases. On the other hand, for a given large $Z$, by increasing the distance $d$, the entropy increases for small distances $d$ up to a maximum value, diminishes to a minimum and sharply increases again until its asymptotic impurity-free value $S=1$.  Contour map for the Von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix for the two-electron coupled QD as a function of impurity strength and interdot distance for $x_A=15$ nm.](Fig5.eps){width="8cm"} Fig. \[svdc\] shows the dependence of the entropy on the interdot distance, for different impurity positions ($x_A=15$ and 20 nm) and charges ($Z=0.1$, 0.5, 0.7 and 1). The corresponding variation in absence of impurity is also represented in dashed lines for reference. It can be seen two qualitatively distinct behaviours for small ($Z=0.1$, 0.5) and large ($Z=0.7$, 1) charges . The monotonic increase of $S$ with $d$ is characteristic of the weak atomic potential; separating the QDs with a small atomic charge in between of them, produces little changes in the electron distribution as compared with the impurity-free double QD. On the other hand, strong atomic potentials induce a modulation of the entropy as $d$ increases; for small values of $d$, all three potentials are close to each other and the electron density localizes around their centers. For large interdot distances, the energy of the system is minimized by decreasing the electronic repulsion, i.e., by delocalizing the wave function and, hence, increasing its entanglement.  Von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix for the two-electron coupled QD as a function of the interdot distance for $x_A=15\, nm$ ((a) and (c)), $x=20\, nm$ ((b) and (d)) and different values of the impurity Strength. (a) and (b) show the weak impurity limit ($Z=0.1$ and $Z=0.5$) while in (c) and (d) we observe the strong impurity limit ($Z=0.7$ and $Z=1.0$). The black-dashed line shows the behavior of the entropy when there is no impurities in the sample. ](Fig6.eps){width="8cm"} Fig. \[fj\] shows this effect on the exchange coupling corresponding to situations of Fig. \[svdc\](a) and \[svdc\](c), having the atom at $x_A=15$ nm. It can be observed that $S$ and $J$ have, roughly, opposite variations; whence the atomic potential is weak, $S$ increases and $J$ decreases as the QDs separate from each other. In the regime when the atomic potential is strong, the maximum of $S$ occurs at the minimum of $J$ and reciprocally; furthermore, at large QDs separations, as the entropy goes to its asymptotical value $S=1$ the exchange coupling tends to zero. Then, for specific quantum information applications, it could be desirable to tune the interdot distance for harnessing one or both properties.  J as a function of the interdot distance $d$ with an impurity center located in $x_A=15 nm$. On the left panel (a) we observe the singlet-triplet coupling for $Z=0.1$ (red circles) and $Z=0.5$ (blue squares). In (b) we show the singlet-triplet coupling for $Z=0.7$ (green up triangles) and $Z=1.0$ (orange down triangles). The black-dashed line represents the singlet-triplet with no impurity.](Fig7.eps){width="8cm"} The variety of behaviours of the degree of spatial entanglement with the various parameters of the system, described in this section, is rooted in the spatial distribution of the electron wave function. We shall discuss in the next section a relation with an optical property, like the oscillator strength, in order to provide a feasible connection with measurable magnitudes. Impurity effect on the optical properties ========================================= The optical susceptibility of a system depends on its transition amplitude for the interaction of its dipole moment with the optical electric field between two singlet states $\Psi_i$ and $\Psi_j$, say the ground and an excited states, and the corresponding energy differences. The oscillator strength for an electric field applied along the interdot axis $$f_{ij}=\frac{2m^\ast}{\hbar} (E_j-E_i) |\langle \Psi_0|x_1+x_2 |\Psi_1\rangle|^2, \label{osf}$$ takes both magnitudes into account and provides information on the feasibility of such optical excitations. We study here how the impurity affects the oscillator strength of the double QD. The dots are kept 30 nm separated from each other and the position of the impurity $x_A$ is varied from the center of interdot segment ($x_A=0$) to a large separation from the dots ($x_A=70$ nm), including the case of the impurity centered in one dot ($x_A=15$ nm). The charge $Z$ of the atom is varied from $Z=0.1$ (highly screened impurity) to $Z=1$ (low screening). For the system considered, the oscillator strength between the ground and the first excited singlet states, $f_{12}$, is the dominant contribution with respect to all others $f_{ij}$. The precision of the calculation was checked by verifying the Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule, $\sum_{ij} f_{ij} = N$, with $N=2$ being the number of electrons in the system. The results are shown in Fig. \[OS vs x\] together with the entanglement entropy for the same atomic positions and charges. ![\[OS vs x\] Von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix (upper panel) and Oscillator strength $f_{12}$ (lower panel) between the ground and first excited singlet state of a double quantum dot with an impurity of charge $Z$ as a function of the impurity position $x_A$, for different values of $Z$.](Fig8.eps){width="8cm"} The cases of weak and strong electron-atom Coulomb interaction are clearly distinguishable. In the regime of small impurity charge ($Z\lesssim 0.6$), the oscillator strength $f_{12}$ varies approximately with a quadratic dependence on $x_A$; i.e., it starts from $f_{12}\approx 2$, reaches a minimum around $x_A=15$ nm, to finally increases up to a value of 2, at nearly $x_A=30$ nm. The larger the impurity charge $Z$, the more pronounced the minimum of $f_{12}$. Placing the atom further away from the double dot system ($x_A>30$ nm) does not change $f_{12}$. On the other hand, in the regime of high impurity charge ($Z\gtrsim 0.6$), the oscillator strength $f_{12}$ exhibits richer features as compared to the small charge case. The most remarkable behavior correspond to $Z=1$ which successively shows a similar decreasing, from $f_{12}=1.4$ at $x_A=0$, to $f_{12}=0.6$ at $x_A=15$ nm, followed by an increase up to $x_A=25$ nm, a small plateau around 30 nm, a peak at $x_A=33$ nm, a minimum of $f_{12}\approx 1$ at 40 nm, finally approaching the saturation value $f_{12}=2$ for $x_A\gtrsim 50$ nm. For intermediate $0.5\leq Z \leq 1$ values, a gradual transition between both regimes is observed; namely, by decreasing $Z$ from 1 to 0.5, the minimum of the region $x_A\approx 40$ nm becomes shallower, the peak is softened, and the plateau merges with the minimum occurring at 15 nm, thus giving the flat minimum of the weak impurity regime. It should be noted that the range $0\leq x \leq 15$ nm corresponds to an impurity atom located in between the dots, while for $x_A\geq 15$ nm, the atom is outside the segment defined by the interdot centers. Consequently, the existence of an impurity into the system would cause a diminishing in $f_{12}$ and, therefore, in the light absorption or emission of the double dot device. This effect is stronger the closer is the atom to one dot. The most favourable situation for optical excitation (high $f_{12}$) correspond to an impurity centered in between the dots or outside the interdot separation, faraway from any of them.\ We shall discuss in the following, the behavior of the oscillator strength as due to changes in the electronic structure induced by the variation of the position of the impurity, starting by the most striking case of a highly charged impurity $Z=1$. We displace the atom along the line joining both dots, which we take as the $x$-axis; therefore, we consider the two-particle wave function along the $x$ axis for the coordinates $x_1$ and $x_2$ of each electron $$\Psi_i(x_1,x_2) = \Psi_i({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) = \Psi_i(x_1,0;x_2,0),$$ for the two lowest singlet states $\Psi_i({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)$, $i=0$ (ground state) and $i=1$ (first excited state). The function $\Psi(x_1,x_2)$, represented as a two-dimensional plot in the $(x_1,x_2)$-plane, allows one to visualize the most relevant configurations contributing to the total wave function. Because of the permutation symmetry, the spatial wave function satisfies $\Psi(x_1,x_2)=\Psi(x_2,x_1)$, thus becoming symmetric under reflection with respect to the diagonal $x_1=x_2$. Large values of $\Psi(x,x)$, along this diagonal, correspond to ionic or doubly occupied configurations. In contrast, large density values $\Psi(x,-x)$ along the $x_1=-x_2$ diagonal, corresponds to configurations where the electrons are mostly in opposite (left and right) half-planes. In the present calculations, the $x$ coordinates of the centers of the left and right dots $x_L=-15$ nm, $x_R=15$ nm are held fixed while that of the atom, $x_A=x$, varies. Large values of $\Psi(x_L,x_L)$, $\Psi(x_R,x_R)$ or $\Psi(x_A,x_A)$ entail a doubly occupied configuration at the left dot, the right dot or the atom, respectively. On the other hand, a configuration of one electron in the atom and the other in a bond (antibond) between the left and right dots, would be represented by $$\Psi(x_1,x_2) = \left[c_L \varphi_L(x_1) \pm c_R \varphi_R(x_1) \right]\varphi_A(x_2)+ (x_1\leftrightarrow x_2), \label{eq bond}$$ where the last term represents a term similar to the first one with the variables interchanged, and $\varphi_a$ is a wave function centered around $x_a$ ($a=L, R, A$). Then, $\Psi(x_1,x_2)$ will have large values close to $(x_L,x_A)$ and $(x_R,x_A)$ with the same or opposite sign for a bond or antibond, respectively. Figs. \[2-particle S1\] and \[2-particle S2\] show the plot of the ground state $\Psi_0(x_1,x_2)$ and the first singlet excited state $\Psi_1(x_1,x_2)$ from our calculations. ![\[2-particle S1\] (Color online) Contour plot in the $(x_1,x_2)$-plane of the two-electron ground state singlet wave function, $\Psi_0^0(x_1,x_2)$, along the interdot axis $x$ for the ground state of the doped double quantum dot. Gaussian wells are centered at ${\bf R}_L = (x_L,0)$ and ${\bf R}_ R = (x_R,0)$ and the impurity atom of charge $Z=1$, at ${\bf R}_A=(x_A,0)$. The vertical and horizontal dashed lines $x_i=x_L, x_R$ or $x_A$ ($i =1$, 2), signals the condition where one electron (electron 1 or 2, respectively), is at the center of the dot to the left, to the right or at the impurity atom. The centers of the dots $x_R=-x_L=15$ nm are held symmetrical with respect to the origin of coordinates. The atom is successively placed at $x_A = 0$, $15$, $20$, $25$, $30$, $33$, $40$ and $50$ nm.](Fig9.eps) ![\[2-particle S2\] (Color online) Same as Fig. \[2-particle S1\] for the first excited two-electron singlet wave function $\Psi_1^0(x_1,x_2)$.](Fig10.eps) For a single-electron symmetric double dot system without impurity, the ground and first excited states are the bonding and antibonding states formed from the linear combination of orbitals centered at each dot. For the two-electron symmetric double dot system, Figs. \[2-particle S1\] and \[2-particle S2\] show that when the atom is at the center of the line joining both dots ($x=0$), the two-particle wave function of the ground state (excited state) roughly corresponds to one electron in the atom and the other in the bond (antibond) of the double dot system, Eq. (\[eq bond\]). Therefore, the matrix element $\langle \Psi_0|x_1+x_2|\Psi_1\rangle$ roughly correspond to the sum of those for the atom and the double dot separately. At $x=15$ nm, the atom is at the center of the dot to the right, the system becomes very asymmetric, with the potential of dot to the right deeper than the one to the left due to the contribution of the attractive impurity. The bond becomes a doubly occupied state localized close to the center of the combined potential (QD$_R$ and impurity), while the antibond becomes more localized around to QD$_L$, due the orthogonality condition, what lowers $f_{12}$. The behavior in the range $0\leq x \leq 15$ nm reflects this gradual change. From 15 to 30 nm, the effect of the impurity turns weaker as the atom moves away, and the two dots becomes more symmetric again; this redistribute the charge towards QD$_L$, recovering some bonding and antibonding character for $\Psi_0$ and $\Psi_1$, respectively. Such a configuration favours an increase of $f_{12}$. Furthermore, as one electron remains in the atom, which is farther from the origin, the matrix element of $x$ becomes larger than the one corresponding to the atom at the origin. The oscillator strength has a peak at 33 nm roughly increasing quadratically with the position of the atom as a consequence of the stretching of the charge. After 33 nm, the electron in the atom cannot be retained by the impurity potential, thus $\Psi_0$ approaches to a configuration with one electron in each dot. Nevertheless, the excited state $\Psi_1$ still have a configuration where the atom is occupied, what lowers $f_{01}$. For atom positions further than 40 nm, the excited state also releases its electron and the double quantum dot becomes even more symmetric, approaching its behavior in the absence of impurity, thus approaching its value $f_{01}=2$. The limit of isolated dots is clearly seen in Figs. \[2-particle S1\] and \[2-particle S2\], where for $x\gtrsim 50$ nm, the ground and first excited states are, approximately, $\Psi_0\approx [\varphi_L(x_1)\varphi_R(x_2)+\varphi_R(x_1)\varphi_L(x_2)]/ \sqrt{2}$ and $\Psi_1\approx [\varphi_L(x_1)\varphi_L(x_2)-\varphi_R(x_1) \varphi_R(x_2)]/\sqrt{2}$. As seen from Fig. \[OS vs x\], the oscillator strength for impurity charges smaller than $Z=1$, has simpler features. Basically, they start from a value $f_{12}$ slightly less than 2, decreases until a minimum as the atom approaches one dot, say QD$_R$, and increases again smoothly until reaching the asymptotic impurity-free value of 2. The oscillator strength is a highly sensitive property to the presence of the impurity. A value of $f_{12}$ close to 2, occurs either when the impurity is weak wherever it is located, or when a highly charged impurity atom is far away from the double QD. Both cases are situations where the impurity is a perturbation for the coupled QDs and, therefore amenable of use in quantum computing. On the contrary, deviations of the oscillator strength from a value of 2, provides an indication of a breakdown of the possibility to consider the system as a double QD. Conclusions =========== In this work, we have studied the influence of a Coulomb atomic impurity on the entanglement entropy of two-dimensional two-electron double quantum dots. The electronic structure was calculated by using a configuration interaction method with a Gaussian basis set expansion. The degree of entanglement becomes highly modulated by both the location and charge screening of the impurity atom. Two regimes are clearly identified: one of low entanglement and other of high entanglement, with both of them mainly determined by the magnitude of the charge. The exchange coupling between the electrons, being proportional to singlet-triplet exchange coupling , has an opposite behaviour with respect to the one of the entropy. The efficient use of double QDs with impurities, in specific quantum information processing tasks could require the tuning of the interdot separation or the quantum well depths, for optimizing the harnessing of the entanglement, the exchange coupling or both. Finally, the magnitude of the oscillator strength of the system could provide an indication of the presence and characteristics of impurities that could largely influence the degree of entanglement of the system. It is clear that experimentally obtained optical properties can help in the design of double QDs with desirable properties in order to use them in quantum information tasks. The quantum control of these kind of systems can be implemented using pulses of external fields. This issue if of great importance in quantum computation and a work about the interaction of electromagnetic fields with the system presented here is in progress. Of course the decoherence, not considered in these works, plays a very important role in the quantum dynamics of these kind of devices. Studies in Markovian scenarios suggested that the entanglement vanishes due to decoherence, while the decoherence process in non-Markovian regimes sometimes gives rise to an interesting new effect: entanglement sudden revival [@dec7; @nm1; @nm2; @nm3]. We think that can be very interesting and useful to study the non-Markovian dynamics of these system in the low and high entanglement regions depicted in the present article. We would like to acknowledge CONICET (PIP 11220090100654/2010), SGCyT(UNNE) and FONCyT (PICT-2011-0472) for partial financial support of this project. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [99]{} W. G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S.Tarucha and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 1 (2003); R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**79**]{}, 1217 (2007); S. J. Lee, S. Souma , G. Ihm and K. J. Chang, Phys. Rep. [**394**]{}, 1 (2004). G. Bastard, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 4714 (1981) Nga T. T. Nguyen and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 235322 (2011) R. C. Ashoori, H. L. Stormer, J. S. Weiner, L. N. Pfeiffer, S. J. Pearton, K. W. Baldwin, K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3088 (1992). Y. Wan, G. Ortiz, and P. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 5313 (1997). E. Lee, A. Puzder, M. Y. Chou, T. Uzer, and D. Farrelly, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 12281 (1998). E. Räsänen, J. Könemann, R. J. Haug, M. J. Puska, and R. M. Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 115308 (2004). X. Hu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 062301 (2000). P. A. Sundqvist, V. Narayan, S. Stafström, and M. Willander, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 165330 (2003) S. V. Nistor, M. Stefan, L. C. Nistor, E. Goovaerts, and G. Van Tendeloo, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 035336 (2010) V. Narayan and M. Willander, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 125330 (2002) R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science [**309**]{}, 2180 (2005). M. Schlosshauer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 1267 (2005). C. H. Bennett, Phys. Today. [**48**]{}, 24 (1995). J. Xu, X. Xu, C. Li, C. Zhang, and X. Zou, G. Guo, Nat. Commun. [**1**]{}, 1 (2010). T. Yu, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 193306 (2002). A. Ferrón, D. Domínguez, and M. J. Sánchez, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 237005 (2012). G. A. Álvarez, and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 230403 (2010). A. P. Majtey, and A. R. Plastino, Int. J. Quanum Inform. [ **10**]{}, 1250063 (2012) M. Tichy, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleinter, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**44**]{}, 192001 (2011) L. Amico, L. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 517 (2008) S. Abdullah, J. P. Coe and I. D’Amico, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 235302 (2009) L. He, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 075330 (2007) L. He, G. Bester, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 195307 (2005) J. P. Coe, and I. D’Amico, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**254**]{}, 012010 (2010) J. P. Coe, A. Sudbery, and I. D’Amico, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 205122 (2008) O. Osenda, and P. Serra, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 042331 (2007). O. Osenda, and P. Serra, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**41**]{}, 065502 (2008). A. Ferrón, O. Osenda and P. Serra, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 032509 (2009). F. M. Pont, O. Osenda, J. H. Toloza and P. Serra Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 042518 (2010). F. M. Pont, O. Osenda, and P. Serra, Phys. Scr. [**82**]{}, 038104 (2010). A. P. Majtey, A. R. Plastino, and J. S. Dehesa, J. Phys A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{}, 115309 (2012). J. L. Gondar and F. Comas, Physica B [**322**]{}, 413 (2003). S. Yilmaz and H. Safak, Physica E [**36**]{}, 40 (2007). A. Özmen, Y. Yakar, B. Cakir and Ü. Atav, Opt. Commun, [**282**]{}, 3999 (2009). I. Karabulut and S. Baskoutas, J. Appl. Phys [**103**]{}, 073512 (2008). M. Sahin, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 045317 (2008). J. S. deSousa, J. P. Leburton, V. N. Freire, and E. F. daSilva, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 155438 (2005). V. Nistor, L.C. Nistor, M. Stefan, C.D. Mateescua, R. Birjega, N. Solovieva, and M. Nikl, Superlattices Microstruct., [**46**]{}, 306 (2009). A. T. Kruppa and K. Arai, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 3556 1999. D. S. Acosta Coden, S. S. Gomez, and R. H. Romero, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**44**]{}, 035003 (2011). S. S. Gomez, and R. H. Romero, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. [**7**]{}, 12 (2009) B. Bellomo, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 160502 (2007). T. Yu, and J. H. Eberly, Science [**323**]{}, 598 (2009). F. Lastra, S. A. Reyes, and S. Wallentowitz, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**44**]{}, 015504 (2011).

--- abstract: | We study several notions of shift equivalence for C\*- correspondences and the effect that these equivalences have on the corresponding Pimsner dilations. Among others, we prove that non- degenerate, regular, full ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences which are shift equivalent have strong Morita equivalent Pimsner dilations. We also establish that the converse may not be true. These results settle open problems in the literature. In the context of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras, we prove that if two non-degenera-te, regular, full C\*- correspondences are shift equivalent, then their corresponding Cuntz-Pimsner algebras are strong Morita equivalent. This generalizes results of Cuntz and Krieger and Muhly, Tomforde and Pask. As a consequence, if two subshifts of finite type are eventually conjugate, then their Cuntz-Krieger algebras are strong Morita equivalent. Our results suggest a natural analogue of the Shift Equivalence Problem in the context of C\*-correspondences. Even though we do not resolve the general Shift Equivalence Problem, we obtain a positive answer for the class of imprimitivity bimodules. address: - | Pure Mathematics Department, University of Waterloo, Ontario N2L-3G1\ Canada - | Department of Mathematics\ University of Athens\ 15784 Athens\ Greece - | *Alternate address:* Department of Mathematics\ East Carolina University\ Greenville, NC 27858\ USA author: - 'Evgenios T.A. Kakariadis' - 'Elias G. Katsoulis' title: 'C\*-algebras and Equivalences for C\*-correspondences' --- [^1] [^2] [^3] [*Dedicated to our mentor and friend Aristides Katavolos*]{} Introduction ============ In [@Wil74] Williams introduced three relations for the class of matrices with non-negative integer entries, which are successively weaker. Two such matrices $E$ and $F$ are said to be *elementary strong shift equivalent* (symb. $E{\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$) if there exist matrices $R$ and $S$ with non-negative integer entries such that $E = RS$ and $F=SR$. The transitive closure of the elementary strong shift equivalence is called *strong shift equivalence* (symb. ${{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$) and $E$ is *shift equivalent* to $F$ (symb. $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$) if there exist matrices $R,S$ with non-negative integer entries such that $E^n = RS$, $F^n=SR$ and $ER=SF$, $FR=SE$ for some $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. The main goal of Williams was to characterize the topological conjugacy of subsifts of finite type using algebraic criteria. In [@Wil74], he proved that two subsifts $\sigma_E$ and $\sigma_F$ of finite type are topologically conjugate if and only if $E {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$. Williams also claimed that the relations ${{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$ and ${\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}$ are equivalent, thus providing a more manageable criterion for the conjugacy of shifts. Unfortunately, an error in [@Wil74] made invalid the proof of that last assertion, and the equivalence of ${{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$ and ${\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}$ remained an open problem for over than 20 years, known as *Williams’ Conjecture*. The breakthrough came with the work of Kim and Roush [@KimRou99] who proved that the Williams Conjecture for the class of non-negative integral matrices is false. Their work reshaped the Williams’ Conjecture into what is known today as the *Shift Equivalence Problem*, which for a particular class ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ of matrices with entries in a certain ring $R$ asks whether ${{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$ is equivalent to ${\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}$ *within* ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. Williams’ notions of shift equivalence carry over to the class of C\*- correspondences if one replaces in the above definitions the matrices $E$ and $F$ with C\*-correspondences and the multiplication of matrices with the internal tensor product. (See Section \[S:rel\] for the precise definitions.) This introduces three notions of relation between ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences, which will be denoted again as ${\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}},{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$ and ${\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}$. There exists also a fourth equivalence relation, named *strong Morita equivalence* (symb. ${\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}$), which generalizes the concept of unitary conjugacy for matrices to the realm of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. The concept of strong Morita equivalence for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences was first developed and studied by Abadie, Eilers and Exel [@AbaEilEx98] and Muhly and Solel [@MuhSol00]. Among others these authors show that if $E {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$ then the associated Cuntz-Pimsner algebras ${{\mathcal{O}}}_E$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_F$ are (strong) Morita equivalent as well. The notion of elementary and strong shift equivalence for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences was first studied by Muhly, Tomforde and Pask [@MuPasTom08]. These authors also prove that strong shift equivalence of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences implies the Morita equivalence of the associated Cuntz-Pimsner algebras, thus extending classical results of Cuntz and Krieger [@CunKri80], Bates [@Bat02] and Drinen and Sieben [@DriSie01] for graph ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras. In their study of strong shift equivalence Muhly, Tomforde and Pask [@MuPasTom08] raise two conjectures, which turn out to be important for the further development of the theory [@MuPasTom08 Remark 5.5]: > **Conjecture 1**. Let $E$ and $F$ be two non-degenerate, regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences and let $E_\infty$ and $F_\infty$ be their associated Pimsner dilations. If $E {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$, then $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. > > **Conjecture 2**. Let $E$ and $F$ be two non-degenerate, regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences and let $E_\infty$ and $F_\infty$ be their associated Pimsner dilations. If $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$, then $E {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$. The concept of shift equivalence has been studied extensively from both the dynamical and the ring theoretic viewpoint. (See [@Wagoner] for a comprehensive exposition.) In general, shift equivalence has been recognized to be a more manageable invariant than strong shift equivalence, as it is decidable over certain rings [@KimRoushdecide]. Unlike strong shift equivalence, the study of shift equivalence, from the viewpoint of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences, has been met with limited success [@Matsumoto]. (Other operator theoretic viewpoints however have been quite successful [@Krieger].) There are three major objectives that are being met in this work. First we complete the study of strong shift equivalence of Muhly, Tomforde and Pask [@MuPasTom08] by settling both of their conjectures: with the extra requirement of fullness, Conjecture 1 is settled in the affirmative (see Theorem \[T:main 2\] and the remarks preceding it for the fullness condition that has to be considered), while Conjecture 2 has a negative answer (Theorem \[T:se not inv\]). A second objective is the detailed study of the shift equivalence for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. First, we raise the analogues of Conjectures 1 and 2 for shift equivalence (instead of strong shift equivalence) and we discover that the answers are the same as in the case of strong shift equivalence. Using that information we prove Theorem \[T:se gives me\], which states that if two non-degenerate, regular, full C\*-correspondences $E$ and $F$ are shift equivalent, then their corresponding Cuntz-Pimsner algebras ${{\mathcal{O}}}_E$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_F$ are (strong) Morita equivalent. This generalizes results of Cuntz and Krieger [@CunKri80], and Muhly, Pask and Tomforde [@MuPasTom08] and appears to be new even for Cuntz-Krieger algebras, where the two notions of shift and strong shift equivalence are known to be different. Combined with the work of Williams our result says that if two subshifts of finite type are eventually conjugate [@Wagoner], then their Cuntz-Krieger algebras are strong Morita equivalent. Our third goal in this paper is the introduction of the Shift Equivalence Problem in the context of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. In light of our previous discussion, it seems natural to ask whether strong shift equivalence and shift equivalence are two different notions of equivalence for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. We coin this problem as the Shift Equivalence Problem for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondences. The work of Kim and Roush [@KimRou99] shows that the Shift Equivalence Problem has a negative answer within the class of graph correspondences, but it leaves open the option for a positive answer within the whole class of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. In general, we do not know the answer even though the work of Kim and Roush hints that it should be negative. In spite of this, we show that the Shift Equivalence Problem has a positive answer for imprimitivity bimodules: all four notions of “equivalence” described in this paper coincide for imprimitivity bimodules, Theorem \[T:sse=se=sme\]. There are more things accomplished in this paper, and we describe each of them within the appropriate sections. Most notably, we settle a third conjecture of Muhly, Pask and Tomforde coming from [@MuPasTom08] by showing that [@MuPasTom08 Theorem 3.14] is valid without the assumption of non-degeneracy (Theorem \[T:main 6\]). That is, regular (perhaps degenerate) strong shift equivalent ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences have strong Morita equivalent Cuntz-Pimsner algebras. Finally we discuss on the importance of Conjectures 1 and 2 regarding the behaviour of the shift relations when dilating. Pimsner dilations are often the natural objects arising in the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-literature for invertible relations, and these latter objects have been under thorough investigation. For example the Pimsner dilation of an injective ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-dynamical system is an automorphic dynamical system [@Sta93], thus the Cuntz-Pimsner algebra is a usual crossed product. (Under this prism our work here can be used in combination to provide further invariants for the Shift Equivalence Problem.) From this point of view one may wonder whether there is a *general* feature of the Pimsner dilation that makes it unique in a certain sense. In Theorem \[T:minimal dilation\] we answer this by showing that the Pimsner dilation $X_\infty$ of $X$ is the unique essential Hilbert bimodule that shares the same Cuntz-Pimsner algebra with $X$. Moreover it is the minimal essential Hilbert bimodule containing $X$ (Theorem \[T:min sub\]). Further applications of this result are of independent interest and are to be pursued elsewhere. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[S:preliminaries\] we establish the notation and terminology to be used throughout this paper. In Section \[S:shifts\] we explore the concept of a dilation for a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence. In addition we prove the minimality of Pimsner dilation. In Sections \[S:rel\], \[S:equiv\] and \[S:app\] we present the main results of this paper. Preliminaries {#S:preliminaries} ============= We use [@Lan95] as a general reference for Hilbert ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-modules and ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondences. An *inner-product right $A$-module* over a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra $A$ is a linear space $X$ which is a right $A$-module together with an $A$-valued inner product. For $\xi \in X$ we define ${\left\Vert \xi\right\Vert}_X:= {\left\Vert {\left\langle\xi,\xi\right\rangle}_A\right\Vert}_A^{1/2}$. The $A$-module $X$ will be called a *right Hilbert $A$-module* if it is complete with respect to the norm ${\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert}_X$. In this case $X$ will be denoted by $X_A$. It is straightforward to prove that if $(a_i)$ is an approximate unit in $A$ or in the closed ideal ${\left\langleX,X\right\rangle}_X$, then $(a_i)$ is also a right contractive approximate unit (c.a.i.) for $X$. Dually we call $X$ a *left Hilbert $A$-module* if it is complete with respect to the norm induced by a *left $A$-module inner-product* ${\left[\cdot,\cdot\right]}_X$. The term *Hilbert module* is reserved for the right Hilbert modules, whereas the left case will be clearly stated. Given a Hilbert $A$-module $X$ over $A$, let $X^*= \{\xi^* \in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,A)\mid \xi^*(\zeta)= {\left\langle\xi,\zeta\right\rangle}_X \}$ be the *dual left Hilbert $A$-module*, with $$\begin{aligned} a\cdot \xi^*= (\xi a^*)^* \text{ and } {\left[\xi^*,\zeta^*\right]}_{X^*}= {\left\langle\xi,\zeta\right\rangle}_X,\end{aligned}$$ for all $\xi, \zeta\in X$ and $a\in A$. For $X, Y$ Hilbert $A$-modules let ${{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y)$ be the (closed) linear space of the adjointable maps. For $\xi\in X$ and $y\in Y$, let $\Theta_{y,\xi}\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y)$ such that $\Theta_{y,\xi}(\xi')= y {\left\langle\xi,\xi'\right\rangle}_X$, for all $\xi' \in X$. We denote by ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)$ the closed linear subspace of ${{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y)$ spanned by $\{\Theta_{y,\xi}: \xi\in X, y \in Y\}$. If $X=Y$ then ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,X)\equiv {{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ is a closed ideal of the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra ${{\mathcal{L}}}(X,X)\equiv {{\mathcal{L}}}(X)$. \[L:cai for compact\] Let $X, Y, Z$ be Hilbert $A$-modules. If ${\left\langleX,X\right\rangle}_X$ provides a right c.a.i. $(a_i)$ for $Y$, then $\overline{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y){{\mathcal{K}}}(Z,X)}= {{\mathcal{K}}}(Z,Y)$. The existence of the right c.a.i. $(a_i)$ implies that $Y{\left\langleX,X\right\rangle}$ is dense in $Y$, hence $\overline{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y) {{\mathcal{K}}}(Z,X)} = \overline{{{\mathcal{K}}}(Z,Y{\left\langleX,X\right\rangle})}= {{\mathcal{K}}}(Z,Y)$. A ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence $X$ is called *non-degenerate* (resp. *strict*) if the closed linear span of $\phi_X(A)X$ is equal to $X$ (resp. complemented in $X$). We say that $X$ is *full* if ${\left\langleX,X\right\rangle}_X$ is dense in $A$. Finally, $X$ is called *regular* if both it is *injective*, i.e., $\phi_X$ is injective, and $\phi_X(A) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$. Two $A$-$B$-correspondences $X$ and $Y$ are called unitarily equivalent (symb. $X \approx Y$) if there is a unitary $u \in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y)$ such that $u(\phi_X(a)\xi b)= \phi_Y(a)(u \xi )b$, for all $a\in A, b\in B, \xi \in X$. $$\begin{aligned} {\left\langle\xi^*, \eta^*\right\rangle}_{X^*}={\left[\xi,\eta\right]}_X, \, \xi^* \cdot k =(k^*\xi)^*, \textup{ and } \phi_{X^*}(a)\xi^*= a\cdot \xi^*= (\xi \cdot a^*)^*,\end{aligned}$$ \[E:K(X,Y)\] For two ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences ${}_A X_B$ and ${}_B Y_C$, the *interior* or *stabilized tensor product*, denoted by $X \otimes_B Y$ or simply by $X \otimes Y$, is the quotient of the vector space tensor product $X \otimes_{{\operatorname{alg}}} Y$ by the subspace generated by elements of the form $$\begin{aligned} \xi b \otimes y - \xi \otimes \phi(b)y, {\text{ for all }}\xi \in X, y \in Y, b \in A.\end{aligned}$$ It becomes a Hilbert $C$-module when equipped with $$\begin{aligned} & (\xi \otimes y)c:= \xi \otimes (y c), & (\xi \in X, y\in Y, c \in C),\\ & {\left\langle\xi_1\otimes y_1, \xi_2\otimes y_2\right\rangle}_{X\otimes Y}:= {\left\langley_1, \phi({\left\langle\xi_1,\xi_2\right\rangle}_X)y_2\right\rangle}_Y, & (\xi_1, \xi_2 \in X, y_1, y_2 \in Y).\end{aligned}$$ For $s\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ we define $s\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Y \in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X\otimes Y)$ be the map $\xi\otimes y \mapsto (s\xi)\otimes y$. Then $X \otimes_B Y$ becomes an $A$-$C$-correspondence by defining $\phi_{X\otimes Y}(a):= \phi_X(a) \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Y$. The interior tensor product plays the role of a generalized associative multiplication of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences and the following lemmas will be useful in the sequel. \[L:cai ten pr\] Let the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences ${}_A X_B$ and ${}_B Y_C$. If $(c_i)$ is an approximate identity of ${\left\langleY,Y\right\rangle}_Y$, then $(c_i)$ is a right c.a.i. for the interior tensor product $X \otimes_B Y$. The norm on $X\otimes_B Y$ is a submultiplicative tensor norm, i.e., ${\left\Vert \xi \otimes y\right\Vert} \leq {\left\Vert y\right\Vert}{\left\Vert \xi\right\Vert}$ for all $\xi \in X, y\in Y$. Thus $\lim_i y c_i = y$ implies $\lim_i (\xi\otimes y)c_i = \lim_i \xi \otimes (y c_i) = \xi \otimes y$, for a c.a.i. $(c_i)$ as above. \[L:sme non-deg\] Let ${}_A X_B$ and ${}_B Y_C$ be two ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If ${}_A X_B$ is non-degenerate then $X\otimes_B Y$ is non-degenerate. Immediate since the tensor norm is submultiplicative. \[L:compact ten pr\] Let $X, Y$ be Hilbert $A$-modules and ${}_A Z_B$ be a regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondence. Then the mapping $$\begin{aligned} \otimes{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z\colon {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y) \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X\otimes_A Z, Y \otimes_A Z): t\mapsto t\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z\end{aligned}$$ is isometric and maps ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)$ inside ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes_A Z, Y \otimes_A Z)$. Set $$\begin{aligned} & \Psi \equiv \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z\colon {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y) \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X\otimes_A Z, Y\otimes_A Z),\\ & \psi \equiv \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z \colon {{\mathcal{L}}}(X) \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X\otimes_A Z).\end{aligned}$$ The exact analogue of [@Lan95 Equation 4.6] shows that the mapping $\Psi$ is well defined and contractive. Since $$\Psi(t_1)^* \Psi(t_2)= \psi(t_1^* t_2), \quad \mbox{for all } t_1, t_2 \in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y),$$ and $\psi$ is isometric [@Lan95 Proposition 4.7], we obtain that $\Psi$ is also isometric. Finally, let $(s_i)$ be a right approximate unit for ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)$ inside ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$. Then by the previous, $k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z = \lim_i (k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z) \cdot \psi(s_i)$. However, [@Lan95 Proposition 4.7] shows that $\psi(s_i)\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z)$ and the conclusion follows by noting that $(k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z) \cdot {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z, Y\otimes_A Z)$. \[Ex:x\^\* otimes x\] $ u_1\colon \xi \otimes \zeta^* \mapsto \Theta_{\xi,\zeta}, $ $ u_2\colon \xi^*\otimes \zeta \mapsto {\left\langle\xi,\zeta\right\rangle}. $ $$\begin{aligned} &{\left[\xi,\eta\right]}_X \cdot \zeta=\xi \cdot {\left\langle\eta,\zeta\right\rangle}_X, & (\xi, \eta,\zeta \in X).\end{aligned}$$ An imprimitivity bimodule ${}_A M_B$ is automatically non-degenerate and regular because $A\simeq^{\phi_M} {{\mathcal{K}}}(M)$. It is immediate that $M$ is an imprimitivity bimodule if and only if $M^*$ is a $B$-$A$-imprimitivity bimodule and Example \[Ex:x\^\* otimes x\] induces the following. \[L:imprimitivity\] If $M$ is an $A$-$B$-imprimitivity bimodule, then $M \otimes_B M^* \approx A$ and $M^* \otimes_A M \approx B$, where $A$ and $B$ are the trivial ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences over themselves. There is a number of ways of considering *a* direct sum of Hilbert modules and *a* direct sum of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences; these constructions are subcorrespondences of the *matrix ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence*. Given ${}_A E_A$, ${}_A R_B$, ${}_B S_A$ and ${}_B F_B$, the *matrix ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence* $X= \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & R\\ S & F \end{array}\right]$ over $A\oplus B$ is the Hilbert $(A\oplus B)$-module of the linear space of the “matrices” $\left[\begin{array}{c|c} e & r \\ s & f \end{array}\right]$, $e\in E, r\in R, s\in S, f\in F$, with [$$\begin{aligned} \left[\begin{array}{c|c} e & r \\ s & f \end{array}\right] \cdot (a,b) & := \left[\begin{array}{c|c} ea & rb \\ sa & fb \end{array}\right],\\ {\left\langle\left[\begin{array}{c|c} e_1 & r_1 \\ s_1 & f_1 \end{array}\right], \left[\begin{array}{c|c} e_2 & r_2 \\ s_2 & f_2 \end{array}\right]\right\rangle}_X & := \big({\left\langlee_1,e_2\right\rangle}_E + {\left\langles_1,s_2\right\rangle}_S, {\left\langler_1,r_2\right\rangle}_R + {\left\langlef_1,f_2\right\rangle}_F\big),\end{aligned}$$]{} and the $*$-homomorphism $\phi\colon A\oplus B \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & R\\ S & F \end{array}\right]\right)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \phi(a,b) \left[\begin{array}{c|c} e & r \\ s & f \end{array}\right] := \left[\begin{array}{c|c} \phi_E(a)e & \phi_R(a)r \\ \phi_S(b)s & \phi_F(b)f \end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The $E, R, S$ and $F$ imbed naturally as subcorrespondences in $\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & R\\ S & F \end{array}\right]$, since the latter is exactly the *exterior direct sum ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence* of the two *interior direct sum ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences* $\left[\begin{array}{c} E\\ S \end{array} \right]$ and $\left[\begin{array}{c} R\\ F \end{array} \right]$.\ The following Lemma explains the use of the terminology “matrix ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence”, as tensoring is really “matrix multiplication”. \[L:technical\] Let $E,F,R,S$ be ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences as above. Then $$\begin{aligned} &\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & R\\ S & F \end{array}\right] \otimes_{A\oplus B} \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & R\\ S & F \end{array}\right] \approx \left[\begin{array}{c|c} \left[\begin{array}{c} E\otimes_A E\\ R\otimes_B S \end{array}\right] & \left[\begin{array}{c} E\otimes_A R \\ R \otimes_B F \end{array}\right] \\ & \\ \left[\begin{array}{c} S\otimes_A E \\ F\otimes_B S \end{array}\right] & \left[\begin{array}{c} S\otimes_A R \\ F\otimes_B F \end{array}\right] \end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Note that all entries in the second matrix make sense. It is a matter of routine calculations to show that the mapping $$\begin{aligned} \left[\begin{array}{c|c} e_1 & r_1 \\ s_1 & f_1 \end{array}\right] \otimes \left[\begin{array}{c|c} e_2 & r_2 \\ s_2 & f_2 \end{array}\right] \mapsto \left[\begin{array}{c|c} \left[\begin{array}{c} e_1\otimes e_2\\ r_1\otimes s_2 \end{array}\right] & \left[\begin{array}{c} e_1 \otimes r_2 \\ r_1 \otimes f_2 \end{array}\right] \\ & \\ \left[\begin{array}{c} s_1 \otimes e_2 \\ f_1\otimes s_2 \end{array}\right] & \left[\begin{array}{c} s_1\otimes r_2 \\ f_1 \otimes f_2 \end{array}\right] \end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ defines the unitary element that gives the equivalence. It will be convenient to omit the zero entries, when possible. For example, we write ${{\mathcal{K}}}(E,S)$ instead of ${{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right], \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0 \\ S & 0 \end{array}\right]\right)$.\ A (*Toeplitz*) *representation* of ${}_A X_A$ into a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra $B$, is a pair $(\pi,t)$, where $\pi\colon A \rightarrow B$ is a $*$-homomorphism and $t\colon X \rightarrow B$ is a linear map, such that $\pi(a)t(\xi)=t(\phi_X(a)(\xi))$ and $t(\xi)^*t(\eta)=\pi({\left\langle\xi,\eta\right\rangle}_X)$, for $a\in A$ and $\xi,\eta\in X$. An application of the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-identity shows that $t(\xi)\pi(a)=t(\xi a)$ is also valid. A representation $(\pi , t)$ is said to be *injective* if $\pi$ is injective; in that case $t$ is an isometry. The ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra generated by a representation $(\pi,t)$ equals the closed linear span of $t^n(\bar{\xi})t^m(\bar{\eta})^*$, where for simplicity $\bar{\xi} \equiv \xi_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \xi_n \in X^{\otimes n}$ and $t^n(\bar{\xi})\equiv t(\xi_1)\dots t(\xi_n)$. For any representation $(\pi,t)$ there exists a $*$-homomorphism $\psi_t:{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)\rightarrow B$, such that $\psi_t(\Theta^X_{\xi,\eta})= t(\xi)t(\eta)^*$. Let $J$ be an ideal in $\phi_X^{-1}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X))$; we say that a representation $(\pi,t)$ is $J$-coisometric if $\psi_t(\phi_X(a))=\pi(a), \text{ for any } a\in J$. Following [@Kats04], the $J_{X}$-coisometric representations $(\pi,t)$, for $$\begin{aligned} J_X=\ker\phi_X^\bot \cap \phi_X^{-1}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X)),\end{aligned}$$ are called *covariant representations*. The *Toeplitz-Cuntz-Pimsner algebra* ${{\mathcal{T}}}_X$ is the universal ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra for “all” representations of $X$, and the *Cuntz-Pimsner algebra* ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X$ is the universal ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra for “all” covariant representations of $X$. The *tensor algebra* ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{X}^+$ is the norm-closed algebra generated by the universal copy of $A$ and $X$ in ${{\mathcal{T}}}_X$. If $X$ is an $A$-$B$-correspondence, then we may identify $X$ with the $(A\oplus B)$-correspondence $\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & X \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$ and thus define the Toeplitz-Cuntz-Pimsner, the Cuntz-Pimsner and the tensor algebra of $X$ as the corresponding algebras of the $(A\oplus B)$-correspondence $\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & X \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$.\ If $X$ is a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence, then $X^*$ may not be a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence (in the usual right-side sense) but it can be described as follows: if $(\pi_u,t_u)$ is the universal representation of ${}_A X_A$, then $X^*$ is the closed linear span of $t(\xi)^*, \xi \in X$ with the left multiplication and inner product inherited by the correspondence ${\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi_u,t_u)$. Nevertheless, $X^*$ is an imprimitivity bimodule, whenever $X$ is. \[Ex:imp\] Dilations of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences {#S:shifts} ============================================= For ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences ${}_A X_A$ and ${}_B Y_B$ we write $X \lesssim Y$ when $X$ is unitarily equivalent to a subcorrespondence of $Y$. In other words there is a $*$-injective representation $\pi\colon A \rightarrow B$, a $\pi(A)$-$\pi(A)$- subcorrespondence $Y_0$ of $Y$ and a unitary $u\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X, Y_0)$ such that $u:X \rightarrow Y_0$, where $X$ is (now) considered a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence over $\pi(A)$. Here we do not impose $u$ to be an isometry in ${{\mathcal{L}}}(X,Y)$, i.e., that $u$ has a complemented range in $Y$ [@Lan95 Theorem 3.2]. What we ask is that $u$ is an isometric map and $X \approx_{(\pi,u)} Y_0 \subseteq Y$, in terms of the representation theory of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. Pimsner Dilations of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences ----------------------------------------------------- Given an injective ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence $X$ there is a natural way to pass to an injective Hilbert bimodule $X_\infty $, such that $X_\infty$ is a dilation of $X$. This construction was first introduced by Pimsner in [@Pim97]. In [@KakKat11 Appendix A] we revisited such a construction by using direct limits. As it appears both constructions produce the same essential Hilbert bimodule, something that is not proved in [@KakKat11 Appendix A]. Below we give a brief description (slightly corrected) and the appropriate identification. As we will show, Pimsner dilation is uniquely characterized by a minimal condition, analogously to minimal *maximal* representations of non-selfadjoint operator algebras. For Pimsner’s dilation as in [@Pim97] fix an injective covariant pair $(\pi,t)$ of $X$ that admits a gauge actions, and let $$A_\infty:= {{\mathcal{O}}}_X^\be= E({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) \equiv \pi(A) + \overline{\{ \psi_{t^n}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) \mid n\geq 1\}}.$$ Define $X_\infty := \overline{t(X) \cdot A_\infty}$, where “$\cdot$” denotes the usual multiplication of operators. Then $X_\infty$ is an $A_\infty$-subcorrespondence of ${\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi,t)$ and $J_{X_\infty} = \overline{\{ \psi_{t^n}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) \mid n\geq 1\}}$. An approximate identity in $\psi_t({{\mathcal{K}}}(X))$ is an approximate identity of $J_{X_\infty}$, and one can show that $J_{X_\infty}$ is essential in $A$. Even more $X_\infty$ is an (essential) Hilbert bimodule with ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{X_\infty} \simeq {{\mathcal{O}}}_X$. This is mainly [@Pim97 Theorem 2.5], when using the identification $X_\infty \approx X \otimes_A A_\infty$. Note that $A_\infty$ and $X_\infty$ do not depend on the choice of $(\pi,t)$. For the dilation as in [@KakKat11 Appendix A], let the isometric mapping $\tau\colon X \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X,X^{\otimes 2})$, such that $\tau_\xi(\eta)=\xi \otimes \eta$, and consider the direct limits [$$\begin{aligned} X \stackrel{\tau}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{L}}}(X, X^{\otimes 2}) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_X}}{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow \varinjlim ({{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n}, X^{\otimes n+1}), \otimes{{\operatorname{id}}}_X)=:Y\\ A \stackrel{\phi_X}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{L}}}(X) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_X}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes 2}) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_X}}{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow \varinjlim ( {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n}), \otimes{{\operatorname{id}}}_X)=:B\end{aligned}$$ ]{} If $r\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n})$, $s\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n},X^{\otimes n+1})$ and $[r], [s]$ are their equivalence classes in $B$ and $Y$ respectively, then we define $[s]\cdot [r]:= [sr]$. From this, it is easy to define a right $B$-action on $Y$. Similarly, we may define a $B$-valued right inner product on $Y$ by setting $$\begin{aligned} {\left\langle[s'],[s]\right\rangle}_Y \equiv [(s')^*s] \in B.\end{aligned}$$ for $s, s' \in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n},X^{\otimes n+1})$, $n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, and then extending to $Y \times Y$. Finally, we define a $*$-homomorphism $\phi_Y \colon B \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(Y)$ by setting $$\begin{aligned} \phantom{XXX} \phi_Y([r])([s]) \equiv [rs], \quad r\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n}), s\in {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n-1},X^{\otimes n}), n\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ and extending to all of $B$ by continuity. We therefore have a left $B$-action on $Y$ and thus $Y$ becomes a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence over $B$. Let $Y_0$ be the subspace of $Y$ generated by the copies of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}, X^{\otimes n+1})$, for $n\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$ and $B_0$ be the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-subalgebra of $B$ that is generated by the copies of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})$, for $n\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$. Then $Y_0$ is a $B_0$-subcorrespondence of $Y$, that contains ${}_A X_A$. In particular, when $\phi_X(A) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ then $\tau(X) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(X,X^{\otimes 2})$ and Lemma \[L:compact ten pr\] implies that $$Y_0 = \varinjlim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}, X^{\otimes n+1}), \gs_n) \text{ and } B_0 = \varinjlim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}), \rho_n),$$ where $\gs_0 = \tau$, $\rho_0=\phi_X$ and $\gs_n = \rho_n = \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X$ for $n >1$. Let us sketch a proof for the unitary equivalence of $Y_0$ with $X_\infty$. Assume first that ${}_A X_A$ is regular, so $J_X =A$. Let $(\pi,t)$ be the covariant Fock representation in ${{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}(X))/ {{\mathcal{K}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}(X))$. For $k\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})$ observe that $$\psi_{t^n}(k) = 0 \oplus \cdots \oplus k \oplus (k \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X) \oplus \cdots + {{\mathcal{K}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}(X)).$$ Then the family $\{\psi_{t^n}\}$ is compatible with the directed system since $$\psi_{t^{n+1}}(k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X) - \psi_{t^n}(k) = 0 \oplus \cdots \oplus k \oplus 0 \oplus \cdots \,\, \in \, {{\mathcal{K}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}(X)),$$ thus it defines a representation of the direct limit $\varinjlim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}), \gs_n)$ into $A_\infty$. It is straightforward that it is injective and onto. Hence it induces a representation of the direct limit $\varinjlim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}, X^{\otimes n+1}), \gs_n)$, since the latter can be written as the closure of $X \cdot \varinjlim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}), \gs_n)$. In order to show that $Y_0 \approx X_\infty$ for the general case we have to prove that the family $\{\psi_{t^n}\}$ induces a $*$-isomorphism between $B_0$ and $A_\infty$. What is required is to prove that $\{\psi_{t^n}\}$ is compatible with the equivalence classes in the direct limit; hence to show that if $k\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})$ with $k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n+1})$ then $k\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n} J_X)$. This is derived by a similar argument as in the proof of [@Kats04 Proposition 5.9] and [@FMR Lemma 2.6]. [@Pim97 Theorem 2.5], [@KakKat11 Theorem 6.6] \[T:inj\] Let $X$ be an injective ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence and let $X_{\infty}$ be the $A_\infty$-correspondence constructed above. Then $X_{\infty}$ is an essential Hilbert bimodule and the Cuntz-Pimsner algebras ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{X_\infty}$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X$ coincide. In the sequel, the $A_\infty$-correspondence $X_{\infty}$ appearing in the Theorem above will be called the *Pimsner dilation of $X$*. When $X$ is non-degenerate and full, then its Pimsner dilation $X_\infty$ is also full, hence an imprimitivity bimodule. Indeed, it suffices to prove that $$\overline{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n+1}, X^{\otimes n}) {{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}, X^{\otimes n+1})}= {{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}),$$ for all $n \geq 1$. By Lemma \[L:cai for compact\], it suffices to show that ${\left\langleX^{\otimes n+1}, X^{\otimes n+1}\right\rangle}$ provides a c.a.i. for $X^{\otimes n}$. For $n=2$, $$\begin{aligned} {\left\langleX^{\otimes 2}, X^{\otimes 2}\right\rangle} = {\left\langleX, \phi_X({\left\langleX,X\right\rangle})X\right\rangle} = {\left\langleX, \phi_X(A)X\right\rangle} ={\left\langleX,X\right\rangle}=A,\end{aligned}$$ and an inductive argument completes the claim. However, when $X$ is not full then the previous argument fails (even when $X$ is non-degenerate). For example, let $X$ be the non-degenerate, injective correspondence coming from the infinite tail graph $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{ \bullet^{v_0} & \bullet^{v_1} \ar@/_/[l]_{e_0} & \bullet^{v_2} \ar@/_/[l]_{e_1} & \cdots \ar@/_/[l]_{e_2} }\end{aligned}$$ Then ${\left\langleX,X\right\rangle}= A \setminus {{\mathbb{C}}}\de_{v_0}$, thus $X_0:= \phi_X({\left\langleX,X\right\rangle})X= X\setminus {{\mathbb{C}}}\xi_{e_0}$, therefore ${\left\langleX^{\otimes 2}, X^{\otimes 2}\right\rangle} = {\left\langleX,X_0\right\rangle}= {\left\langleX_0, X_0\right\rangle}= A\setminus \overline{{\mathop{\rm span}}}\{\de_{v_0}, \de_{v_1}\}$. Hence we obtain that $X {\left\langleX^{\otimes 2}, X^{\otimes 2}\right\rangle}= X {\left\langleX_0,X_0\right\rangle} = X_0 \cdot \big( A\setminus \overline{{\mathop{\rm span}}}\{\de_{v_0}, \de_{v_1}\}\big) = X_0 \varsubsetneq X$. \[Ex:dil dyn\] $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{ A \ar[r]^{\ga} \ar[d]^\ga & A \ar[r]^{\ga} \ar[d]^\ga & A \ar[r]^{\ga} \ar[d]^\ga & \cdots \ar[r] & A_\infty \ar[d]^{\ga_\infty} \\ A \ar[r]^\ga & A \ar[r]^\ga & A \ar[r]^\ga & \cdots \ar[r] & A_\infty }\end{aligned}$$ In analogy, we introduce a “minimality condition” that ${}_A X_A$ has as a subcorrespondence of an injective ${}_B Y_B$. This will be that $X\cdot B$ is dense in $Y$. Note that this assumption excludes trivial extensions. Indeed, if there was a submodule $Z$ of $Y$ such that $Z\perp X$, then $Z \perp (X\cdot B)$, therefore $Z \perp Y$, hence $Z=\{0\}$. \[L:cov\] Let ${}_A X_A$ be an injective sub-correspondence of an injective correspondence ${}_B Y_B$ such that $Y=\overline{X \cdot B}$. Then $J_X \subseteq J_Y$. Consequently, every covariant pair $(\pi,t)$ of ${}_B Y_B$ defines a covariant pair $(\pi|_A,t|_X)$ for ${}_A X_A$, therefore ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X \subseteq {{\mathcal{O}}}_Y$. Since $X$ and $Y$ are injective we obtain that $J_X = \phi^{-1}_X({{\mathcal{K}}}(X))$ and $J_Y = \phi^{-1}_Y({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y))$. Let $a\in J_X$. Then $\phi_X(a)=k \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ and we can view $k$ as an operator in ${{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)$ of the same form. Then for every $\xi \in X$ and $b\in B$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \phi_Y(a)(\xi \cdot b) = \phi_Y(a)(\xi) b = \phi_X(a)(\xi)b = k(\xi)b = k(\xi \cdot b).\end{aligned}$$ By assumption $X\cdot B$ is dense in $Y$, hence $\phi_Y(a)(y)=k(y)$ for all $y\in Y$. Therefore $\phi_Y(a)=k \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)$, which implies that $a\in J_Y$. For the second part of the proof, let $(\pi,t)$ be a covariant pair for $Y$ and note that $\psi_{t|_X}(k) = \psi_t(k)$ for every $k\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)$. Indeed, for $\xi, \eta \in X$, $$\begin{aligned} \psi_{t|_X}(\Theta^X_{\xi,\eta}) = t|_X(\xi)t|_X(\eta)^* = t(\xi)t(\eta)^* = \psi_t(\Theta^Y_{\xi,\eta}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus for $a\in J_X$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \pi|_A(a)=\pi(a) = \psi_t(\phi_Y(a))=\psi_t(k) = \psi_{t|_X}(k) = \psi_{t|_X}(\phi_X(a))\end{aligned}$$ therefore $(\pi|_A,t|_X)$ is a covariant pair for $X$. Moreover, a gauge action $\{\be_z\}$ for $(\pi,t)$ is inherited to $(\pi|_A,t|_X)$ and the proof is complete. \[T:min sub\] The Pimsner dilation $X_\infty$ of an injective correspondence $X$ is a minimal Hilbert bimodule that contains $X$ as a subcorrespondence. Let ${}_B Y_B$ be a Hilbert bimodule such that $X \preceq Y \preceq X_\infty$. Up to unitary equivalence, we can assume that $X\subseteq Y \subseteq X_\infty$ as subcorrespondences, hence $A \subseteq B \subseteq A_\infty$ as subalgebras. In particular $\phi_\infty|_Y=\phi_Y$ and ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(X_\infty)$. It suffices to prove that $B=A_\infty$, because then $$X_\infty = \overline{X \cdot A_\infty} \subseteq \overline{Y \cdot A_\infty} = \overline{Y \cdot B} = Y \subseteq X_\infty,$$ hence $Y=X_\infty$, where the symbol “$\cdot$” denotes the right action for $X_\infty$. *Claim.* The ideal $J_Y$ of $B$ is contained in the ideal $J_\infty$ of $A_\infty$. *Proof of Claim.* Recall that $X_\infty$ is injective, thus $J_\infty = \phi^{-1}_\infty({{\mathcal{K}}}(X_\infty))$. Let $b\in J_Y = \phi_Y^{-1}({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)) \cap \ker\phi_Y^\perp$; in particular there is a $k_Y \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)$ such that $\phi_Y(b)=k_Y$. The compact operator $k_Y$ can be also viewed as a compact operator $k_\infty$ in ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X_\infty)$ (of the same form) and it suffices to show that $\phi_\infty(b)=k_\infty$. To this end let an element $\eta \in X_\infty$; by the form of $X_\infty$ we can assume that $\eta=\xi \cdot a$, for some $\xi \in X$ and $a\in A_\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \phi_\infty(b)(\xi \cdot a) = \phi_\infty(b)(\xi)\cdot a & = \phi_\infty(b)|_Y(\xi) \cdot a = \phi_Y(b)(\xi)\cdot a \\ & = k_Y(\xi)\cdot a = k_\infty(\xi)\cdot a = k_\infty(\xi \cdot a),\end{aligned}$$ where we use the fact that $\xi \in Y$. Fix an injective covariant pair $(\pi,t)$ of $X_\infty$ that admits a gauge action. Since $J_X, J_Y \subseteq J_\infty$, then ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X ={\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi|_A,t|_X)$, ${{\mathcal{O}}}_Y={\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi|_B,t|_Y)$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{X_\infty}={\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi,t)$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \pi(A) \subseteq \pi(B) \subseteq \pi(A_\infty) = \pi(A) + \overline{{\mathop{\rm span}}} \{ \psi_{(t|_X)^n}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) \mid n\geq 1 \}.\end{aligned}$$ Showing that $\psi_{(t|_X)^n}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) \subseteq \pi(B)$, for every $n \geq 1$, will complete the proof. By assumption $Y$ is a Hilbert bimodule, therefore $\psi_{t|_Y}({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y^{\otimes n})) \subseteq \pi(B)$ for all $n\geq 1$. But then $$\begin{aligned} \psi_{(t|_{X})^n} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) & = \psi_{t^n} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) \subseteq \psi_{t^n} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y^{\otimes n}))\\ & = \psi_{(t|_Y)^n} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y^{\otimes n})) \subseteq \pi(B),\end{aligned}$$ for every $n\geq 1$, which completes the proof. \[T:minimal dilation\] Let ${}_A X_A$ be an injective correspondence. Then the Pimsner dilation is contained in any correspondence ${}_B Y_B$ that satisfies: 1. $X$ is a subcorrespondence of $Y$, 2. $Y$ is an essential Hilbert bimodule, 3. $Y=\overline{X \cdot B}$, where “$\cdot$” denotes the right action in $Y$ that extends the right action of $A$. As proved, $X_\infty$ is such a correspondence. In order to show that $X_\infty$ is a subcorrespondence of a $Y$ that satisfies the above, it suffices to prove that $A_\infty \subseteq B$. Indeed, then $$X_\infty = \overline{X \cdot A_\infty} \subseteq \overline{X \cdot B} = Y,$$ where “$\cdot$” denotes the right action in $Y$. Fix an injective covariant pair $(\pi,t)$ of $Y$ that admits a gauge action. Then $(\pi|_A, t|_X)$ is an injective covariant pair for $X$ that admits a gauge action by Lemma \[L:cov\], and $$A_\infty \simeq \pi(A) + \overline{{\mathop{\rm span}}}\{ \psi_{(t|_X)^n} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n}))\mid n \geq 1\}.$$ Since $Y$ is a Hilbert bimodule, then $\phi_Y(J_Y)={{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)$. Thus $$\begin{aligned} \psi_{t|_X}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X)) = \psi_t({{\mathcal{K}}}(X)) \subseteq \psi_t({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)) = \psi_t(\phi_Y(J_Y))=\pi(J_Y) \subseteq \pi(B).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \psi_{(t|_X)^2}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes 2})) & \subseteq \overline{t(X)\psi_{t|_X}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X)) t(X)^*} \subseteq \overline{t(X) \pi(B) t(X)^*}\\ & = \overline{t(X \cdot B) t(X)^*} \subseteq \overline{t(Y)t(Y)^*} = \psi_t({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)) \subseteq \pi(B).\end{aligned}$$ Inductively, we get that $\psi_{(t|_X)^n}({{\mathcal{K}}}(X^{\otimes n})) \subseteq \pi(B)$, for all $n \geq 1$. Trivially $\pi(A) \subseteq \pi(B)$ since $X$ is a subcorrespondence of $Y$, therefore $A_\infty$ is ($*$-isomorphic to) a subalgebra of $\pi(B)$, hence $A_\infty \subseteq B$. Moreover the Pimsner dilation of an injective ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence is the unique minimal dilation of $X$. \[T:main 7\] Let ${}_A X_A$ be an injective subcorrespondence of some ${}_B Y_B$. Then $Y \approx X_\infty$ if and only if 1. $Y$ is an essential Hilbert bimodule, 2. $Y=\overline{X \cdot B}$, 3. ${{\mathcal{O}}}_Y = {{\mathcal{O}}}_X$. Then $Y_B$ is minimal as a Hilbert bimodule containing $X_A$, automatically. As in the proof of Theorem \[T:main 6\] it suffices to show that $B\simeq A_\infty$. To this end fix an injective covariant pair $(\pi,t)$ of $Y$ that admits a gauge action. Then $(\pi|_A,t|_X)$ is an injective covariant pair of $X$ that inherits the gauge action of $(\pi,t)$ by restriction, and we can assume that ${\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi|_A,t_X)= {{\mathcal{O}}}_X ={{\mathcal{O}}}_Y= {\mathrm{C}^*}(\pi,t)$. Therefore $A_\infty$ is $*$-isomorphic to the fixed point algebra ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X^{\be}$. Since ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X= {{\mathcal{O}}}_Y$ and $Y_B$ is a Hilbert bimodule we obtain $$A_\infty \simeq {{\mathcal{O}}}_X^\be = E({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = E({{\mathcal{O}}}_Y) = \pi(B).$$ Therefore $A_\infty \simeq B$ and the proof is complete. Dilations for Compacts ---------------------- The construction of the Pimsner dilation applies to more general settings. Indeed, let $X, Y$ be Hilbert $A$-modules and let ${}_A Z_B$ be a regular correspondence. By Lemma \[L:compact ten pr\], one can form the following directed systems [$$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes Z, Y\otimes Z) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z}}{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow \varinjlim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes Z^{\otimes n}, Y \otimes Z^{\otimes n}), \otimes{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)\\ {{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes Z) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z}}{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow \varinjlim ( {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes Z^{\otimes n}), \otimes{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z) \\ {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y\otimes Z) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z}}{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow \varinjlim ( {{\mathcal{K}}}(Y \otimes Z^{\otimes n}), \otimes{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z).\end{aligned}$$ ]{}For simplicity, we will write $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ for the direct limit $$\begin{aligned} \varinjlim \left( {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes Z^{\otimes n}, Y \otimes Z^{\otimes n}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z\right).\end{aligned}$$ By imitating the proofs in [@KakKat11 Appendix A] and Lemma \[L:compact ten pr\], we see that $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ is a ${{\mathcal{K}}}(Y)_\infty$-${{\mathcal{K}}}(X)_\infty$-correspondence, which will be called *the dilation of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)$ by $Z$*, or more simply the *$Z$-dilation of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)$*. If, in addition, ${\left\langleX\otimes Z^{\otimes n},X\otimes Z^{\otimes n}\right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n}$, for every $n\geq 0$, then by Example \[E:K(X,Y)\] and Lemma \[L:cai for compact\] $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ is a regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence. In the case of a regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence ${}_A X_A$, the Pimsner dilation $X_\infty$ is simply the $X$-dilation of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X,X^{\otimes 2})$, which is always regular. \[P:wz=zw\] Let $X,Y$ be Hilbert $A$-modules and $Z, W$ be regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences over $A$. If $Z \otimes_A W \approx W \otimes_A Z$, then $$\begin{aligned} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \lesssim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A W, Y\otimes_A W), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We will identify $Z \otimes W$ with $W \otimes Z$. Since $Z$ commutes with $W$ the diagram[$$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{ {{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y) \ar^{{{\operatorname{id}}}_{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)}}[d] \ar^{{{\operatorname{id}}}_{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y)}}[r] & {{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_W} }[d] \ar^{{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} } \ }[r] & {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes Z, Y \otimes Z) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_W} }[d] \ar^{\qquad \otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }[r] & \dots \\ {{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_W} \qquad }[r] &{{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes W, Y\otimes W) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} \qquad}[r] & {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes W \otimes Z, Y \otimes W \otimes Z) \ar^{\qquad \qquad \qquad \otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }[r] & \dots }\end{aligned}$$ ]{} is commutative and defines a linear map $$\begin{aligned} s\colon ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \rightarrow ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A W, Y\otimes_A W), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ That is, if $[k]\in ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$, such that $k \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes Z^{\otimes n}, Y \otimes Z^{\otimes n})$ then [$$\begin{aligned} k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_W \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes Z^{\otimes n} \otimes W, Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n} \otimes W) = {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes W \otimes Z^{\otimes n}, Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n}),\end{aligned}$$ ]{}and we define $s[k]= [k \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_W]$. Note that $s$ is defined on $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ and on $({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ in the analogous way. For example we get the commutative diagram [$$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{ {{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \ar^{{{\operatorname{id}}}_{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)}}[d] \ar^{{{\operatorname{id}}}_{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)}}[r] & {{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_W} }[d] \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} \ }[r] & {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes Z) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_W} }[d] \ar^{\qquad \otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }[r] & \dots \\ {{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_W} }[r] &{{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes W) \ar^{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} \quad}[r] & {{\mathcal{K}}}(X \otimes W \otimes Z) \ar^{\qquad \quad \otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }[r] & \dots }\end{aligned}$$]{} It is a matter of routine computations to show that $s$ is a $({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$-$({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$-mapping. What is left to show is that $s$ is also a unitary onto its range. It suffices to prove this at the $n$-th level. For $k_1, k_2 \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes Z^{\otimes n},Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n})$, then $$\begin{aligned} {\left\langles[k_1], s[k_2]\right\rangle} & = {\left\langle[k_1 \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{ W}], [k_2\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{W}]\right\rangle} = [k_1 \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{W}]^* [k_2 \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{W}]\\ & = [(k_1^*\circ k_2)\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{W}] = [(k_1^*\circ k_2)]= {\left\langle[k_1], [k_2]\right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where we have identified $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ with its image via $s$. For the proof of the following Proposition, recall that there is a major difference between isometric mappings of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences and mappings of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences that are isometries (of Hilbert modules). However, when an isometric mapping is also onto then it is a unitary between Hilbert modules. \[P:tens reg shifts\] Let $X, Y, W$ be Hilbert $A$-modules and $Z$ be a regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence over $A$. If the ideal ${\left\langleX\otimes Z^{\otimes n},X\otimes Z^{\otimes n}\right\rangle}$ of $A$ provides a right c.a.i. for $Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n}$, for all $n \geq 0$, then $$\begin{aligned} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \otimes_{({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \approx ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W, Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ In order to “visualize” the proof, imagine that we multiply “vertically” and term by term the correspondences $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z, Y\otimes_A Z) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow({{\mathcal{K}}}(X, Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty\\ {{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes_A Z, X\otimes_A Z) \stackrel{\otimes{{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z} }{\longrightarrow} \dots &\longrightarrow ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W, X), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty\end{aligned}$$ in the order ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}, Y\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}) \cdot {{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}, X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$. We consider ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes Z^{\otimes n})$, ${{\mathcal{K}}}(Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n})$ and ${{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes Z^{\otimes n})$ as ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-subalgebras of $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$, $({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ and $({{\mathcal{K}}}(W),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$, respectively, for every $n\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$. The proof is divided into two parts. For the first part of the proof note that for every $n \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$, the Banach space ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}, Y\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$ (resp. ${{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}, X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$) is an injective ${{\mathcal{K}}}(Y\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$-${{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$-correspondence (resp. a ${{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$-${{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})$-correspondence) in the obvious way. Set [$$\begin{aligned} {{\mathfrak{A}}}_n:= {{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}, Y\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}) \otimes_{{{\mathcal{K}}}(X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})} {{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n}, X\otimes_A Z^{\otimes n})\end{aligned}$$ ]{}For every $n \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$, the mapping $$\begin{aligned} \rho_n\colon {{\mathfrak{A}}}_n \rightarrow {{\mathfrak{A}}}_{n+1}: k \otimes t \mapsto (k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)\otimes (t\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z),\end{aligned}$$ is isometric on sums of elementary tensors and therefore extends to the closures. Thus ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_n \lesssim {{\mathfrak{A}}}_{n+1}$, and we can form the direct limit ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathfrak{A}}}_0 \stackrel{\rho_0 }{\longrightarrow} {{\mathfrak{A}}}_1 \stackrel{\rho_1 }{\longrightarrow} {{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 \stackrel{\rho_2 }{\longrightarrow} \dots \longrightarrow \varinjlim({{\mathfrak{A}}}_n,\rho_n),\end{aligned}$$ which is a $({{\mathcal{K}}}(Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$-$({{\mathcal{K}}}(W),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$-correspondence. Now the mappings [$$\begin{aligned} \phi_n\colon {{\mathfrak{A}}}_n \rightarrow ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \otimes_{({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty : k\otimes t \mapsto [k]\otimes [t]\end{aligned}$$ ]{}are compatible with the directed system and define a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence mapping $$\begin{aligned} \phi\colon \varinjlim({{\mathfrak{A}}}_n,\rho_n) \rightarrow ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \otimes_{({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty,\end{aligned}$$ which is isometric since every $\phi_{n+1}$ is. Thus $$\begin{aligned} \varinjlim({{\mathfrak{A}}}_n,\rho_n) \lesssim({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \otimes_{({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty,\end{aligned}$$ via $\phi$. However $({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \otimes_{({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ is spanned by the elements $[k]\otimes[t]$ for $k\otimes t\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}_n$. Therefore $\phi$ is onto and so $$\begin{aligned} \varinjlim({{\mathfrak{A}}}_n,\rho_n) \approx ({{\mathcal{K}}}(X,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty \otimes_{({{\mathcal{K}}}(X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,X),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty\end{aligned}$$ For the second part of the proof we construct an isometric map from $\varinjlim({{\mathfrak{A}}}_n,\rho_n)$ onto $({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$. Start by defining the maps $$\begin{aligned} u_n\colon {{\mathfrak{A}}}_n \rightarrow ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W, Y), {{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty: k\otimes t \mapsto [kt].\end{aligned}$$ These are well defined since $kt\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(W\otimes Z^{\otimes n}, Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n})$ and $$\begin{aligned} u_n((k\cdot a) \otimes t)= [(k\cdot a)t]= [k(a\cdot t)]= u_n(k\otimes (a \cdot t)),\end{aligned}$$ due to the associativity of the multiplication. Also, the maps $u_n$ are isometric and compatible with the direct sequence. Therefore the family $\{u_n\}$ defines an isometric map $u$ from the direct limit into $({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$, which extends to a mapping of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. Thus ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_n \lesssim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$ and so $\varinjlim({{\mathfrak{A}}}_n,\rho_n) \lesssim ({{\mathcal{K}}}(W,Y),{{\operatorname{id}}}_Z)_\infty$. Finally note that the assumption that the ideals ${\left\langleX\otimes Z^{\otimes n}, X \otimes Z^{\otimes n}\right\rangle}$ provide a c.a.i. for each $Y\otimes Z^{\otimes n}$, combined with Lemma \[L:cai for compact\], implies that the isometric maps $u_n$ are onto and hence $u$ is onto. Relations associated with ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences {#S:rel} ========================================================== In [@MuhSol00] Muhly and Solel introduced the notion of Morita equivalence of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. This concept generalizes the notion of outer conjugacy for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-dynamical systems [@MuhSol00 Proposition 2.4]. \[D:sme\] Muhly and Solel [@MuhSol00] examined this relation under the assumption that the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences are both non-degenerate and injective. Nevertheless, non-degeneracy is automatically implied. Indeed, if $E {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $M$, then $$\begin{aligned} E \approx E \otimes_A A \approx E \otimes_A M \otimes_B M^* \approx M\otimes_B F \otimes_B M^* \approx M\otimes_B (F \otimes_B M^*),\end{aligned}$$ and Lemma \[L:sme non-deg\] implies that $E$ is non-degenerate. A symmetrical argument applies for $F$. In [@MuPasTom08] Muhly, Pask and Tomforde introduced the notion of elementary strong shift equivalence between ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences that generalizes the corresponding notion for graphs. \[D:esse\] Elementary strong shift equivalence is obviously symmetric. Moreover it is reflexive for non-degenerate ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences; indeed, $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}E$ via $E$ and $A$. But, it may not be transitive as [@Wil74 Example 2] shows[^4]. Nevertheless, we have the following proposition. \[P:condition trans\] Let ${}_A E_A, {}_B F_B$ and ${}_C G_C$ be ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. Assume that $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $R, S$ and $F{\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}G$ via $T, Z$. If either $Z$ or $R$ is an imprimitivity bimodule, then $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}G$. For $E, F$ and $G$ as above we have that $$\begin{aligned} E\approx R \otimes_B S \, , F\approx S\otimes_A R \, , F\approx T \otimes_C Z \, , G\approx Z \otimes_B T.\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $Z$ is an imprimitivity bimodule (a symmetric argument can be used if $R$ is an imprimitivity bimodule). Then by Lemma \[L:imprimitivity\] $Z^*\otimes_C Z \approx B$ and $Z \otimes_B Z^* \approx C$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} (Z \otimes_B S) \otimes_A (R \otimes_B Z^*) & \approx Z \otimes_B (S\otimes_A R) \otimes_B Z^* \approx Z \otimes_B F \otimes_B Z^* \\ & \approx Z \otimes_B T \otimes_C Z \otimes_B Z^* \approx Z \otimes_B T \otimes_C C \\ & \approx Z\otimes_B (T\cdot C) = Z \otimes_B T \approx G.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned} (R \otimes_B Z^*) \otimes_C (Z \otimes_B S) \approx R \otimes_B B \otimes_B S = (R \cdot B) \otimes_B S = R\otimes_B S \approx E,\end{aligned}$$ hence $E{\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}G$, which completes the proof. Following Williams [@Wil74] we denote by ${{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$ the *transitive closure of the relation ${\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}$*. That is, $E {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$ if there are $n$ ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences $T_i$, $i=0,\dots,n$ such that $T_0=E$, $T_n= F$ and $T_i {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}T_{i+1}$. There is also another relation between ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences inspired by Williams’ work [@Wil74]. \[D:se\] $$\begin{aligned} &\text{\textup{(i)}}\quad E^{\otimes m} \approx R \otimes_A S ,\ F^{\otimes m} \approx S \otimes_B R,\\ &\text{\textup{(ii)}}\quad S\otimes_A E\approx F \otimes S,\ E\otimes_A R \approx R \otimes_B F.\end{aligned}$$ If $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$ with lag $m$, then by replacing $S$ with $S\otimes_A E^{\otimes k}$ we obtain another shift equivalence of lag $m+k$, i.e., there is a shift equivalence of lag $L$ for every $L \geq m$. In contrast to elementary strong shift equivalence, shift equivalence is an equivalence relation for the class of arbitrary ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. \[P:se is trans\] Shift equivalence is an equivalence relation. Note that $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}E$ with lag $2$ and $R=S=E$, and it is clear that shift equivalence is symmetric. If $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$ with lag $m$ via $R, S$ and $F {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}G$ with lag $n$ via $V, U$, then $E{\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}G$ with lag $mn+m$ via $$\begin{aligned} \underbrace{R \otimes V \otimes U \otimes \cdots \otimes V}_{V \text{ is repeated } m \text{ times}}\, \text{ and } \, U\otimes S,\end{aligned}$$ which shows that ${\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}$ is transitive. \[T:main 1\] Let ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ be ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. Then $$\begin{aligned} E {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F \, \Rightarrow \, E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F \, \Rightarrow \, E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F \, \Rightarrow \, E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that when $E{\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$ then $E,F$ are non-degenerate. Let $R\equiv E\otimes M$ and $S \equiv M^*$. By Lemma \[L:technical\], $$\begin{aligned} R\otimes_B S & \approx E \otimes_A M \otimes_{B} M^* \approx E\otimes_A A \approx E,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} S \otimes_A R & \approx M^* \otimes_{A} E\otimes_A M \approx M^* \otimes_A M\otimes_B F \approx B\otimes_B F \approx F.\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}$ implies ${\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}$. Trivially ${\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}$ implies ${{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}$. To complete the proof assume that $E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$, i.e., there are $T_i$, $i=0,\dots,n$, such that $T_i {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}T_{i+1}$, where $T_0=E$ and $T_n= F$. Then one can directly verify that $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$ with lag $n$, via $R= R_1 \otimes \dots \otimes R_n$ and $S= S_n \otimes \dots \otimes S_1$. Muhly, Pask and Tomforde [@MuPasTom08] provide a number of examples to show that strong Morita equivalence differs from elementary strong shift equivalence. In Theorem \[T:main 1\] above we prove that in fact it is stronger. Nevertheless, the following result shows that under certain circumstances, the two notions coincide. \[P:sse gives sme\] Let ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ be ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences and assume that $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $R, S$. If either $R$ or $S$ is an imprimitivity bimodule, then $E{\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$. When $E{\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $R, S$ then $E \otimes_A R \approx R\otimes_B S \otimes_A R \approx R\otimes_B F$ (analogously $S\otimes_B E \approx F \otimes_B S$). Passing to Pimsner Dilations {#S:equiv} ============================ In this section we show that if $\sim$ is any of the four relations defined in the previous section, then $E \sim F$ implies $E_\infty \sim F_\infty$, under the standing hypothesis that $E$ and $F$ are regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. Our study is based on the concept of a *bipartite inflation*, an insightful construct originating in the work of Muhly, Pask and Tomforde [@MuPasTom08]. Assume that ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ are ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences which are elementary strong shift equivalent via ${}_A R_B$ and ${}_B S_A$. Let $X= \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & R\\ S & 0 \end{array}\right]$ be *the bipartite inflation of $S$ by $R$*. By Lemma \[L:technical\], we obtain[^5] $$X^{\otimes 2}= \left[\begin{array}{c|c} R\otimes_B S & 0\\ 0 & S\otimes_A R \end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right].$$ By induction and Lemma \[L:technical\], $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: powers} X^{\otimes 2k}= \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes k} & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes k} \end{array}\right], \quad X^{\otimes 2k +1} = \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0& E^{\otimes k}\otimes_A R\\ F^{\otimes k} \otimes_B S & 0 \end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ for all $k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$. In particular, if $E$ and $F$ are regular (resp. non-degenerate) then $R$ and $S$, and consequently $X$ and $X^{\otimes 2}$, are regular (resp. non-degenerate) as shown in [@MuPasTom08]. \[P:technical\] Let $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $R,S$. Then, for $k\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$, $(1)$ ${\left\langle E^{\otimes k}\otimes R, E^{\otimes k}\otimes R \right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $F^{\otimes k+1}$, $(2)$ ${\left\langle F^{\otimes k}\otimes S, F^{\otimes k}\otimes S \right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $E^{\otimes k+1}$. Let $X$ be the bipartite inflation of $S$ by $R$ and let $k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$. By Lemma \[L:cai ten pr\] we have that ${\left\langleX^{\otimes 2k +1},X^{\otimes 2k +1}\right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $X^{\otimes 2k+2}=X \otimes X^{\otimes 2k+1}$. However, $$X^{\otimes 2k+2}= \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes k+1} & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes k+1} \end{array}\right]$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &{\left\langleX^{\otimes 2k +1},X^{\otimes 2k +1}\right\rangle}= \\ &= {\left\langle\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0& E^{\otimes k}\otimes_A R\\ F^{\otimes k} \otimes_B S & 0 \end{array}\right], \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0& E^{\otimes k}\otimes_A R\\ F^{\otimes k} \otimes_B S & 0 \end{array}\right]\right\rangle}\\ &= {\left\langleF^{\otimes k}\otimes S, F^{\otimes k}\otimes S\right\rangle}\oplus {\left\langleE^{\otimes k}\otimes R, E^{\otimes k}\otimes R\right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof. We will make use of the dilation $X_\infty$ of the bipartite inflation of $S$ by $R$. Let $(A\oplus B)_\infty$ be the direct limit ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra of the following directed system [$$\begin{aligned} \left[\begin{array}{c|c} A & 0\\ 0 & B \end{array}\right] & \stackrel{\rho_0}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & R\\ S & 0 \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_1}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_2}{\longrightarrow} \\ & \stackrel{\rho_2}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E \otimes R\\ F \otimes S & 0 \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_3}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes 2} & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes 2} \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_4}{\longrightarrow} \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $$\begin{aligned} &\rho_0=\phi_X \colon A={{\mathcal{L}}}(A)\longrightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X),\\ &\rho_n=\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X \colon {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n}) \longrightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n+1})\colon r \longmapsto r\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X , \, n\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, since $X$ and $X^{\otimes 2}$ are regular, $(A \oplus B)_\infty$ is $*$-isomorphic to the direct limit ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra of the following directed system [$$\begin{aligned} &{{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} A & 0\\ 0 & B \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_1\circ \rho_0}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_3\circ \rho_2}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes 2} & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes 2} \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_5\circ\rho_4}{\longrightarrow} \cdots.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}Since $E$ and $F$ are orthogonal subcorrespondences of $X^{\otimes 2}$ we get that $(A\oplus B)_\infty= A_\infty \oplus B_\infty$ and we can write $A_\infty$ and $B_\infty$ via the following directed systems [$$\begin{aligned} A_\infty\colon \ & {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} A & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_1\circ \rho_0}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_3\circ \rho_2}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes 2} & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_5\circ\rho_4}{\longrightarrow} \cdots,\\ B_\infty \colon \ & {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & B \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_1\circ \rho_0}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_3\circ \rho_2}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes 2} \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\rho_5\circ\rho_4}{\longrightarrow} \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence $X_\infty$ is defined by the directed system [$$\begin{aligned} \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & R\\ S & 0 \end{array}\right] & \stackrel{\tau}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( \left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & R\\ S & 0 \end{array}\right], \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\sigma_1}{\longrightarrow}\\ & \stackrel{\sigma_1}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E\otimes R\\ F \otimes S & 0 \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\sigma_2}{\longrightarrow}\\ & \stackrel{\sigma_2}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E\otimes R\\ F \otimes S & 0 \end{array}\right], \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes 2} & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes 2} \end{array}\right] \right) \stackrel{\sigma_3}{\longrightarrow} \cdots\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $\tau_\xi(\eta) = \xi \otimes \eta$, and [$$\begin{aligned} \sigma_n=\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X \colon {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n}, X^{\otimes n+1}) \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X^{\otimes n+1}, X^{\otimes n+2}) \colon s \mapsto s\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_X , \, n\geq 1,\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Let $R_\infty$ be the subcorrespondence of $X_\infty$ that is generated by the copies of $$\begin{aligned} R\, , {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes k} \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E^{\otimes k} \otimes R\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ S & 0 \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \right), \, {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ F^{\otimes k}\otimes S & 0 \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes k+1} & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \right),\end{aligned}$$ for $k\geq 1$. Because of Lemma \[L:compact ten pr\], $R_\infty$ can be written alternatively as a direct limit in the following two forms $$\begin{aligned} \text{(i)} \ & R \stackrel{\tau \circ (\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X})}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(F, E\otimes R \right)\stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(F^{\otimes 2} , E^{\otimes 2}\otimes R \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} \cdots ,\\ \text{(ii)} \ & R \stackrel{\tau}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(S , E \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(F \otimes S , E^{\otimes 2} \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ where we omit the zero entries for convenience. The first form of $R_\infty$ shows that it is a Hilbert $B_\infty$-module, whereas the second form shows that the left multiplication by elements of $A_\infty$ defines a left action of $A_\infty$ on $R_\infty$. Hence $R_\infty$ is a $A_\infty$-$B_\infty$-correspondence. In a dual way we define $S_\infty$ as the subcorrespondence of $X_\infty$ generated by the copies of $$\begin{aligned} S \, , {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes k} & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes k} \otimes S \end{array}\right] \right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & R\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & F \end{array}\right] \right), \, {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E^{\otimes k}\otimes R\\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] ,\left[\begin{array}{c|c} 0 & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes k+1} \end{array}\right] \right),\end{aligned}$$ for $k\geq 1$. By using Lemma \[L:compact ten pr\] and writing $S_\infty$ as a direct limit in the following two forms $$\begin{aligned} \text{(i)} \ & S \stackrel{\tau \circ (\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X})}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(E , F \otimes S \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( E^{\otimes 2} , F^{\otimes 2}\otimes S \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} \cdots ,\\ \text{(ii)} \ & S \stackrel{\tau}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left(R , F \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( E \otimes R, F^{\otimes 2} \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ we get that $S_\infty$ becomes a $B_\infty$-$A_\infty$-correspondence. We must remark here on our use of the subscript $\infty$. For the correspondences $E, F$ we denote by $E_\infty, F_\infty$ their Pimsner dilations, whereas for $R,S$ we denote by $R_\infty, S_\infty$ the subcorrespondences in the Pimsner dilation $X_\infty$ of the (injective) bipartite inflation $X$ of $S$ by $R$. Nevertheless, when the correspondences are non-degenerate, $R_\infty$ is the $X$-dilation $({{\mathcal{K}}}(B,R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_X)_\infty$ and $S_\infty$ is the $X$-dilation $({{\mathcal{K}}}(A,S), {{\operatorname{id}}}_X)_\infty$. \[R:useful\] $$\begin{aligned} {\left\langleF^{\otimes n} \otimes S, F^{\otimes n}\otimes S\right\rangle} & = {\left\langleS \otimes E^{\otimes n}, S \otimes E^{\otimes n}\right\rangle}\\ & = {\left\langleE^{\otimes n}, \phi_{E^{\otimes n}}({\left\langleS,S\right\rangle})E^{\otimes n}\right\rangle}\\ & = {\left\langleE^{\otimes n}, \phi_{E^{\otimes n}}(A)E^{\otimes n}\right\rangle} = {\left\langleE^{\otimes n}, E^{\otimes n}\right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ \[T:main 2\] Let ${}_A E_A, {}_B F_B$ be regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$, then $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. Assume that $E, F$ are elementary strong shift equivalent via $R, S$. It suffices to prove that the interior tensor product $S_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} R_\infty$ is (unitarily equivalent to) $F_\infty$. Then, by duality, $R_\infty \otimes_{B_\infty} S_\infty$ is (unitarily equivalent to) $E_\infty$, hence $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. Towards this end we view $S_\infty$ as the $X^{\otimes 2}$-dilation of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(E\otimes R, F^{\otimes 2})$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( E\otimes R, F^{\otimes 2} \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( E^{\otimes 2}\otimes R, F^{\otimes 3} \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ and $R_\infty$ as the $X^{\otimes 2}$-dilation of ${{\mathcal{K}}}(F, E\otimes R)$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( F , E\otimes R \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} {{\mathcal{K}}}\left( F^{\otimes 2}, E^{\otimes 2}\otimes R \right) \stackrel{\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}}}{\longrightarrow} \cdots .\end{aligned}$$ Note that $A_\infty$ can be written as $({{\mathcal{K}}}(E\otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty$. By Proposition \[P:technical\], the ideal ${\left\langleE^{\otimes k} \otimes R, E^{\otimes k} \otimes R\right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $F^{\otimes k+1}$, for every $k\geq 0$. Therefore, ${\left\langleE\otimes R \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^{\otimes n},E\otimes R \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^{\otimes n}\right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $F^{\otimes 2} \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^{\otimes n}$, for every $n\geq 0$. Thus, Proposition \[P:tens reg shifts\] applies, and we obtain that $S_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} R_\infty$ is $({{\mathcal{K}}}(F, F^{\otimes 2}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty = F_\infty$. $$\begin{aligned} &(R\otimes_B S)_\infty = E_\infty = R_\infty \otimes_{B_\infty} S_\infty, \text{ \textup{and} }\\ & (S\otimes_A R)_\infty = F_\infty = S_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} R_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ An immediate consequence of Theorem \[T:main 2\] is the following. Let ${}_A E_A, {}_B F_B$ be regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If $E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$, then $E_\infty {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F_\infty$. Assume that $E {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$ via a sequence of $T_i$, for $i=0,\dots,n$. Then $T_i {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}T_{i+1}$, for $i=0,\dots,n$. By Theorem \[T:main 2\], we get that $(T_i)_\infty {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}(T_{i+1})_\infty$ for $i=0,\dots,n$. Since $T_0=E$ and $T_n=F$, then $E_\infty {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F_\infty$. We use Theorem \[T:main 2\] to understand the passage to dilations for the strong Morita equivalence. \[T:sme infty\] Let ${}_A E_A, {}_B F_B$ be regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If $E{\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$, then $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. Assume that $E {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$; then $E$ and $F$ are non-degenerate and $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $E\otimes_A M^*$ and $M$ (see Theorem \[T:main 1\]). Therefore, by Theorem \[T:main 2\], $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$ via $(E\otimes M^*)_\infty$ and $M_\infty$. Since $M$ is assumed an imprimitivity bimodule, then $M_\infty$ is also an imprimitivity bimodule by Remark \[R:useful\]. By Proposition \[P:sse gives sme\] we conclude that $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. We have arrived to the last relation to be examined when passing to Pimsner dilations. Our next Theorem is one of the central results in this paper and will enable us to obtain new information even for concrete classes of operator algebras, i.e., Cuntz-Krieger ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras. \[T:se infty\] Let ${}_A E_A, {}_B F_B$ be regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$ with lag $m$, then $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$ with lag $m$. Let $R, S$ such that $$\begin{aligned} &\text{\textup{(i)}}\quad E^{\otimes m}=R \otimes_A S, \, F^{\otimes m}=S \otimes_A R,\\ &\text{\textup{(ii)}}\quad S\otimes_A E= F \otimes_B S, \, E\otimes_A R = R \otimes_B F.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $E^{\otimes m} {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F^{\otimes m}$. Since $E$ is regular, we have $$E_\infty= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E,E^{\otimes 2}),{{\operatorname{id}}}_E)_\infty = ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E^{\otimes 2}, E^{\otimes 3}),{{\operatorname{id}}}_E)_\infty.$$ Proposition \[P:tens reg shifts\] implies that $$\begin{aligned} (E_\infty)^{\otimes 2} &= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E^{\otimes 2},E^{\otimes 3}),{{\operatorname{id}}}_E)_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E, E^{\otimes 2}),{{\operatorname{id}}}_E)_\infty \\ &= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E, E^{\otimes 3}),{{\operatorname{id}}}_E)_\infty = (E^{\otimes 2})_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ A repetitive use of this argument shows that $(E^{\otimes m})_\infty= (E^{\otimes m-1})_\infty \otimes E_\infty = (E_\infty)^{\otimes m}$. Thus, by the remark following Theorem \[T:main 2\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned} (E_{\infty})^{\otimes m}= (E^{\otimes m})_\infty = (R\otimes_B S)_\infty= R_\infty \otimes_{B_\infty} S_\infty ,\end{aligned}$$ and in a similar fashion $(F_\infty)^{\otimes m}= S_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} R_\infty$. What remains to be proved, in order to complete the proof, is that $$\begin{aligned} E_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} R_\infty = R_\infty \otimes_{B_\infty} F_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Since $E$ is regular, we get that $E_\infty$ coincides with $ ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E^{\otimes m}, E^{\otimes m+1}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{E})_\infty= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E^{\otimes m}, E^{\otimes m+1}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty, $ so $$\begin{aligned} E_\infty = ({{\mathcal{K}}}(E^{\otimes m}, E^{\otimes m+1}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty \, , R_\infty = ({{\mathcal{K}}}(S, E^{\otimes m}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where $X$ is the bipartite inflation of $R$ and $S$. Now $E^{\otimes m+ mn}= E^{\otimes m} \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^n$, $n\geq 0$, and, by Lemma \[L:cai ten pr\], the ideal ${\left\langleE^{\otimes m+ mn}, E^{\otimes m+ mn}\right\rangle}= {\left\langleE^{\otimes m}\otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^n, E^{\otimes m}\otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^n\right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $E \otimes E^{\otimes m+ mn}= E^{\otimes 1+ m+ mn}= E^{\otimes m+1} \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^n$. Hence Proposition \[P:tens reg shifts\] implies that $$\begin{aligned} E_\infty \otimes_{A_\infty} R_\infty = ({{\mathcal{K}}}(S, E^{\otimes m+1}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we express $$\begin{aligned} R_\infty= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m}, E^{\otimes m}\otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty \, , F_\infty = ({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1}, F^{\otimes m}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty;\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned} R_\infty \otimes_{B_\infty} F_\infty = ({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1}, E^{\otimes m} \otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $F^{\otimes m+mn}= F^{\otimes m} \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^n$ and ${\left\langleF^{\otimes m+mn}, F^{\otimes m+mn}\right\rangle}$ provides a right c.a.i. for $R \otimes F^{\otimes m+mn} = E^{\otimes m} \otimes R \otimes F^{\otimes mn} = E^{\otimes m} \otimes R \otimes (X^{\otimes 2})^n$. To prove that $E_\infty \otimes R_\infty = R_\infty \otimes F_\infty$ we show that each one is unitarily equivalent to a submodule of the other. First we observe that for $U= \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E\otimes R\\ F \otimes S & 0 \end{array} \right]$ we get $$\begin{aligned} X \otimes U & = \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} 0 & R\\ S & 0 \end{array} \right] \otimes \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E\otimes R\\ F \otimes S & 0 \end{array} \right]\\ &= \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} R \otimes F \otimes S & 0\\ 0 & S \otimes E \otimes R \end{array} \right]\\ & =\left[ \begin{array}{c|c} E \otimes R \otimes S & 0\\ 0 & F \otimes S \otimes R \end{array} \right] = U \otimes X,\end{aligned}$$ Thus $X^{\otimes 2} \otimes U = U \otimes X^{\otimes 2}$ and, by Proposition \[P:wz=zw\], we have that the correspondence $$\begin{aligned} R_\infty \otimes_{B_\infty} F_\infty= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1}, E^{\otimes m} \otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\end{aligned}$$ is unitarily equivalent, via some unitary $u$, to a submodule of $$\begin{aligned} & ({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1}\otimes U, E^{\otimes m} \otimes R\otimes U), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty=\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1} \otimes F\otimes S, E^{\otimes m+1}\otimes R\otimes S), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(S\otimes R\otimes S, E^{\otimes m+1}\otimes R\otimes S), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(S\otimes X^{\otimes 2}, E^{\otimes m+1}\otimes X^{\otimes 2}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(S, E^{\otimes m+1}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad = E_\infty \otimes R_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Also define $V= \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E^{\otimes m-1}\otimes R\\ F^{\otimes m-1}\otimes S & 0 \end{array} \right]$ and verify that $X\otimes V= V \otimes X$. Thus, again by Proposition \[P:wz=zw\], the correspondence $$\begin{aligned} E_\infty \otimes R_\infty= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(S, E^{\otimes m+1}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\end{aligned}$$ is unitarily equivalent, via some unitary $v$, to a submodule of $$\begin{aligned} & ({{\mathcal{K}}}(S\otimes V, E^{\otimes m+1}\otimes V), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})=\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes 2m-1}, E^{\otimes 2m}\otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1} \otimes X^{\otimes 2}, E^{\otimes m} \otimes X^{\otimes 2} \otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad =({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1}\otimes X^{\otimes 2}, E^{\otimes m}\otimes R \otimes X^{\otimes 2}), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad= ({{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m-1}, E^{\otimes m}\otimes R), {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 2}})_\infty\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad= R_\infty \otimes F_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ It remains to show that $uv={{\operatorname{id}}}$ and $vu={{\operatorname{id}}}$. Note that $uv$ maps an element $[q]$ of any compact shift considered above (either it is in a ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra, either it is an element of the module) to $[q\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{U\otimes V}]= [q\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 4}}]$, since $$\begin{aligned} U\otimes V & = \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E\otimes R\\ F \otimes S & 0 \end{array} \right]\otimes \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} 0 & E^{\otimes m-1}\otimes R\\ F^{\otimes m-1}\otimes S & 0 \end{array} \right]\\ & = \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} E\otimes R \otimes F^{\otimes m-1}\otimes S & 0\\ 0 & F \otimes S\otimes E^{\otimes m-1} \otimes R \end{array} \right]\\ & = \left[\begin{array}{c|c} E\otimes E^{\otimes m-1} \otimes R \otimes S & 0\\ 0 & F \otimes F^{\otimes m-1} \otimes S \otimes R \end{array}\right]\\ &= \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} E^{\otimes m} \otimes E^{\otimes m} & 0\\ 0 & F^{\otimes m} \otimes F^{\otimes m} \end{array}\right]= X^{\otimes 4}.\end{aligned}$$ However, throughout the proof we have used exclusively $X^{\otimes 2}$-dilations and so $[q\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_{X^{\otimes 4}}]=[q]$. Therefore $uv={{\operatorname{id}}}$. In a similar way $vu={{\operatorname{id}}}$, since $V\otimes U= X^{\otimes 4}$, and the proof is complete. As mentioned in the Introduction, we were strongly motivated by [@MuPasTom08 Remark 5.5] and one of our aims was to check whether the alternative way proposed there to prove [@MuPasTom08 Theorem 3.14] could be achieved, i.e., to show that if $E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$ then $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. There is, though, a delicate point in this approach. In [@MuPasTom08 Remark 5.5] the authors claim that if $E$ is a non-degenerate and regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence, then the dilation $E_\infty$ as introduced by Pimsner [@Pim97] is an imprimitivity bimodule. This is true, but only in the context of [@Pim97], because the ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences there are always assumed full [@Pim97 Remark 1.2(3)]. This is a consequence of another delicate point in Pimsner’s theory, as his version of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras, unfortunately denoted by the same symbols ${{\mathcal{T}}}_E$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_E$, are not what have eventually become the usual ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras generated by the images of $X$ and $A$, but they are only generated by the image of $X$; hence there is no reason to make a distinction between full and non-full correspondences in Pimsner’s theory. Note that when $X$ is regular one can recover $A$ in Pimsner’s ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra ${{\mathcal{O}}}_E$, but this is not the case for ${{\mathcal{T}}}_E$. Of course, if one adds this extra element, then the scheme in [@MuPasTom08 Remark 5.5] can be implemented, as we are about to show. Note that the previous discussion and the next results settles Conjecture 1 appearing in the Introduction. \[T:full\] Let ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ be full, non-degenerate and regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondences. Then the following scheme holds $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{ E{\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F \ar@{=>}[d] \ar@{=>}[r] & E {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F \ar@{=>}[d] \ar@{=>}[r] & E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F \ar@{=>}[d] \ar@{=>}[r] & E{\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F \ar@{=>}[d] \\ E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty \ar@{<=>}[r] & E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty \ar@{<=>}[r] & E_\infty {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F_\infty \ar@{<=>}[r] & E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty }\end{aligned}$$ $E$ and $F$ are full and non-degenerate, thus $E_\infty$ and $F_\infty$ are imprimitivity bimodules, and Theorem \[T:sse=se=sme\] (that will follow) applies. An immediate consequence of Theorem \[T:full\] and Theorem \[T:inj\] is the following. \[T:se gives me\] Let ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ be full, non-degenerate and regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondences. If $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$, then the corresponding Cuntz-Pimsner algebras are strong Morita equivalent. Suppose that $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$. Then by Theorem \[T:full\] we have that $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. Therefore [@MuhSol00 Theorem 3.5] implies that ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{E_\infty} {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}{{\mathcal{O}}}_{F_\infty}$ and the conclusion follows from Theorem \[T:inj\]. In particular we obtain the following result for Cuntz-Krieger ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras mentioned in the Introduction. \[graph\] Let ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{G}}}'$ be finite graphs with no sinks or sources and let $A_{{{\mathcal{G}}}}$ and $A_{{{\mathcal{G}}}'}$ be their adjacent matrices. If $A_{{{\mathcal{G}}}} {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}A_{{{\mathcal{G}}}'}$, in the sense of Williams, then the Cuntz-Krieger ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{{{\mathcal{G}}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{{{\mathcal{G}}}'}$ are strong Morita equivalent. There is also an application to unital injective dynamical systems. \[dyn sys\] Let $(A,\ga)$ and $(B,\be)$ be unital injective dynamical systems. If $X_\ga {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}X_\be$, then $X_{\ga_\infty} {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}Y_{\be_\infty}$ and the crossed products $A_\infty \rtimes_{\ga_\infty} {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $B\rtimes_{\be_\infty} {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ are strong Morita equivalent. We close this section by settling Conjecture 2 of the Introduction. This conjecture asserts that the vertical arrows in Theorem \[T:full\] are actually equivalences. We will use the following. \[T:se not inv\] Let ${}_A E_A$ be a full, non-degenerate and regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondence. If $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}E_\infty$ then $E$ is an imprimitivity bimodule. By assumption there exist non-degenerate, regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- correspondences ${}_A R_{A_{\infty}}, {}_{A_{\infty}}S_A$ and a positive integer $m$ such that $$E^{\otimes m} = R \otimes S, \,(E_\infty)^{\otimes m}= (E^{\otimes m})_\infty = S\otimes R$$ and $E \otimes R = R \otimes E_\infty$, $S \otimes E = E_\infty \otimes S$. Then $$\begin{aligned} A= {\left\langleE^{\otimes m}, E^{\otimes m}\right\rangle} = {\left\langleR\otimes S, R \otimes S\right\rangle} = {\left\langleS, {\left\langleR,R\right\rangle} S\right\rangle} \subseteq {\left\langleS,S\right\rangle} \subseteq A,\end{aligned}$$ since $E^{\otimes m}$ is also full. Hence $S$ is full. Now, let $k \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(S)$. Then $k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R \in {{\mathcal{K}}}((E_\infty)^{\otimes m})$, and since $(E_\infty)^{\otimes m}$ is an imprimitivity bimodule, there is an $x\in A_\infty$ such that $k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R=\phi_{(E_\infty)^{\otimes m}}(x)= \phi_S(x)\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R$. Thus $\phi_S(x)=k$, since $R$ is regular; therefore $A_\infty \simeq {{\mathcal{K}}}(S)$, hence $S$ is an imprimitivity bimodule. Going back to the definition of $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}E_\infty$, we see that $S \otimes E = E_\infty \otimes S$, hence $E= S^* \otimes E_\infty \otimes S$. The fact that $S, S^*$ and $E_\infty$ are imprimitivity bimodules implies that $E$ is also an imprimitivity bimodule. Let us see now why Conjecture 2 has a negative answer. Let $E$ be any full, non-degenerate and regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence, which is not an imprimitivity bimodule. If Conjecture 2 was true, then $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}E_\infty$, since both $E$ and $E_\infty$ have unitarily equivalent Pimsner dilations. But then Theorem \[T:se not inv\] would imply that $E$ is an imprimitivity bimodule, a contradiction. Imprimitivity Bimodules and the Shift Equivalence Problem {#S:app} ========================================================= Our work on shift equivalences suggests the following generalization of the Williams Problem in the context of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. **Shift Equivalence Problem for ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences.** If $E, F$ are non-degenerate, regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences and $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$, then $E {{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$. One might be tempted to say that the work of Kim and Roush [@KimRou99] readily shows that the answer to the above conjecture is negative. However, it is not known to us whether two graph ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences which fail to be strong shift equivalent *via non-negative integral matrices* remain inequivalent if one considers arbitrary ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences in order to implement the strong shift equivalence. In other words, we do not know the answer to the Williams Problem even for the class of graph ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If it does have a positive answer then it will provide an alternative route for proving our Corollary \[graph\], but we conjecture that it doesn’t in general. Nevertheless, in our next result we show that Shift Equivalence Problem has an affirmative answer for the class of imprimitivity bimodules. Recall that this result is essential for the proof of Theorem \[T:full\]. \[T:sse=se=sme\] Strong Morita equivalence, elementary strong shift equivalence, strong shift equivalence and shift equivalence are equivalent for the class of imprimitivity bimodules. In view of Theorem \[T:main 1\], it suffices to show that if ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ are imprimitivity bimodules such that $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$, then $E{\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F$. Assume that $E{\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$ via $R,S$ with lag $m$. Then $E^{\otimes m}=R\otimes S$ and $F^{\otimes m} = S \otimes R$. Since $E,F$ are imprimitivity bimodules, then $E^{\otimes m}$ and $F^{\otimes m}$ are also imprimitivity bimodules. Hence $S$ is regular and, due to ${\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}$, intertwines $E$ and $F$. It suffices to prove that $S$ is an imprimitivity bimodule. First, it is full right since $$\begin{aligned} A = {\left\langleE^{\otimes m}, E^{\otimes m}\right\rangle} = {\left\langleR \otimes S, R \otimes S\right\rangle} = {\left\langleS, {\left\langleR,R\right\rangle}\cdot S\right\rangle} \subseteq {\left\langleS, S\right\rangle} \subseteq A,\end{aligned}$$ thus ${\left\langleS,S\right\rangle}= A$. In order to prove that it is full left, it suffices to prove that $\phi_S\colon B \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(S)$ is onto ${{\mathcal{K}}}(S)$ (since $\phi_S(B) \subseteq {{\mathcal{K}}}(S)$, by regularity of $S$). To this end, let $k\in {{\mathcal{K}}}(S)$. Then, due to regularity of $R$, we obtain that $k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R \in {{\mathcal{K}}}(S\otimes R)= {{\mathcal{K}}}(F^{\otimes m})$. Since $F^{\otimes m}$ is an imprimitivity bimodule, there is a $b\in B$ such that $\phi_{F^{\otimes m}}(b) = k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R$; in particular $\phi_S(b)\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R = k\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}_R$. Thus $\phi_S(b)=k$, since $R$ is regular. Combining [@MuhSol00 Theorem 3.2, Theorem 3.5] with Theorem \[T:sse=se=sme\] we obtain the following corollary. If ${}_A E_A, {}_B F_B$ are imprimitivity bimodules and $E {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}F, E{\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F, E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$ or $E {\stackrel{\text{SE}}{\thicksim}}F$, then the corresponding Toeplitz-Cuntz-Pimsner algebras and Cuntz-Pimsner algebras are strong Morita equivalent as ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras, and the corresponding tensor algebras are strong Morita equivalent in the sense of [@BleMuPau00]. Other Applications ================== Extension of [@MuPasTom08 Theorem 3.14] --------------------------------------- A natural question raised in [@MuPasTom08] was whether [@MuPasTom08 Theorem 3.14] is valid without the extra assumption of non-degeneracy. This can be established now with the theory we have developed in Section \[S:equiv\]. However, one cannot dispose of regularity, as mentioned explicitly in [@MuPasTom08] and [@Bat02 Example 5.4]. \[T:main 6\] Let ${}_A E_A$ and ${}_B F_B$ be regular ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences. If $E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$ then ${{\mathcal{O}}}_E {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}{{\mathcal{O}}}_F$. First suppose that $E{\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F$. By Theorem \[T:main 2\] we have $E_\infty {\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}F_\infty$. But $E_\infty$ and $F_\infty$ are regular Hilbert bimodules hence they are non-degenerate. Therefore [@MuPasTom08 Theorem 3.14] implies ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{E_\infty} {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}{{\mathcal{O}}}_{F_{\infty}}$ and Theorem \[T:inj\] completes the proof in the case of elementary strong shift equivalence. Let $E{{\stackrel{\text{SSE}}{\thicksim}}}F$ via a sequence of $T_i$, $i=0,\dots, n$. Then ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{T_i} {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}{{\mathcal{O}}}_{T_{i+1}}$, by the previous arguments, for every $i=0,\dots, n-1$. Strong Morita equivalence of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebras is transitive, hence ${{\mathcal{O}}}_E ={{\mathcal{O}}}_{T_0} {\stackrel{\text{SME}}{\thicksim}}{{\mathcal{O}}}_{T_n}={{\mathcal{O}}}_F$. [@MuPasTom08 Proposition 4.2] Revisited {#Ss:strict} --------------------------------------- The results in [@MuPasTom08] and here, concerning strong Morita equivalence of the Cuntz-Pimsner algebras, can be generalized for degenerate correspondences over unital ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- algebras because of [@MuPasTom08 Proposition 4.2], i.e., if $X$ is a correspondence over a unital ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-algebra $A$, then ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{X_{ess}}$ is a full corner of ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X$, where $X_{ess}:=\overline{\phi_X(A)X}$. In fact the proofs in [@MuPasTom08 Proposition 4.2] apply in general for strict correspondences $X$. The key observation is that, if $(a_i)$ is a c.a.i. in $A$, then $\phi_X(a_i)$ converges in the s\*-topology to a projection, say $p$, in ${{\mathcal{L}}}(X)$. As a consequence $J_X= J_{X_{ess}}$ and, if $X$ is regular, then so is $X_{ess}$, in the same way as in [@MuPasTom08 Proposition 4.1]. \[T:strict\] Let ${}_A X_A$ be a strict ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondence. Then ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{X_{ess}}$ is a full corner of ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X$. Fix a covariant injective representation $(\pi,t)$ of $X$ (that admits a gauge action); then $(\pi,t|_{X_{ess}})$ is a covariant injective representation of $X_{ess}$ (that admits a gauge action). Let $P$ be the projection in ${{\mathcal{M}}}({{\mathcal{O}}}_X)$ that is defined by $\lim_i \pi(a_i)$ for a c.a.i. $(a_i)$ of $A$; for example $$Pt(\xi):= \lim_i \pi(a_i) t(\xi)= t(\lim_i \phi(a_i)\xi)=t(p\xi), {\text{ for all }}\xi \in X.$$ Then, the rest of the proof goes as the proof of [@MuPasTom08 Proposition 4.2]. [99]{} B. Abadie, S. Eilers and R. Exel, *Morita equivalence for crossed products by Hilbert ${\mathrm{C}^*}$- bimodules*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **350** (1998), 3043–3054. T. Bates, *Applications of the Gauge-Invariant Uniqueness Theorem*, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society **65** (2002), 57–67. J. Cuntz and W. Krieger, *A class of C\*-algebras and topological Markov chains*, Inventiones Math. **56** (1980), 251–268. D. Blecher, P. Muhly and V. Paulsen, *Categories of operator modules – Morita equivalence and projective modules*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **143** (2000), no 681. D. Drinen and N. Sieben, *C\*-equivalences of graphs*, J. Operator Theory **45** (2001), 209–229. N.J. Fowler, P.S. Muhly and I. Raeburn, *Representations of Cuntz–Pimsner algebras*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. **52**(3) (2003) 569–605. E. T.A. Kakariadis and E. G. Katsoulis, *Contributions to the theory of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-envelopes with applications to multivariable dynamics*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, to appear. T. Katsura, *On [$C\sp *$]{}-algebras associated with [${\mathrm{C}^*}$]{}-correspondences*, J. Funct. Anal. **217**(2) (2004), 366–401. K. H. Kim and F. W. Roush, *The [W]{}illiams conjecture is false for irreducible subshifts*, Ann. of Math **149**(2) (1999), 545–558. K. H. Kim and F. W. Roush, *Decidability of shift equivalence*, Dynamical systems (College Park, MD, 1986�87), 374�424, Lecture Notes in Math. 1342, Springer, Berlin, 1988. C. Lance, *Hilbert ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-modules. A toolkit for operator algebraists*, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, **210** Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. W. Krieger, *On dimension functions and topological Markov chains*, Invent. Math. **56** (1980), 239–250. K. Matsumoto, *Actions of symbolic dynamical systems on C\*-algebras*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **605** (2007), 23–49. P. S. Muhly, D. Pask and M. Tomforde, *Strong Shift Equivalence of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences*, Israel J. Math. **167** (2008), 315–345. P. S. Muhly and B. Solel, *Tensor algebras over ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences: representations, dilations and ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-envelopes* J. Funct. Anal. **158** (1998), 389–457. P. S. Muhly and B. Solel, *On the Morita Equivalence of Tensor Algebras*, Proc. London Math. Soc. **3** (2000), 113—168. M. Pimsner, *A class of $C\sp *$-algebras generalizing both Cuntz-Krieger algebras and crossed products by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$*, Free probability theory (Waterloo, ON, 1995), 189–212, Fields Inst. Commun., **12**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997. I. Raeburn, *Graph algebras*, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics 103, 2005. P.J. Stacey, *Crossed products of [${\mathrm{C}^*}$]{}-algebras by $*$-endomorphisms*, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A **54** (1993), 204–212. J.B. Wagoner, *Strong shift equivalence theory and the shift equivalence problem*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) **36** (1999), 271–296. R. Williams, *Classification of subshifts of finite type*, Annals of Math. 98 (1973), 120–153; erratum, Annals of Math. **99** (1974), 380–381. [^1]: 2010 [*Mathematics Subject Classification.*]{} 47L25, 46L07 [^2]: [*Key words and phrases:*]{} ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences, Shift Equivalence, Morita Equivalence. [^3]: First author partially supported by the Fields Institute for Research in the Mathematical Sciences [^4]:  Note that [@Wil74 Example 2] shows that ${\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}$ is not transitive when restricted to the class of non-negative integral matrices, which doesn’t mean that ${\stackrel{\text{s}}{\thicksim}}$ is not transitive for the whole class of C\*-correspondences. [^5]:  In order to ease notation, unitary equivalence of ${\mathrm{C}^*}$-correspondences will be simply denoted as equality in this section.

--- abstract: 'The Antarctic plateau contains the best sites on earth for many forms of astronomy, but none of the existing bases was selected with astronomy as the primary motivation. In this paper, we try to systematically compare the merits of potential observatory sites. We include South Pole, Domes A, C and F, and also Ridge B (running NE from Dome A), and what we call ‘Ridge A’ (running SW from Dome A). Our analysis combines satellite data, published results and atmospheric models, to compare the boundary layer, weather, aurorae, airglow, precipitable water vapour, thermal sky emission, surface temperature, and the free atmosphere, at each site. We find that all Antarctic sites are likely to be compromised for optical work by airglow and aurorae. Of the sites with existing bases, Dome A is easily the best overall; but we find that Ridge A offers an even better site. We also find that Dome F is a remarkably good site. Dome C is less good as a thermal infrared or terahertz site, but would be able to take advantage of a predicted ‘OH hole’ over Antarctica during Spring.' author: - 'Will Saunders$^{1,2}$, Jon S. Lawrence$^{1,2,3}$, John W.V. Storey$^1$, Michael C.B. Ashley$^1$' - 'Seiji Kato, Patrick Minnis, David M. Winker' - Guiping Liu - Craig Kulesa title: | Where is the best site on Earth?\ Domes A, B, C and F, and Ridges A and B --- =1 Introduction ============ There are now many articles on the characteristics of the various Antarctic sites; for a summary see, for example, Storey (2005) and Burton (2007). This work attempts to draw together some of these papers, and also unpublished meteorological and other information for these sites, to help characterise what are almost certainly the best sites on Earth for many forms of astronomy. The factors considered in this study are: Of course, different astronomical programs have very different requirements. For high resolution optical work, including interferometry, it is the turbulence characteristics (including seeing, isoplanatic angle and coherence time) that are most important. For wide-field optical work it is seeing, auroral emission, airglow, weather, and sky coverage. For the thermal near-infrared, including [$K_d$]{}at 2.4$\mu$m, it is the thermal backgrounds from sky and telescope. For mid-infrared and terahertz work the PWV is paramount. There are other significant issues not covered in this study, for example: sky coverage, daytime use, existing infrastructure, accessibility, telecommunications, and non-astronomical uses. The possible sites ================== The sites where astronomical work has taken place or is under consideration are South Pole, and Domes A, C and F. We have also included Ridge B, running NE from Dome A; according to the digital map of Liu [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2001), Ridge B contains a genuine peak at its southern end, which we call Dome B, at (79[$^{\circ}$]{}S, 93[$^{\circ}$]{}E, 3809m). We also consider the ridge leading southwest from Dome A, which we call Ridge A. We do not consider Vostok in this study, as it does not lie on a ridge or dome, and unlike South Pole, does not have extensive available site testing or astronomical data. [lrrr]{} Site & Latitude&Longitude &Elevation\ South Pole & 90[$^{\circ}$]{}S& 0[$^{\circ}$]{}E & 2800m\ Dome A &80.37[$^{\circ}$]{}S & 77.53[$^{\circ}$]{}E & 4083m\ Dome C &75.06[$^{\circ}$]{}S &123.23[$^{\circ}$]{}E & 3233m\ Dome F &77.19[$^{\circ}$]{}S & 39.42[$^{\circ}$]{}E & 3810m\ Ridge B &$\sim$76[$^{\circ}$]{}S &$\sim$94.75[$^{\circ}$]{}E & $\sim$3750m\ Dome B &79.0[$^{\circ}$]{}S &93.6[$^{\circ}$]{}E & 3809m\ Ridge A &81.5[$^{\circ}$]{}S & 73.5[$^{\circ}$]{}E & 4053m\ The sites are marked, along with some general information, in Figure 1. Dome A is an extended plateau, Dome F is a sharper peak, and Dome C and Ridge B are both nearly level ridges. Boundary layer characteristics ============================== Figure 2 shows the predicted wintertime median boundary layer thickness, from Swain and Gallee (2006a, SG06a). It was this picture that originally suggested to us that the existing bases were not necessarily the best sites. Dome F has marginally the thinnest predicted height at 18.5m; the minimum near Dome A is 21.7m, Ridge B is $<$24m all along its length, while Dome C is 27.7m. Although these differences are small, they have significant implications for the design and cost of any optical/NIR telescope, which must either be above the boundary layer, or fitted with a Ground Layer Adaptive Optics (GLAO) system. Note that these are predicted median values only; Swain and Gallee (2006b, SG06b) predict dramatic and continuous variation of the thickness of the boundary layer at all candidate sites, and this is borne out by actual data from Dome C (e.g. Aristidi [[*et al.*]{}]{}2009) and Dome A (Bonner [[*et al.*]{}]{}, in preparation) SG06a also predict that surface seeing is not perfectly correlated with boundary layer thickness, and that the best surface seeing is to be found at Domes C and F. However, it exceeds 1[$''$]{}even at those sites, so there are no sites in Antarctica with surface seeing as good as the best temperate sites. For any GLAO system, both the thickness of the boundary layer and the surface seeing must be taken into consideration. SG06b also estimated the average surface wind speeds (Figure 3), showing essentially identical behaviour. Dome F offers the most quiescent conditions, followed by Dome A/Ridge B, and then Dome C. Other surface wind speed predictions have been made by van Lipzig [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2004) (Figure 4), and Parish and Bromwich (2007) (Figure 5). There is very good agreement between these three studies. Figure 6 shows an overlay of Figures 2,4 and 5, for the region of interest. The maps are not identical, but the differences are small. In all three maps, there is a clear minimum running from near Dome A through to Ridge B, with an equally good isolated minimum at Dome F. This ‘katabatic ridge’ does not go exactly through Dome A, but is offset towards the South Pole, with minimum at $\sim$81.25[$^{\circ}$]{}S 77[$^{\circ}$]{}E. The deterioration away from this ridge line is very fast: according to SG06a, the predicted boundary layer thickness at Dome A itself is over 30m, i.e. 50% worse than the minimum, and worse than Dome C. Similarly, along Ridge B, the katabatic ridge is offset from the topographic ridge, in the direction of the lower gradient. Cloud cover =========== The only long-term,comparative observations of cloud cover for the sites under consideration are from passive satellite measurements. Figure 7 shows the average seasonal cloud cover maps for Antarctica, for the period July 2002-July 2007, from an analysis of Aqua MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imagery by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy Experiment (CERES) using the methods of Minnis [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2008) and Trepte [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2002). The least cloud cover occurs during the winter, averaging about 0.2 for all the sites, while the most occurs during the summer, averaging about 0.5. in any given season, the cloudiness of the marked sites (Domes A,B,C,F) is very similar, but the least cloud cover is generally between Dome C and Ridge B. Data from the Ice, Cloud, and Elevation Satellite Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) during October 2003 show a similar range in that area (Spinhirne [[*et al.*]{}]{}2005). The nighttime cloud cover from the GLAS GLA09 V028 5-Hz, 532-nm product for 18th September – 11th November 2003, plotted in Fig. 8a, shows less structure, but a similar range of values over the highest areas. The resolution of the GLAS data has been decreased to reduce the noisiness of the plots. The relative-maximum “ring” of CERES-MODIS cloudiness (Fig. 8b), seaward of the highest altitudes in eastern Antarctica, is absent in the GLAS data and the daytime CERES-MODIS cloudiness (not shown). This relative maximum artifact is apparently the result of colder-than-expected air at lower elevations during the night. For the extremely cold Antarctic surfaces, the CERES-MODIS cloud detection relies almost entirely on a single infrared temperature threshold at night and will miss clear areas when the actual and temperature is significantly less than its predicted counterpart. Nevertheless, the nighttime Aqua CERES-MODIS average for each of the sites is within 0.04 of the corresponding GLAS 1[$^{\circ}$]{}values for the same period. [lrrr]{} Site& May-Oct&Annual&Summer Range\ Dome A&23.1&24.8&12.5\ Dome C&21.5&22.1&9.3\ Dome F&25.1&26.5&11.1\ Ridge B&24.5&25.7&7.6\ Lidar profiles can provide more accurate estimates of the cloudiness, but satellite-based lidar measurements are limited to only a few years. Mean opaque and total cloud amounts determined from lidar measurements taken from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) satellite (Winker [[*et al.*]{}]{}2007) are shown in Fig. 9 for austral winter 2007. The opaque cloud cover (Fig.9a) corresponds to clouds with optical depths greater than 3. The opaque cloudiness was nearly non-existent over all of the sites while the smallest total cloudiness (Fig. 9b) occurred over Dome C. At the other 3 sites, the CALIPSO cloudiness tends to be 5-10% greater than the long-term mean seen in the Aqua results (Fig. 7d). Both datasets have a relative maximum just north of Dome A. The greater CALIPSO cloud amounts are likely due to the limitations of detecting exceptionally thin clouds with passive infrared imagery and interannual variations in regional cloudiness. The Aqua cloud data may somewhat underestimate total cloudiness because few clouds having optical thicknesses less than about 0.3 can be detected. Overall, the comparisons with CALIPSO and GLAS indicate that the Aqua cloud cover is within 5-10% of that detectable with lidars. The cloudiness that is missed by Aqua is very thin, optically speaking, and, therefore, may not have a significant impact. Annual and May-October average cloud amounts for the 1[$^{\circ}$]{}latitude $\times$ 1[$^{\circ}$]{}longitude regions that include Domes A, C and F are given in Table 2 for 2002-2006. The table also includes the average cloudiness for a 4[$^{\circ}$]{}$\times$ 4[$^{\circ}$]{}region encompassing Ridge B and the summer mean range for all locations. This latter parameter is the difference between the maximum and minimum mean cloud cover for June, July, and August. The cloudiness over the area around Dome C is similar to that observed from the ground for single seasons (20-25%, e.g. Ashley [[*et al.*]{}]{}2003, Mosser and Aristidi 2007, Moore [[*et al.*]{}]{}2008). Given the comparisons with the surface, GLAS, and CALIPSO observations, it is concluded that the Aqua CERES-MODIS results provide a good representation of the cloud cover over the sites of interest. From Table 2, it is clear that there is little difference in cloud cover among the sites. While Dome C has the least cloud cover, it is only  4% less than the maximum at Dome F. Of the three sites having the 1[$^{\circ}$]{}resolution data, Dome C has the smallest interannual range in summer cloudiness. The smallest range, over Ridge B, may be due to its larger spatial domain. The greatest range in mean summer cloud cover is over Dome A, which is not very far from a relative maximum in the total cloud cover. Figure 10 shows a closeup of Figure 7(d), the Aqua/\ MODIS winter cloud cover over the high plateau. The ridge of best weather does not to go through Dome A, but is offset by 1-2[$^{\circ}$]{}to the south. This behaviour is seen throughout the year in the Aqua/MODIS data, though it is not present in the CALIPSO data. Aurorae ======= Auroral activity depends on solar activity, geomagnetic latitude ($\Lambda$), and magnetic local time (MLT). The relative colours of typical aurorae and the night sky, are such that aurorae brighten the sky most in $U,B,V$ bands, in that order. At temperate latitudes, auroral activity makes a negligible contribution to sky brightness (e.g. Benn and Ellison 2007). The strongest aurorae occur in an oval between 60[$^{\circ}$]{}$<|\Lambda|<$75[$^{\circ}$]{}, stronger in the direction MLT=12. Inside this oval, there is a region of lower activity, still at a level much higher than at temperate latitudes (e.g. Hardy [[*et al.*]{}]{}1985). The activity levels at the magnetic poles themselves have no measured dependence on solar activity level, or of course on MLT (Hardy [[*et al.*]{}]{}1991, H91). Daily Antarctic auroral activity is shown online [^1]. The Geomagnetic South Pole is currently near (80[$^{\circ}$]{}S 109[$^{\circ}$]{}E), and moving too slowly to matter even on the timescales of Antarctic astronomy [^2]. The geomagnetic latitude of the sites is given in Table 3. Dome A, Dome C and Ridge B are all within 6[$^{\circ}$]{}of the geomagnetic pole, while the South Pole and Dome F are on the edge of the auroral oval at 10[$^{\circ}$]{}and 13[$^{\circ}$]{}respectively. The effect of auroral activity on sky brightness for Antarctic sites was investigated in detail by Dempsey, Storey and Phillips (2005, D95). They determined that, at the South Pole, auroral emission was a significant, but not catastrophic, issue for sky-limited optical astronomy in $B,V$ and $R$ bands. They estimated auroral contributions to the sky brightness of $21.7 - 22.5^m$ /arcsec$^2$ in $B$ band, and $21.8 -– 22.5^m$/arcsec$^2$ in $V$ band. These compare with dark sky brightness values at good temperate sites of $22.5 - 23.0^m$/arcsec$^2$ in $B$ band, and $21.5 -– 22.0^m$/arcsec$^2$ in $V$. They found that the aurora were brighter at solar [*minimum*]{}. Unfortunately, the D95 paper contains an error in the geomagnetic latitude of all the sites considered, so the extrapolation of the South Pole result to other sites is incorrect. We have repeated the exercise in that paper, of using the auroral models of H91 to predict the auroral contribution at other sites. H91 give average solar electron flux intensity maps as a function of solar activity level $K_p$, ranging from 1 (low) to 6 (high), geomagnetic latitude, and local time. We have integrated these models over local time (using the logarithmic average), to find the approximate median contribution as a function of geomagnetic latitude and solar activity level (Figure 11). It is striking that for $| \Lambda | > 77$[$^{\circ}$]{}, the auroral flux is [*anti-correlated*]{} with solar activity level, consistent in both sense and magnitude with that seen by D95. As we go closer to the geomagnetic pole, both the overall flux level and its variability are reduced. The maximum and minimum levels are shown, for all the sites under consideration, in Table 3. [|p[0.25in]{}|p[0.4in]{}|p[0.2in]{}p[0.2in]{}p[0.2in]{}|p[0.2in]{}p[0.2in]{}p[0.2in]{}|]{} Site & $\Lambda$ & & $K_p$=0 & & & $K_p$=6 &\ & 2010& Flux & $\mu_B$ & $\mu_V$ & Flux & $\mu_B$ & $\mu_V$\ SP & -80[$^{\circ}$]{}& 3.98& 21.7& 21.8& 1.92& 22.5& 22.5\ DA& -84.9[$^{\circ}$]{}& 1.16& 23.0& 23.1& 1.06& 23.1& 23.1\ DC& -84.1[$^{\circ}$]{}& 1.37& 22.9& 23.0& 1.10& 23.1 & 23.1\ DF& -77.0[$^{\circ}$]{}& 6.58& 21.2& 21.3& 8.12& 20.9& 20.9\ DB &-85.4[$^{\circ}$]{}& 1.08& 23.1 & 23.2 & 1.06 & 23.1 & 23.1\ RB & -87.1[$^{\circ}$]{}& 1.00 & 23.2 & 23.3&1.02 & 23.2 & 23.2\ We find that Dome A, Dome C and Ridge B all have remarkably similar and constant average auroral contribution to the sky brightness, at a level $\sim23^m/$arcsec$^2$, at all times and in both $B$ and $V$ bands. This corresponds to an increase in sky brightness compared with the best temperate sites of almost a factor of 2 at $B$ and about 20-30% at $V$. The difference between these three sites is small, though Dome C is marginally the worst. The optical sky brightness at Dome F is dominated by aurorae, most of the time. Airglow ======= Airglow emission from OI is responsible for very strong emission features at 557.7nm and 630nm, NO$_2$ is responsible for a 500–650nm continuum, while OH dominates the night-sky brightness from 700nm – 2300nm. Airglow was considered by Kenyon and Storey (2006), who found no strong evidence for large systematic variations in airglow emission as compared with temperate sites. Recently, more detailed predictions have been made by Liu [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2008), for OI and OH emission, for all latitudes, seasons and local times. The predicted average emission for 20hr-4hr local time, is shown in Figures 12(a) (OI) and 12(b) (OH). Results for other times are not available, but there is almost no time dependence for Antarctic winter emission for 20-4h, and it seems reasonable to assume that the maps apply for all 24 hours. The models are validated against data from the WINDII satellite, but this is for temperate latitudes only, so the predictions for polar regions are unverified. There are several features to note: the predicted OI emission is very strong in Antarctica in winter, almost an order of magnitude greater than at temperate sites. In principle, this can be filtered out with narrow-band filters. For OH emission, the Antarctic winter values are $\sim$ 30% higher than temperate sites. However, the model predicts a striking ‘OH hole’ over Antarctica each October, with OH emission 6 times less than at temperate sites. The hole is predicted to persist all summer, but sadly decays in Autumn just as soon as there is any dark time to use it. Direct OH emission measurements from the South Pole [^3] provide some partial support for this prediction, with the OH emission routinely settling down to levels $\sim$5 times lower than the winter median, for periods of several days at a time. Unfortunately, comparative data for temperate sites is not currently available. If confirmed, this ‘OH hole’ would be a striking extra advantage for Antarctic astronomy, since fields could be observed in $J$ and $H$ bands to a depth comparable with [$K_d$]{}. It happens that the hole coincides with the best accessibility for the South Galactic Pole and Chandra Deep Field South. The amount of dark time available at those times of year is very limited: assuming a required solar elevation below $-10$[$^{\circ}$]{}, there is $\sim$3.5 hours/night of dark time at Dome C at the equinoxes, and none at all at Dome A. So although the depth of the hole is greatest at the Pole, our ability to make use of it depends on being as far north as possible, and in this respect Dome C has a distinct advantage compared with the other sites. The OH and OI data are too coarse (5[$^{\circ}$]{}latitude bins) to make very useful predictions for the average emission values at the various sites; but the model predicts higher OI emission, and lower OH emission as we approach the Pole. Precipitable water vapour ========================= SG06b produced a map of predicted average PWV (Figure 13). They predict Dome A to be the best existing site; Dome F to be very nearly as good; Dome C about a factor of two worse, with Ridge B intermediate. The best location of all is once again between South Pole, Dome A, and Dome F. The MHS experiment on the NOAA-18 satellite allows estimation of the daily PWV directly for the whole of Antarctica. The estimate has been validated against ground based measurements at Dome A (Kulesa [[*et al.*]{}]{}, in preparation). The statistics for the various sites are shown in Table 4. The agreement with the SG06b predictions is quite good: the difference between Dome A and Dome C is not quite as large as predicted, Dome F is a little worse than predicted, while Dome B is a little better, making it as good as Dome F. Ridge A again emerges as a significantly better site than Dome A. [lrrrrrrr]{} & SP & DC & DA & RA & DB & DF\ Annual med. & 437 & 342 & 233 & 210 & 274 & 279\ Winter med. & 324 & 235 & 141 & 118 & 163 & 163\ Winter 25% & 258 & 146 & 103 & 77 & 115 & 114\ Winter 10% & 203 & 113 & 71 & 45 & 83 & 90\ Winter $\sigma$ & 133 & 122 & 65 & 64 & 67 & 98\ Atmospheric thermal emission ============================ The atmospheric thermal emission is determined both by the total mass of each atmospheric component above the site, and its temperature profile. For CO$_2$, the mass is proportional to the surface air pressure, which varies from $\sim$575mb at Dome A to $\sim$645mb at Dome C. For water vapour, the temperature profile is paramount, as it limits the saturated mixing fraction. The temperature profile is shown in Figure 14, which shows the winter (May-Aug) mean temperatures from the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis data (Kalnay [[*et al.*]{}]{}1996), as a function of pressure height. The atmospheric emission is dominated by the lower layers. The coldest air is once again between Dome A and South Pole. Dome F is somewhat better than Ridge B, which is better than Dome C. The difference between Dome A and Dome C is consistently about 3[$^{\circ}$]{}C at all pressure heights. We have modelled the infrared sky brightness using the Line-by-Line Radiative Transfer Code (see, e.g. Lawrence 2004). For each site the input parameters are the profiles of temperature and pressure, while the relative humidity is set by matching the overall PWV to the winter median from Table 4. The resulting spectra of IR sky brightness are shown in Figure 15. In order of decreasing infrared sky emission, the sites can be ranked as follows: South Pole, Dome C, Dome F, Ridge B, Dome A, and Ridge A. The difference between South Pole and Ridge A is about a factor of 3 in the best thermal infrared windows, but about 1.5 in the optically thick bands that dominate the broad-band sky brightness. The sky brightness within the [$K_d$]{}passband at South Pole is 80-200$\mu Jy$/arcsec$^2$ (Philips [[*et al.*]{}]{}1999). However, there are no measurements elsewhere on the Plateau, and the dominant emission mechanism is unknown, so this value cannot be extrapolated to the other sites. All we can say is that since all the other sites are higher and drier, the background is likely to be lower. Additionally to any variation of the sky brightness within the [$K_d$]{}window, we can expect that the higher and colder sites allow a wider passband; this is because the atmospheric thermal emission defines the redward passband cutoff. From Figure 15, the wavelength where the thermal emission exceeds $\sim100 \mu Jy$ is shifted redward by $\sim0.09\mu m$ between South Pole and Ridge A, an increase in bandwidth of 50%, and allowing observation out to $\sim 2.5\mu m$. Surface temperature =================== The coldest possible surface temperature implies the lowest telescope emission in the thermal infrared. Figure 16 shows the predicted winter surface temperature from SG06b, while Figure 17 shows the measured average winter surface temperature, derived from the Aqua/MODIS data for 2004-2007. As expected, the ridge along Dome F – Dome A – Ridge B defines the coldest regions, with a separate (and almost as cold) minimum at Dome C. The ridge of minimum temperature again misses Dome A, passing through 81-82[$^{\circ}$]{}S. Actual values for the sites are given in Table 5. Ridge B is colder than Dome A, and nearly as cold as anywhere on the plateau; Dome C is also remarkably cold. However, all the sites are within a few degrees of each other, and the effect on overall telescope emission is modest. [lrrr]{} Site & Lat & Long & T (K)\ Dome A &80.37S &77.53E & 204.1\ Dome C &75.06S &123.23E & 204.9\ Dome F &77.19S& 39.42E & 204.9\ Dome B &79S &93E & 203.6\ Ridge B &76S &94.5E & 206.9\ Ridge A &81.5S &73.5E & 203.5\ Free atmosphere seeing ====================== We have direct measurements of the free seeing (i.e. above the surface boundary layer) from Dome C, where it is $0.27-0.36''$ (Lawrence [[*et al.*]{}]{}2004, Agabi [[*et al.*]{}]{}2006, Aristidi [[*et al.*]{}]{}2009), and also from South Pole (Marks [[*et al.*]{}]{}1999), where it is $0.37\pm0.07''$. Estimating the seeing directly from meteorological data is extremely uncertain, because the seeing is in general caused by turbulent layers much thinner than the available height resolution. However, the importance of the free seeing makes it worthwhile to attempt some estimate of its variation between different sites, however crude. Figure 18 is taken from the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis data (Kalnay [[*et al.*]{}]{}1996), and shows the mean wintertime (May-Aug inclusive) wind speed, over the years 1979-2008, as a function of pressure height. At all heights, there is a general minimum over the Antarctic plateau. The minimum is rather weak at the lowest elevations, but includes the Dome A – South Pole region; as we move to higher elevations, the minimum becomes strikingly defined, and very symmetrical around a point half way between Dome A and South Pole. We can be reasonably confident that the best seeing will be associated with the lowest wind speeds (or more precisely, the lowest wind velocity vertical gradients). So, we expect that the best free seeing, isoplanatic angle, and coherence time, will all be found in this region, deteriorating with distance from there. This is in line with the findings of Hagelin [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2008), who predicted Dome A and South Pole to be comparable, with Dome F a little worse and Dome C significantly worse, because of high altitude winter winds. We have tried to quantify the expected variation of the free seeing as follows. Firstly, following Masciadri and Jabouille (2001), SG06b, and Hagelin [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2008), we relate the refractive index variations $C_n^2$ to wind speed and potential temperature gradients, giving $$C_n^2 = 3.62\times10^{-5} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{Pg}}\frac{1}{\theta}\frac{d \theta}{dh} \left| \frac{d\boldmath{V}}{dh}\right|\right)^{ 4/3}$$ where $P$ is pressure, $g$ is gravitational acceleration, $\theta$ is potential temperature, $h$ is vertical height, $\boldmath{V}$ is velocity, and all terms are in SI units. Secondly, we make the very crude, but reasonable, assumption that the gradients $|d\boldmath{V}/dh|$ are proportional to the wind speeds taken from the NCAR data – that is, that the atmosphere shows self-similar behaviour, with some fixed (though unknown) dependence between wind speed and its vertical gradients at any given pressure height. Thirdly, we use the winter NCAR/NCEP temperature and windspeed profiles over Dome C, together with the average winter $C_n^2$ profile of Trinquet [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2008, T08), as templates. We are then able to synthesise an average winter $C_n^2$ profile for every point in the NCAR maps, by scaling the T08 profile at each pressure height according to the local velocity and temperature profile. For elevations lower than Dome C, we have no $C_n^2$ profile, and we simply assume a fixed value of $C_n^2=1 \times 10^{-17}{\rm m}^{2/3}$ (m is metres). We then integrate up the resulting $C_n^2$ profile, to get maps for the free seeing $\epsilon_0$, the isoplanatic angle $\theta_0$, and also the coherence time $\tau_0$: $$\epsilon_0 = 1.51 \times 10^{-15} \left(\int_{h_0} C_n^2 dh\right)^ {3/5} ['']$$ $$\theta_0 = 9.48 \times 10^{15} \left(\int_{h_0} C_n^2 (h-h_0)^{5/3} dh \right)^{-3/5} ['']$$ $$\tau_0 = 4.60 \times 10^{17} \left( \int_{h_0} C_n^2 |\boldmath{V}|^{5/3} dh\right)^{-3/5} [{\rm msec}]$$ where $h_0$ is the surface height and all terms on the RHS are in SI units. The results are plotted in Figure 19. The variation due to differences in pressure and potential temperature profile are very small, it is wind speed that really matters. $\epsilon_0$ is dominated by contributions below about 11km (pressures above 200mb), while $\theta_0$ is dominated by contributions at 20-25km (pressures 20-40mb). So our maps are largely just a reflection of the average wind speeds at those heights. $\tau_0$ varies as a much stronger power of $|\boldmath{V}|$ than $\epsilon_0$ or $\theta_0$ ($\frac{9}{5}$ versus $\frac{4}{5}$), but is not dominated by any particular heights. The prediction for $\tau_0$ is also more robust, since there is a certain dependence on one power of wind speed. Table 6 shows the resulting values for the various sites. [lcccc]{} Site & $\epsilon_0$ ([$''$]{}) & $\theta_0$ ([$''$]{}) & $\tau_0$ (ms)& CV (s)\ South Pole & 0.186 & 5.43 & 18.8 & 16.0\ Dome A & 0.218 & 5.57 & 16.0 & 10.4\ Ridge A & 0.208 & 6.29 & 17.6 & 16.1\ Dome C & 0.261 & 3.39 & 8.44 & 1.42\ Dome F & 0.209 & 5.17 & 15.4 & 9.42\ Ridge B & 0.234 & 4.07 & 11.1 & 3.36\ The model predicts that the best free seeing is at South Pole. Comparing Dome A and Dome C, we predict that the free seeing is about 20% better, the isoplanatic angle 50% better, and for coherence time almost a factor of two better. Dome F is very nearly as good as Dome A, while Ridge A is significantly better than Dome A, and comparable with South Pole. Dome B is better than Dome C but much worse than Domes A or F. The model predicts very large variations in the utility of the sites for any sort of adaptive optics, which is given by the ‘Coherence Volume’ $\theta_0^2$ $\tau_0 / \epsilon_0^2$ (e.g. Lloyd 2004). This is also shown in Table 6, and implies differences of an order of magnitude between Dome C and the best sites. All the seeing predictions here look too optimistic, partly because the T08 profile gives better values than the DIMM measurements of Aristidi [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2009). Like Hagelin [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2008), we predict better free seeing at South Pole than at Dome C, in disagreement with the balloon data of Marks [[*et al.*]{}]{}(1999). We note that Lascaux [[*et al.*]{}]{}(in preparation) have undertaken simulations of individual $C_n^2$ profiles at Dome C, in impressive agreement with the T08 data. This offers the likelihood of much more sophisticated predictions for the comparative seeing of the various sites. Discussion ========== The results on aurorae (based firmly on real data) and airglow (based on a model with only temperate validation), suggest that the optical sky brightness is higher in Antarctica than at temperate latitudes (except possibly briefly in the spring in the far red). The increase is not large enough to rule out e.g. interferometric or time-series observations, but makes Antarctica less attractive for sky-limited optical observations. The cloud cover, surface temperatures, and high and low altitude winds all have minima offset from Dome A towards the South Pole, albeit by varying amounts. So it is natural to reconsider the topography in this region, to see if there is a better site for an astronomical observatory. Figure 20 shows the topography around Dome A, according to Liu [[*et al.*]{}]{}(2001). Dome A (80.37[$^{\circ}$]{}S 77.53[$^{\circ}$]{}E 4083m) is right on the northeast end of a very flat plateau. This is unfortunate, as there are better conditions at the other end of the plateau. There are two obvious other sites for an observatory: there is a secondary peak at (80.79[$^{\circ}$]{}S 75.9[$^{\circ}$]{}E 4080m), 55km away from Dome A but only 3m lower, and there is a perfectly flat spur which ends at (81.5[$^{\circ}$]{}S 73.5[$^{\circ}$]{}E 4053m), 144km from Dome A but only 30m lower. This latter site, which we call Ridge A, looks to offer significant advantages over Dome A in terms of weather, surface temperature, PWV, surface and high altitude wind speeds. Dome F emerges from this study as an excellent site, with the exception of auroral emission for optical work. The PWV is not quite as good as at Dome A, but the boundary layer, temperature, seeing, and weather characteristics are all comparable. Ridge B (Figure 21), also contains potentially very good sites, if the problems of access and communications with Dome A prove intractable. Dome B at (79[$^{\circ}$]{}01[$'$]{}S, 93[$^{\circ}$]{}37[$'$]{}E, 3809m) has excellent boundary layer characteristics, is as high and cold as Dome F, with much lower auroral emissions, but with somewhat higher PWV and significantly worse free seeing. Positions further along the ridge (and so with better sky coverage and easier access) are compromised by the increasing mismatch between the physical peak, which runs almost due north, and the katabatic ridge running NNE. At the end of the katabatic ridge, at $\sim$76[$^{\circ}$]{}S $\sim$97[$^{\circ}$]{}E, the elevation is $\sim$3700m, $\sim$100m lower than the peak. Dome C scores very well in terms of surface temperature and weather, and is the only site able to use the predicted OH hole in the spring. The [$K_d$]{}background may be almost as good as other sites, though this is unmeasured. Seeing, thermal sky backgrounds and PWV are all significantly worse than Domes A or F. South Pole appears to offer the least turbulence in the free atmosphere of all the sites, but is much poorer in almost all other respects. Conclusions =========== 1. [The lowest surface wind speeds and the thinnest boundary layer are found at Dome F, Ridge A, all along Ridge B, Dome C, and Dome A, in that order. The ridge on minimum wind speed is offset from the topographic ridge, in the direction of lower surface gradient.]{} 2. [The lowest surface temperatures are to be found along the line between Dome F -– Dome A -– Ridge B – Dome C, with only a few degrees variation. The ridge of lowest temperature is again offset from the topographic ridgeline, but by a larger amount.]{} 3. [The lowest winter cloud cover closely tracks the lowest temperatures, with the same offset, and with only a few percent variation in the clear sky fraction. Dome C may have the best winter weather of all the sites.]{} 4. [The lowest wintertime free atmospheric wind speeds are found between Dome A, Dome F, and the South Pole, and increase with distance from there. On the assumption that wind speeds and seeing are closely correlated, this translates into significant differences in the free atmosphere seeing, the isoplanatic angle, and the coherence times. There is an order of magnitude variation in the predicted overall Coherence Volume between the sites.]{} 5. [The lowest wintertime atmospheric thermal emission, and the lowest precipitable water vapour, is likewise found between Dome A, Dome F, and South Pole. The differences between the sites in thermal IR sky background are factors of 1.5-3.]{} 6. [Domes A and C and Ridge B are all similar from an auroral point of view, with significant but not disastrous auroral contribution to the optical sky backgrounds. At Dome F, aurorae dominate the optical sky brightness.]{} 7. [Airglow from OI and OH is predicted to be higher everywhere on the Antarctic plateau than for temperate sites, limiting its attractiveness for sky-limited observations shortward of 2.2$\mu$m. However, in the spring, OH emission is predicted to collapse to levels $\sim5$ times lower than temperate sites. Dome C is the only site that can take advantage of this, but only for $\sim100$ hours/year.]{} 8. [Overall, Dome A is clearly the best of the existing sites, because of its excellent free atmospheric seeing, PWV, and thermal backgrounds from sky and telescope.]{} 9. [However, significantly better conditions are expected to be found $\sim$ 150km southwest of Dome A, at what we call Ridge A, at (81.5[$^{\circ}$]{}S 73.5[$^{\circ}$]{}E 4053m)]{} 10. [Dome F is a remarkably good site, comparable with Dome A, with the exception of PWV and auroral activity.]{} 11. [Dome B is also a very good site. The PWV is again not quite as good as Dome A, and the seeing is significantly worse. Dome F is marginally the better site for most purposes.]{} We summarise these conclusions as an entirely subjective, but hopefully useful, table of the merits of the various sites (Table 7). [|p[0.75in]{}|p[0.2in]{}|p[0.2in]{}|p[0.2in]{}|p[0.2in]{}|p[0.2in]{}|p[0.2in]{}|]{} & SP & DA & RB & DC & DF & RA\ Cloud & [ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}\ Boundary Layer & [ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}\ Aurorae & [ $\times$ ]{}[ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\times$ ]{}[ $\times$ ]{}[ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\times$ ]{}\ Free seeing & [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}\ PWV / IR sky & & [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}\ Temperature & [ $\times$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}& [ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}[ $\surd$ ]{}\ As a final comment, we note that the atmospheric properties of a site are only one set of characteristics that have to be considered before an observatory can be established. To quote Vanden Bout (2002): [*“Even so, there remain many other considerations that influence the selection of telescope sites. These considerations can have an overwhelming influence. They cannot be ignored if projects are to succeed. The task of telescope site selection is to pick the site with the best atmosphere required for the science while satisfying the requirement that the project must be sold to those who will supply the funding.”*]{} Acknowledgments =============== The weather satellite analyses were supported by the ICESat, CERES, and CALIPSO projects. We have made extensive use of NCAR/NCEP reanalysis data provided by the NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their Web site at [http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/]{}. Thanks to Yan Chen, Sharon Gibson and Petra Liverani for assistance with the graphics, and to Nicole van Lipzig for provision of a high quality version of Figure 4. Agabi, A., Aristidi, E., Azouit, M., Fossat, E., Martin, F., Sadibekova, T., Vernin, J., Ziad, A., 2006, , 118, 344 Aristidi,E., Fossat, E., Agabi, A., Mékarnia, D., Jeanneaux, F., Bondoux, E., Challita, Z., Ziad, A., Vernin, J., Trinquet, H. 2009. , in press. Ashley, M. C. B., Burton, M. G., Calisse, P. G. Phillips, A. and Storey, J. W. V. 2003, *Highlights of Astron.*, ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 13, ed. Engold & Burton, 3 pp. Benn, C. R. and Ellison, S. L. 2007, La Palma technical note 115, [http://www.ing.iac.es/Astronomy/\ observing/conditions/skybr/skybr.html]{} Burton, M. 2007, Astronomy from the polar plateaus, IAU Highlights of Astronomy 14, ed. K. A. van der Hucht, in press Dempsey, J. T., Storey, J. W. V., and Phillips, A. 2005, , 22 91-104. (D95) Hagelin, S., Masciadri, E., Lascaux1, F., and Stoesz, J. 2008, , 387, 1499–1510. Hardy, D. A., Gussenhoven, M. S., Holeman, E. 1985. A statistical model of auroral electron precipitation. , 90, 4229-4248. Hardy, D. A.; Gussenhoven, M. S.; Brautigam, D.; McNeil, W. 1991, , 96, 5539-5547. (H91) Kalnay [[*et al.*]{}]{}, 1996, The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project, *Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.*, 77, 437-470 Kenyon, S. L., Lawrence, J. S., Ashley, M. C. B., Storey J. W. V., Tokovinin, A., 2006, 118:924–932 . Lawrence, J., 2004, , 116, 482-492. Lawrence J., Ashley M., Tokovinin A., Travouillon T., 2004, , 431, 278 Liu, H., K. Jezek, B. Li, and Z. Zhao. 2001, *Radarsat Antarctic Mapping Project digital elevation model version 2*. CityBoulder, StateCO: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Digital media. Lloyd, J.P. 2004, , 5491 190 Marks R. D.,Vernin J., Azouit M., Manigault J. F., Clevelin C., 1999, , 134, 161 Masciadri, E., & Jabouille, P. 2001, , 376, 727. Minnis, P., Trepte, Q. Z., Sun-Mack, S., Chen, Y., Doelling, D. R., Young, D. F., Spangenberg, D. A., Miller, W. F., Wielicki, B. A., Brown, R. R., Gibson, S. C. and Geier, E. B. 2008, *IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.*, 46, 3857-3884. Monaghan, A.J., and Bromwich, D.H. 2008. Advances in describing recent Antarctic climate variability. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 1295-1306. Moore, A. [[*et al.*]{}]{}2008. , 7012, 701226-1. Mosser, B. and Aristidi, E. 2007. , 119, 127. Parish, T. R., and Bromwich, D. H. 2007: Mon. Wea. Rev., 135, 1961-1973. Phillips, A., Burton, M. G., Ashley, M. C. B. Storey, J. W. V., Lloyd, J., P. 1999. , 527 1009. Trepte, Q., Minnis, P. and Arduini, R. F. 2002, *Proc. SPIE 3rd Intl. Asia-Pacific Environ. Remote Sensing Symp. 2002: Remote Sens. of Atmosphere, Ocean, Environment, and Space*, Hangzhou, China, October 23-27, Vol. 4891, 449-459. Spinhirne, J. D., S. P. Palme, and W. D. Hart, 2005: Antarctica cloud cover for October 2003 from GLAS satellite lidar profiling. , 32, L22S05, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023782. .Storey, J. W. V. ‘Astronomy from Antarctica’, 2005. Antarctic Science, 17, 555-560. Swain, M., and Gallee, H. 2006a, , 118, 1190. (SG06a) Swain, M., and Gallee, H., 2006b, , 6267, 50. (SG06b) Trinquet, H., Agabi, A., Vernin, J., Azouit, M., Aristidi, E., Fossat, E., 2008, , 120, 203. Vanden Bout, P. 2002, ASP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 266, p.448. Eds J. Vernin, Z. Benkhaldoun, and C. Muñoz-Tuñón. ISBN: 1-58381-106-0. van Lipzig, N.P.M., Turner, J., S. R. Colwell, S.R. and van den Broeke,M.R. 2004. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 1973–1982. Winker, D. M., W. H. Hunt, and M. J. McGill (2007), Initial performance assessment of CALIOP, , 34, L19803, doi:10.1029/2007GL030135. [^1]: http://www.swpc.noaxa.gov/pmap/pmapS.html [^2]: see http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/poles.html [^3]: cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/Instruments:spm

--- abstract: 'We discuss the notion of quantum mechanical coherence in its connection with time evolution and stationarity. The transition from coherence to decoherence is examined in terms of an equation for the time dependence of the density matrix. It is explained how the decoherence rate parameter arising in this description is related to the “unitarity defect” in interactions with the environment as well as the growth in entropy of the system. Applications to the “Zeno-Watched Pot Effect” and gravitational interactions are given. Finally, some recent results on applications to macroscopic coherence with the rf SQUID, where the transition from quantum to classical behavior could be studied experimentally, are shown.' address: 'Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), Föhringer Ring 6, 80805 München, Germany' author: - 'L. Stodolsky' title: to COHERENCE AND THE CLOCK --- =-0.35cm =0.3cm ø[$\cal O$ ]{} Presented at [*Time And Matter*]{}, Venice, August 2002 2.0pc There’s no doubt that the concept of time is absolutely fundamental, be it for philosophers, physicists or the man and woman on the street. Kant even snubbed those haughty mathematicians and put time before number, making the intuition of time the origin of arithmetic [@hersh]. Peculiar to physicists however, and probably not agreed upon or well understood by these other demographic groups, is that with the 20th Century lessons of relativity and behind them, physicists in their overwhelming majority will agree that time should be viewed as a physical process. There seems to be no avoiding–even in principle– the need to understand how the clock works as a physical object. We are familiar with the slowing down of time in special relativity, perhaps most easily understood as a transformation of fields due to velocity. The various fields change in such a way, according to relativity, that any physical process–including some “clock”– goes slower. Similarly, gravitational fields can affect the clock, as in the red shift. While these are interesting enough, there are further and perhaps less familiar aspects of time as a physical process resulting from quantum mechanics. This will be the subject of our discussion. Time Evolution as a Coherence Phenomenon ======================================== For a clock to work, according to , it is necessary to have A) different energy states present, and B) coherence between these states. This might be easier to understand if we first look at the more familiar situation for space instead of time. In order to have a highly accurate definition of a point in space we need, according to , a well localized wavepacket. This contains a large spread of momentum states. Indeed if we had only [*one*]{} momentum component the would be completely spread out everywhere and in no definite position at all. So localization in position requires a spread of momentum states. But this is not enough. In addition these momentum states must be [*coherent*]{}. If one momentum state alone is spread out everywhere, it is only the phases between the different momentum states that allows them to cancel everywhere but in the vicinity of one point. And so if these states are added [*incoherently*]{} the system is still not localized. And so is it also with energy eigenstates and time. A single energy eigenstate by itself does not tic, it must “beat” or interfere with something else. Typically, with atoms or molecules, we have a second energy eigenstate nearby and we observe the oscillating electromagnetic field resulting from the beating of the two levels. Or we can suppose a $K^o$-meson clock [@kclock] or neutrino clock using the oscillations in flavor (strangeness, electron-muon number) resulting from the interference of different mass eigenstates. If the two atomic or molecular levels are not coherent, the emitted photons will be “chaotic” and the electromagnetic field has no well-defined phase suitable for a clock; if the two kaon or neutrino states [@nu] are incoherent there will be no oscillations. We thus see that in addition to the slowing down of time which is possible by relativistic effects, there is a further aspect to time as physical process: coherence and incoherence. density matrix ============== To deal with such questions of coherence and incoherence in it is not enough to think about the wavefunction of the system in question. We need a quantity which can describe something like an average over different wavefunctions. The tool for this in is the density matrix. The  is easy to understand if we suppose having–in our minds–the complete, big of the whole world, or at least that part of it that might interact with what we want to study. What we want to study will in general only be a subsystem of what is described by the big and involves only a few of the total number of variables. Let us take the simple case where this subsystem is a two-state system, with basis states $\phi_1, \phi_2$. (One state would be [*too*]{} simple.) Then the big can be written $$\label{psi} \Psi= |x_1,x_2.....x_N;1>\phi_1 + |x_1,x_2.....x_N;2>\phi_2\; ,$$ where the $x$’s are all the variables outside the subsystem, with $N$ a big number like $10^{23}$, and the kets $|....>$ are the wavefunctions for these variables. The “1” or “2” indicate that these in general depend on the state of the subsystem. Now if we only look at the subsystem and not at the $x$’s, that is are only concerned with operators that act on $\phi_1, \phi_2$, then all we need to know is the “reduced” density matrix of the two-state system. This is a 2 x 2 matrix which can be expressed [@us] as follows $$\label{rhomat} \rho=\pmatrix{<x_1,x_2.....x_N;1|x_1,x_2.....x_N;1>&<x_1,x_2..... x_N ;1|x_1,x_2.....x_N;2>\cr<x_1,x_2.....x_N;2|x_1,x_2.....x_N;1>&<x_ 1,x_2.....x_N;2|x_1,x_2.....x_N;2> }$$ where the interpretation of this matrix can be given as: $$\label{pmat} \pmatrix{ \rm{how~ much~ of~ 1}& \rm{coherence~ between~ 1~ and~ 2}\cr \rm{(coherence~ between~ 1 ~and~ 2)^*}& \rm{how~ much~ of~ 2}}\; ,$$ where of course the “amounts” are probabilities and are normalized to one: ( $\rm{how~ much~ of~ 1}+\rm{how~ much~ of~ 2}= 1$). The justification for calling the off-diagonal elements the degree of coherence between the two states may be seen by considering two extreme cases: let $|x_1,x_2.....x_N;1>$ and $|x_1,x_2.....x_N;2>$ be either the same or orthogonal. In the first case $\phi$ can be factored out in Eq \[\[psi\]\] and $\Psi$ is just a product wavefunction; $\phi_1$and $ \phi_2$ are completely coherent. In the second case no operator working just on the $\phi_1, \phi_2$ subspace can cause the two states to interfere, they are completely incoherent. If we think of the $x$’s as describing an environment in which our subsystem is immersed, we can say that to the degree the subsystem is correlated with the environment, the subsystem is internally incoherent. Finally, this environment could be a “measuring apparatus”. This is something that establishes a correlation–usually a strong one– between the state of the subsystem and the $|x...>$, which now represent the “apparatus”. In the limit of very strong correlation we can know what $\phi$ is just by looking at the $|x...>$, which is of course how a measurement instrument should function. On the other hand, we thus see how the measurement “collapses the ” of the subsystem: $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ become incoherent [@us] when the $|x...>$ states are very different. thermal state, stationarity =========================== An easy and limiting case of incoherence to understand is the thermal state. The density matrix operator $\rho$ for a thermal state is proportional to $$\label{boltz} \rho \sim e^{-H/kT}\;,$$ where $H$ is the hamiltonian operator, $T$ the temperature and $k$ the boltzmann constant. Looking at this expression you might be inclined to see only the usual boltzmann factor of statistical physics, which it is. However, more important for our discussion is the fact that it is an [*operator*]{}. Furthermore this operator is a function of the Hamiltonian operator only, $T$ and $k$ being just numerical parameters. This means that there is a definite basis in which $\rho$ is diagonal, namely the basis of energy eigenstates $|E>$: $$\label{del} \rho_{E,E'} \sim C_E \delta_{E,E'} \;.$$ This diagonal property has the physical interpretation that different energy eigenstates are [*incoherent*]{}. That is, consider the expectation value of some operator ø: $$\label{tr} \overline{\cal O}=Tr\bigl[\rho {\cal O}\bigr]\sim C_E \delta_{E,E'}{\cal O}_{E,E'}\sim C_E {\cal O}_{E,E} \;,$$ In words, the contributions to ${\overline{\cal O}}$ for each energy state are to be added separately and incoherently. One obvious consequence of this incoherence between energy states is that nothing can be time dependent: as we well know the thermal state is [*stationary*]{}. That is, if we consider the time dependence of any operator ${\cal O}(t)= e^{iHt}{\cal O}e^{-iHt}$ in the thermal state we get $$\label{tra} \overline{\cal O}(t)=Tr\bigl[\rho~ e^{iHt}{\cal O}e^{-iHt}\bigr]= Tr\bigl[\rho{\cal O}\bigr]= constant \;,$$ since we can use the fact that $ e^{iHt}$ commutes with $\rho$ and the permutation property of the trace to bring the $ e^{iHt}$ factors together and cancel them. Is the thermal state the only state like this? Obviously not, for Eq \[\[tra\]\] we see that the important point is Eq \[\[del\]\], the diagonality, and not the precise value of the $C_E$. The above arguments go through for [*any*]{} $\rho= f(H)$ and not just Eq \[boltz\]. For this reason we wrote a general coefficient $C_E$ and not the boltzmann factor. So if it’s not the thermal state, what is the characterizing feature of the  \[\[del\]\]? The property which will be true of any state describe by Eq\[\[del\]\] is that it is [*stationary*]{}. Since there is no coherence between energy states no operator can show a time dependence. Conversely, if we know on physical grounds that some system is stationary, we know that its energy states are incoherent. An important case of this is the radiation coming from a thermal source. The radiation itself, say neutrinos from the sun, need not follow a boltzmann factor. But since the sun, (to a very high degree of approximation) is stationary, we know that different energy states are incoherent. Understanding this helped to clear up a long-standing confusion on the treatment of neutrino oscillations [@unn]. loss of coherence ================= Limiting cases like perfect coherence for a pure state, or incoherence of energy states for stationary systems, are easy to understand. However, we are often confronted with the more difficult situation of partial and time-dependent coherence. Typically we imagine the problem of a subsystem in a pure, perfectly coherent, state at $t=0$; which as time goes on becomes more incoherent as it interacts with the external world. Although this is in principle a perfectly well defined problem: just go ahead, find the total at any time and average out the unobserved variables by calculating Eq \[\[rhomat\]\] —there is no simple way to do this perfectly rigorously for a many-variable system. We must resort to some kinds of plausible approximations or guesses. A simple and reasonable picture, from which however we can learn a lot, amounts to assuming that the outer world or environment has steady properties with time and there is a loss of coherence at a constant rate for our subsystem. Formally this is like the “golden rule” calculation used in decay problems or scattering theory. For the two state system as described by Eq \[\[rhomat\]\] we can give a quite complete description of the phenomenology of the problem on this basis and draw a number of interesting conclusions. parameterization of $\rho$ ========================== To set up the framework for this approach, we first parameterize the 2x2 matrix for $\rho$ in terms of the familiar pauli matrices $\bf \sigma$: $$\label{rhomata} \rho= {1\over 2}(I +{\bf P}\cdot {\bf \sigma}) \; ,$$ which is appropriately normalized to $Tr \rho =1$. The two-state subsystem is governed by an internal hamiltonian which completely describes its behavior in the absence of interaction with the environment. It is also a 2 x 2 matrix which we can parameterize in the same way: $$\label{hmat} H= {\bf V}\cdot {\bf \sigma} \; ,$$ where we have left out a possible constant term which simple represents an overall energy shift and has no interesting effects. These are just mathematical definitions, but because of the familiar identification of the pauli matrices with spin, they allow a simple intuitive picture. The 3-vector $\bf P$ is like a “polarization”. According to Eq \[\[pmat\]\] its vertical or “z” component represents the relative amounts of the two states “1” or “2”. The “transverse” or x-y components, according to Eq \[\[pmat\]\] represent the degree of coherence within the subsystem. In generalizing to more than two- state systems, this remains true; the diagonal elements represent the amount of the “quality" in question and the off-diagonal elements the coherence between them. Note that this is necessarily a basis-dependent picture: we must specify which “quality” we are talking about. Isolated system =============== Naturally if the system is isolated and has no interactions with the outside world the situation is very simple. The evolution is governed by the above hamiltonian and the equation of motion for $\rho$ given by the basic formula $$\label{rhodot} i\dot \rho=[\rho,H]$$ Using the algebra of the $\sigma$ this translates into $$\label{pdot} \dot {\bf P}={\bf P}\times {\bf V}\; .$$ Pictorially, the “polarization” [**P**]{} precesses around a “pseudo-magnetic field” [**V**]{}. Note that [**V**]{} can be time dependent if we wish. So far we haven’t done very much, this is just equivalent to the evolution of a spin in a magnetic field. Observe that with this equation the length of [**P**]{} cannot change: $$\frac{d P^2}{dt}=2 {\bf P}\cdot({\bf P}\times {\bf V})=0\;.$$ That is, [**P**]{} rotates without shrinking. This represents the fact that a pure state remains a pure state for an isolated system. environment =========== The non-trivial part comes in when we try to handle the interaction with the outside world. As mentioned, if we make the assumption of an outside world with constant properties, interacting repeatedly with our subsystem such that there is a steady loss of coherence, that is a constant rate of decrease of the off-diagonal elements, we can obtain a plausible generalization [@siegel] of Eq \[\[pdot\]\]. This has the form $$\label{pdota} \dot {\bf P}={\bf P}\times {\bf V}- D{\bf P}_{T}\; .$$ This involves one new parameter, $D$. This is the damping or decoherence rate and describes the rate of loss of coherence between the two basis states. $ {\bf P}_{T}$ means the “transverse” or $(x,y)$ components of [**P**]{}. If we mentally turn off the first term in the equation, the $D$ term leads to an exponential decay of the overlap or coherence terms in $\rho$, as in the “golden rule”, and this rate is independent of the time when we start. If our subsystem is immersed in a large essentially infinite system it is difficult to imagine any other behavior. We have made one inessential simplification in writing Eq \[\[pdota\]\]. In order to concentrate on the interesting interaction between the decoherence and the internal evolution we have left out a possible term $D'P_z$ in which there would be a direct relaxation between the two basis states. For example in the problem of two states of a chiral molecule separated by a barrier  [@us] we are assuming that the temperature is low enough that there is no direct jumping over the barrier. This is the simple classical relaxation process which can easily be dealt with but is not essentially relevant to the quantum mechanical aspects on which we wish to focus. Similarly, it will be seen that at long times [**P**]{} in Eq \[\[pdota\]\] tends to zero. This may not be exactly correct if the internal hamiltonian is such that there is a constant energy difference between the two basis states, large compared to an ambient temperature. Then $P_z$ should end up being given by the boltzmann factor and not be zero. So we implicitly make the assumption that any constant component $V_z$ is small compared to the temperature. The most important aspect of the presence of the damping term is that now the length of $\bf P$ can shrink: $$\label{shr} \frac{d P^2}{dt}=2{ \dot P}\cdot{ P}=2{\bf \dot P}\cdot{\bf P}=-2 D {\bf P}\cdot{\bf P}_T\neq 0 \; ,$$ in general, and so the density matrix can change its “purity”. That is, even without explicitly “quality changing” relaxations the length of P will inevitably decrease, if there is a ${\bf P}_T$ component. Such a component however, will be produced, in general, by the “rotation” induced by $\bf V$. Although we shall explain below how to arrive at a microscopic understanding of $D$, even the simple phenomenological Eq \[\[pdota\]\] allows us to arrive at some interesting conclusions. One of these is the “Zeno Effect”. Zeno– Watched Pot effect ======================== The Zeno or Watched Pot Effect, perhaps first proposed by Alan Turing  [@us], goes something like this. According to the “Copenhagen School”’s treatment of the “Measurement Problem” (all these things are in “...” because I’m not sure they exist ), a measurement leaves the state of the system in one particular eigenstate of the measurement. For example after a position measurement, the object is in some definite position–not in a superposition of positions. So we or Turing might say, let’s keep rapidly measuring the object’s position. It will repeatedly be fixed to the spot and not be able to move at all! Sometimes this “paradox ” is used to say there’s something wrong with or something of the sort. But actually it represents perfectly reasonable behavior and in fact is just a solution to Eq \[\[pdota\]\], for the case of large $D$. To see this, consider the behavior of Eq \[\[pdota\]\] in the case of a constant $\bf V$, say along the x-axis. If we start $\bf P$ along the z-axis, it will tend to rotate in a circle in z-y plane: $P_z$–the probabilities or “amounts” we have defined as represented by $P_z$ will oscillate. Now if we turn on $D$, the oscillations will be damped and gradually die out. As we make $D$ larger and larger the oscillations will become overdamped and disappear completely. Finally in the limit of very strong damping one finds [@us],  [@nu] $$\label{zeno} P_z\sim e^{- { V^2\over D} t} \; .$$ In the limit of large $D$, $P_z$ is practically frozen and will hardly budge from the spot! According to this formula the time scale, initially set by the oscillation time $1/V$, gets stretched by a factor $V/D$, which can be enormous when it turns out $D$ is something like the interaction rate in a gas (see formula for $D$ below) and $1/V$ is the tunneling time between two states of a chiral molecule. In this way we gave a second answer to Hund’s paradox on the stability of the optical isomers [@us] (the first was parity violation [@beats]). On a practical level this means that in relaxation processes at low where the classical barrier-hopping type of mechanisms are frozen out and quantum tunneling takes over, we have “anti-intuitive” relaxation, where a bigger $D$ means [*slower*]{} relaxation [@us]. You might say the repeated “measurements” by the environment have fixed the state a la Zeno- Watched Pot but in any case it’s just a result of a simple solution to Eq \[\[pdota\]\] and has nothing mysterious about it. At this point we should warn of a misunderstanding which sometimes arises. The arguments, or similar arguments leading to Eq \[\[zeno\]\] or its equivalent, depend very much on our dealing with a system with two, or in any case a finite number of, levels. They do [*not*]{} apply to a continuous density of levels, as for the decay of a quasi-stable state into the continuum. This misunderstanding has occasionally led some people to erroneously suggest that the decay of a particle or atomic or nuclear level could be inhibited by observing if it has decayed or not. This is obviously silly. Mathematically the difference between the two cases is that with two or finite number of levels $P_z$ has a “flat-top” near $t=0$ in the absence of damping. That is, $P_z\sim 1-(Vt)^2$ for small times; while for a true decay problem we have $e^{-\Gamma t}\sim 1-\Gamma t$, a linear behavior. This leads to qualitatively different behavior with respect to “stopping and restarting” the system as we do when we turn on the damping to get the Zeno-Watched Pot behavior. Another nice way of undertanding this (suggested to me by Michael Berry) is to consider the decay process as the tunneling through a barrier, as in the Gamow picture of alpha decay. Now, when there is tunneling through a barrier connecting two [*discrete*]{} states, as in the chiral molecule problem [@us], the origin of the Zeno-Watched Pot effect may be understood as follows. Tunneling between two discrete states is a very delicate process and depends very much on the quasi-degeneracy of the energy between the two states. With $E_{split}$ the energy splitting , the tunneling probability goes as $\sim(\omega_{tunnel}/E_{split})^2$, with $\omega_{tunnel}$ the tunneling energy. Since $\omega_{tunnel}$ is typically very small, so must $E_{split}$ be small to have a non-neglible tunneling probability. Now if some external influence is causing the energy levels to move around constantly, even by small amounts, say by some shifting of the two potential wells in the two-state tunneling problem, the degeneracy is constantly being lifted and the tunneling is slowed down. Depending on the ratio of $D/\omega_{tunnel}$ it can be practically stopped. This leads to the Zeno-Watched Pot effect. But the situation is entirely different if we have a quasi-bound state decaying into a [*continuum*]{} of states, as in the alpha decay situation. Even if the energy of the quasi-bound state is fluctuating, it will always find some continuum state with which it is degenerate. Hence there is no Zeno-Watched Pot effect. Formula for D or the “Unitarity Deficit” ======================================== We now come to the microscopic understanding of $D$, the damping or decoherence rate. Using our general ideas, we can derive a nice formula for this, which furnishes considerable insight into the “decoherence” or “measurement process". From its definition in Eq \[\[pdota\]\] and looking at Eq \[\[pmat\]\] we see that $D$ is a rate parameter, one which gives the rate at which the overlap between $|x_1,x_2.....x_N;2>$ and $|x_1,x_2.....x_N;1>$ is decreasing with time. We take our subsystem to be interacting with the big environment in a constant, steady manner–this is implicit in our assumption of a constant $D$ with no further time dependence. We can model this situation by looking at the subsystem as being bombarded by a constant flux from the environment. This may be thought of as particles, or excitations like phonons or quasiparticles. Our basic idea is that if the two states 1 and 2 of the subsystem scatter this incoming flux in a way which is different for 1 and 2, then the overlap $<x_1,x_2.....x_N;1|x_1,x_2.....x_N;2>$ decreases. We recall the concept of the $S$ matrix of scattering theory. This is an operator which turns the incoming wavefunction into the outgoing wavefunction: $$\label{s} \psi_{out}= S\psi_{in}\;.$$ Now the important point here is that states 1 and 2 may scatter the incoming differently, so we have two $S$ matrices, $S_1$ and $S_2$ [@soph]. If these are different the incoming particle or excitation, which was [*un*]{}correlated with the state of the subsystem before the scattering, will be correlated with it afterwards. So every scattering decreases the overlap and if we work out what this means for $D$ we get the following formula: $$\label{d} D=(flux)~ {\mathrm Im}~ i ~<i\vert( 1-S^\dagger_1S_2 )\vert i>\; ,$$ The expression is proportional to the incoming flux since it is a rate parameter and $\vert i>$ refers to the incoming state, with a possible average implied if we have many kinds of incoming states. “Im ” means imaginary part. There is also a significance to the real part, which is an energy shift of the subsystem induced by the environment [@us]. Since usually we have $S^{\dagger}S=1$ for the $S$ matrix, the formula says that the decoherence rate is related to the “unitarity deficit” produced by the fact that the different components of the subsystem don’t interact the same way with the outside world. Eq \[\[d\]\] has two illuminating limits: $$\label{no} S_1=S_2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D=0\; ,~~no~ decoherence$$ If both states of the subsystem interact equally with the outer world, $D=0$, there is no decoherence. This is in accord with our feelings about “measurement”. If the “outside” does not respond to the differences in the subsystem there is no “measurement” and no “reduction” of the state. However, we do not need to use this language, the equation stands by itself. Note an important point: interaction with the environment is possible without decoherence. The other interesting limit occurs if one state, say 1, doesn’t interact so $S_1=1$ then $$\label{opt} S_1=1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D=1/2 \times (scattering~ rate~on~state~2)$$ This result follows from an application of the optical theorem of scattering theory $(cross~ section) \sim Im ~S$ and $Rate=(flux)\times (cross ~section)$. This corresponds to the naive expectation that the decoherence rate is the scattering rate. This is just one particular limit however, and there can be subtleties such as effects of phases on $D$ [@vbl]. the unitarity deficit and entropy production ============================================ There ia a classical conundrum which says, in apparent contradiction to common sense, that the entropy of a isolated system cannot increase. This is particularly simple to show in  where the definition of entropy is $ -Tr[\rho \,ln\rho ]$. Since for an isolated system the evolution of $\rho$ is governed by a Hamiltonian, we get for the time dependence of the entropy, just as in Eq. (\[tra\]), $Tr\bigl[ e^{iHt}\rho\, ln \rho e^{-iHt}\bigr]= Tr\bigl[\rho\, ln \rho\bigr]= constant$. This argument says that as long as the time dependence of $\rho$ is governed by a Hamiltonian, the entropy is constant. This constancy would also apply to the entropy $-Tr[\rho\,ln \rho ]$ of our two-state system where $\rho$ is given by Eq. (\[rhomata\]) if it were isolated –not coupled to the environment. Or as we learn from the argument, it could even be coupled to the environment; but in such a way that the evolution of $\rho$ is given by a Hamiltonian. However we see from Eq. (\[d\]) that the coupling to the environmnet is not governed by a single Hamiltonian but rather by two Hamiltonians, giving the two $S$ matrices. If we had one Hamiltonian we would have $S_1=S_2$, in which case $D=0$, and there is no decoherence. Hence there is a connection between $D$ and the entropy increase of the two state system. In fact diagonalizing Eq. (\[rhomata\]) and taking the trace, we find for the entropy $-Tr\bigl[\rho\, ln \rho\bigr]=ln{ 2}-{1\over 2}\bigl((1+P)ln(1+P)+(1-P)ln(1-P)\bigr)$. Taking the time derivative, we find for the entropy change of the two state system $$\label{ent} {d (Entropy) \over dt}=- \dot P P{1\over 2P}ln{(1+P)\over(1- P)}=(D{\bf P\cdot P_T}){1\over 2P}ln{(1+P)\over(1-P)}\approx D{\bf P\cdot P_T}\; ,$$ where we used Eq. (\[shr\]). The $\approx $ refers to the limit of small $P$. It seems intuitively clear that the rate of entropy increase and the decoherence rate should be closely related and Eq. (\[ent\]) expresses this quantitatively. By appropriate generalization of the various quantities, this could be extended to systems larger than just two states. Note ${\bf P\cdot P_T=P}_T^2$ is necessarily positive. Furthermore, in thermal equilibrium where there is no coherence between states of different energy i.e ${\bf P}_T=0$, there is no entropy production. Decoherence in mesoscopic devices ================================= In recent years our subject has moved from the theoretical- philosophical to the domain of the almost practical with the realization of quantum behavior for large, essentially macroscopic devices–“mesoscopic systems”. This has been given additional impetus in view of the possible use of such devices for the implementation of the “quantum computer”. Furthermore the subject is interesting in connection with the idea–to my mind wrong–that there might be some limit where large objects don’t obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Decoherence is of course the main question for the observability of such effects and their possible practical use. One of the devices that has been studied in detail is the rf SQUID, where by suitable adjustment of parameters it is possible to bring the system into the configuration of the familiar double potential well separated by a tunneling barrier. The “x” coordinate stands for the flux in the superconducting ring, and the system obeys–in the absence of decoherence– a Schroedinger equation in this variable. The states localized in one of the potential wells represent the supercurrent flowing in a given sense around the ring, with a very large number (microamps) of electrons reversing direction when we go from one well to the other. Creation of quantum linear combinations of these states, which can occur by tunneling, would certainly be impressive evidence for the general applicabilty of quantum mechanics. Some beautiful experiments  [@beau] [@beau1] using microwave technique have seen evidence for such combinations in SQUID systems. We have suggested [@squid] a particularly simple way to both see the quantum linear combination of the two states and to measure the decoherence time of the system, hopefully directly sensitive only to the true quantum decoherence. It involves the idea of “adiabatic inversion”. This occurs when a slowly varying external field can cause a quantum system to reverse its state, as when a spin “follows” a rotating magnetic field and goes from up to down. This phenomenon is also often refered to as a “level crossing”. It is an intrinsically quantum mechanical phenomenon and, –important for us– is hindered when the decoherence time is short compared to the time in which the inversion takes place. We propose to produce such an inversion in the SQUID by sweeping an external field and then observing the reversal of the direction of the flux in the SQUID. Note that the system need not be “observed” until the procedure is over—our method is “noninvasive”. When the sweep is faster than the decoherence time the inversion should take place, and when it is slower it should be inhibited. We are witnessing the transition from quantum (tunneling allowed) to classical (tunneling forbidden) behavior as the decoherence is increased. Going from fast to slow sweeps, the sweep time where the inversion begins to become unsuccesful thus gives a determination of the decoherence time. A possible difficulty here is that the sweep cannot be too fast, otherwise the procedure becomes non-adiabatic. However, our estimates indicate that a region of SQUID parameters and temperature should exist where fast-enough sweeps are possible without violating adiabaticity. In order to study these points in more detail we have developed numerical simulations of such systems, both for the study of the adiabatic inversion (the logical NOT) as well as for a two-SQUID system operating as a CNOT quantum logic gate [@cnot]. In Fig 1 we show the results of a simulation [@sim] for the one-SQUID adiabatic inversion. The decoherence time $1/D$ was chosen to be about 39 000 units and simulated as a random flux noise. The SQUID parameters were $\beta=1.19, L=400\,pH, C=0.1pF$, giving a time unit of $6.3\times 10^{-12}s$ and so $1/D= 0.25 \mu s$ . This decoherence time would correspond to about $T=50\,mK$ in the estimate $D=T/(e^2 R)$, with $R=5M\Omega$ [@squid]. The simulation included the first 8 quantum levels of the SQUID so that possible effects of non- adiabaticity are taken into account. The vertical axis in Fig 1 shows the probability for finding the flux in the ring reversed after the sweep. We see that while the inversion is essentially always successful for sweep times less than decoherence time, it becomes progressively less so for longer sweeps. Hence we are seeing the transition from quantum towards classical behavior, and a measuremnt of when this takes place furnishes a determination of the decoherence time. The gradual fall-off seen after the completion of the longest sweep is indicative of another difficulty, relaxation. Our final states will in general not be distributed according to thermal equilibrium, and the final detection should take place quickly on the time scale for relaxation. decoherence and gravity ======================= Although the above ideas are rather simple and phenomenological, they can be applied to a wide variety of interesting problems, where of course the various quantities like $\bf V$ and $S_1, S_2$ must be adapted to each particular case. These range from understanding the permanence of optical or “chiral” isomers (Hund’s paradox) [@us], to the study of neutrino oscillations [@nu], to the mesoscopic devices  [@vbl], [@squid], and the design of quantum logic gates [@cnot] just discussed. Here, however, I would like to conclude in a more speculative vein, coming back to the question of the need for coherence between energy states to define time. Is the loss of coherence always a more or less accidental happening, depending on the particulars of the situation? Or is there something universal about it? There is of course one kind of interaction which universally and inevitably couples to energy states and which in principle “measures” or distinguishes them: gravity [@grav]. Gravity couples to mass/energy and so states of different mass/energy interact differently. Indeed one can derive the gravitational redshift by considering the $K^o$ meson “clock”  [@kclock]. For this clock, we have two mass/energy eigenstates and interference effects between them tell time. By the same token this must imply some degree of decoherence between the different mass/energy states due to gravitational interactions. There ought to be an imaginary or dispersive part to the redshift. Naturally because the coupling, Newton’s constant, is so small we expect the effects to be negligible under everyday conditions. It is nevertheless amusing to see what the formulas look like. We shall incidentally find that there is in fact an “everyday” application, involving the passage of oscillating neutrinos near galaxies. Qualitatively, we expect in regions of large and rapidly varying gravitational fields that different energy states become incoherent. Since gravity couples universally, this cannot be dismissed as an incidental effect. It will affect all energy states, and thus time is slowed down equally for all processes. If the effects become strong, time in some sense becomes ill-defined or stands still. We try to model the due to gravity by calculating $D$ for the $K^o$ clock. There are two interfering mass eigenstates and an environment interacting gravitationally with these two states. If we take this environment to be a flux of particles, we can use our formula Eq \[\[d\]\]. The calculation of the S matrices is (non relativistically) the same as for coulomb scattering, where the “charge” is the mass. The two components of the clock have different masses $M_1, M_2$ and so $S_1, S_2$ are different and thus there is a contribution to $D$. In an impact parameter representation we have $$\label{imp} D= (flux) \int 2\pi b~ db~ Im~i (1-S^{\dagger}_{M_1}(b) S_{M_2}(b))$$ with $S(b)=e^{2i\delta(b)}$ and $$\label{sb} \delta(b) = 2 \int^{l_{max}}_0 \alpha {dl\over \sqrt{l^2+b^2}}\;,$$ where $\alpha=GEM/v$, with G the Newton constant and $E$ the energy of the incoming particle. As is usual in coulomb problems there is a divergence at large distances, and so we introduce a large distance cutoff $l_{max}$ which must be interpreted according to the physical conditions. Taking the two $S$’s and the imaginary part we finally get $$\label{alphad} D\approx (flux)l_{max}^2(\Delta \alpha)^2\;,$$ with $\Delta \alpha=G(\Delta M) E/v$, which we have taken to be small and expanded to lowest order. $\Delta M$ is $(M_1-M_2)$. We can try to estimate this under thermal conditions, as in the early universe, where all dimensional quantities are related to the temperature $T$. We end up with $$\label{difin} D\approx T^3 (G\Delta M)^2 =T^3 ({\Delta M\over M^2_{planck} })^2\;.$$ As would have been expected, T must be at least on the order of the planck scale for this to be significant. And then the rate is $\Delta M (\Delta M/ M_{planck})$, which is still small, unless we are considering $\Delta M$ also on the planck scale. The result Eq \[\[difin\]\] is of order $1/M^4_{planck}$ since decoherence, as explained, is a unitarity effect and so comes in to second order in the coupling. Although conceptually interesting this seems very remote from any potentially observable effects. Nevertheless there is, as promised, a “present-day" application. We now know there are neutrino oscillations. So possibly if the time scale for the release of the neutrinos in the Big Bang were short compared to their oscillation time (then), they would still be oscillating in step today. Instead of the $K^o$ clock we have a neutrino clock. A beautiful clock–if we could ever read it–a precise timepiece going back to the very first minutes of the Big Bang. But there’s a difficulty: in traveling to us the neutrinos will pass near various mass and gravitational field inhomogeneities, like galaxies, and these will tend to mix up the phases. Because of the huge mass of a galaxy, $\Delta \alpha$ will no longer be small. One finds [@grav], with typical mass parameters for neutrinos and galaxies, that essentially any neutrino traveling through or near a galaxy will be decohered. Unfortunately, there will be no oscillations to read. So much for the Big Bang Clock, but at least there’s a “practical” application of theory involving gravity. Note that these ideas, based on the different interaction of different mass/energy states, do not contradict the classical equivalence principle according to which different masses move in the same way. The interaction is so cleverly constructed that while different masses follow the same path classically, they get different quantum phases [@kclock], and these are essentially what concern us here. The interplay between the classical and quantum is subtle and interesting. The last has certainly not been said on these questions. R. Hersh, Oxford (1997). Matter and Light Wave Interferometry in Gravitational Fields, , Gen. Rel. Grav. [**11**]{}, 391 (1979). On the Treatment of Neutrino Oscillations in a Thermal Environment, , Phys. Rev. D 36(1987)2273 and chapter 9 of G.G. Raffelt, [*Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Physics*]{} (Univ. Chicago Press, 1996). Two Level Systems in Media and ‘Turing’s Paradox’, R.A. Harris and , Phys. Let. B 116(1982)464. Quantum Damping and Its Paradoxes,, in [*Quantum Coherence*]{}, J. S. Anandan ed. World Scientific, Singapore (1990). When the Wavepacket is Unnecessary, , Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} 036006, 1998 and www.arxiv.org, hep-ph/9802387. See ref 4, and for a more formal derivation, focused however on neutrino applications: “Non-Abelian Boltzmann Equation for Mixing and Decoherence” G. Raffelt, G. Sigl and , Phys Rev Let. 70(1993)2363. Quantum Beats in Optical Activity and Weak Interactions, R.A. Harris and , Phys Let B78 (1978) 313. The sophisticated reader will recognized that although a very simple and intuitive picture arises through the use of the S matrix with distinct scattering events, one could reach a similar result by using a hamiltonian with a continuous time evolution and depending on a quantum number with values “1” and “2”. Measurement Process In a Variable-Barrier System,, Phys. Lett. [**B459**]{} 193, (1999). J. R. Friedman, V. Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo, and J. E. Lukens, Quantum Superposition of Distinct Macroscopic States, Nature [**406**]{} 43, (2000). I. Chiorescu, Y. Nakamura, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Coherent Dynamics of a Superconducting Flux Qubit, Science [**299** ]{} 186 (2003). Study of Macroscopic Coherence and Decoherence in the SQUID by Adiabatic Inversion, Paolo Silvestrini and , Physics Letters [**A280**]{} 17-22 (2001);www.arxiv.org, cond-mat/0004472. Also Adiabatic Inversion in the SQUID, Macroscopic Coherence and Decoherence, Paolo Silvestrini and , [*Macroscopic Quantum Coherence and Quantum Computing*]{}, pg.271, Eds. D. Averin, B. Ruggiero and P. Silvestrini, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York (2001) www.arxiv.org, cond-mat/0010129. Design of Adiabatic Logic for a Quantum CNOT Gate, Valentina Corato, Paolo Silvestrini, , and Jacek Wosiek, www.arxiv.org, cond-mat/0205514, Physics Letters [**A309**]{} 206 (2003). Adiabatic Evolution of a Coupled- Qubit Hamiltonian, V.Corato, P. Silvestrini, , and J. Wosiek cond-mat/0310386; Physical Review [**B 68**]{}, 224508 (2003). Valentina Corato, Paolo Silvestrini,, and Jacek Wosiek, to be published. We use a C program developed from the work of J. Wosiek by summer students at the Max-Planck-Institute, A.T. Goerlich and P. Korcyl of the Jagellonian University. Decoherence Rate of Mass Superpositions, , Acta Physica Polonica [**B27**]{}, 1915 (1996).

--- abstract: | This article extends, in a stochastic environment, the [@Yagil] model which establishes, in a deterministic dividend discount model, a range for the exchange ratio in a *stock-for-stock* merger agreement. Here, we generalize Yagil’s work letting both pre- and post-merger dividends grow randomly over time. If Yagil focuses only on changes in stock prices before and after the merger, our stochastic environment allows to keep in account both shares’ expected values and variance, letting us to identify a more complex bargaining region whose shape depends on mean and standard deviation of the dividends’ growth rate. *Keywords:* Stochastic dividend discount model, Mergers and acquisitions, Exchange rate determination, Synergy. author: - 'Enrico Moretto[^1] Alessandra Mainini[^2]' title: Extending Yagil exchange ratio determination model to the case of stochastic dividends --- Introduction, literature review and motivation {#Intro} ============================================== Mergers and acquisitions have been, and still are, a widely studied topic in financial literature, under both a theoretical and an empirical point of view. Companies merge for various reasons, but with a unique goal: to create synergy, the additional equity value of the newly created company ($M$) when compared to the pre-existing ones, namely the acquiring ($A$) and the acquired, or target, ($B$). In a stock-for-stock merger, $B$’s shareholders receive, for each stock they give up, $r$ (the *exchange ratio*) stocks of company $M$. Shareholders of companies $A$ and $B$ will agree on some value for $r$ only if their wealth increases after the merger. Negotiation on $r$ establishes the portion of synergy that goes to stockholders of pre-merger companies. It is therefore crucial to identify a *bargaining region*, that is a non-empty range for $r$. First attempts in this direction go back to [@LG] and [@Yagil]. Larson and Gonedes represent the value of all companies in terms of their price-earnings ratios, and determine the minimum and maximum $r$ acceptable for all shareholders in terms of $M$’s price-earnings ratio. Yagil tackles the same issue using the dividend discount model (DDM) by [@Williams] and [@GS]. Here the price of a common stock is the sum of all discounted future dividends companies will pay to shareholders; Further, dividends are assumed to grow at a constant and deterministic rate. Yagil determines the bargaining region for each synergy generating $M$ dividends’ growth rate. In both these models, $A$ and $B$’s shareholders have conflicting interests: the acquiring (acquired) company aims at fixing $r$ as low (high) as possible. [@MR] determine, in an equilibrium context, the exchange ratio in terms of the expected synergy created by the merger and the companies’ riskiness, while [@TH] analyze the effects of a merger by means of utility theory. This paper generalizes Yagil’s model by exploiting the Stochastic Dividend Discount Model (SDDM) ([@HJ94], [@HJ98], [@Yao], and [@Hurley]). Future dividends are driven by a stochastic growth rate and evolve in a Markovian fashion. Along with an expression for the expected current stock price, recently, a formula for variance ([@AM]) and covariance between stock prices ([@AMM]) have been determined. A further step in this direction can be found in [@D'Amico2013], [@D'Amico2016], and [@BDD], where stochastic dividends evolve according to a more general semi-Markov dynamics. In our stochastic setting, shareholders accept to merge if they all benefit not only from an increase in the expected value of their random wealth but also from a reduction in its variance. The bargaining area, now a function of both mean and standard deviation of $M$ dividends’ growth rate, shows that large values for this dividends’ expected growth rate is not always good news as this quantity affects also company $M$ stock price variance. Stockholders might, consequentely, end up, after the merger, in a riskier position. The paper is organized as follows. Section \[SDDMYagil\] describes the theoretical framework and determines the bargaining region in a SDDM setting, Section \[Examples\] provides a numerical example, Section \[Remarks\] eventually concludes. A SDDM extension of Yagil’s model {#SDDMYagil} ================================= The main assumption behind the stochastic extension of the Dividend Discount Model is that the total amount of dividends $\tilde D(t)$ a company pays in $t$ to its shareholders evolve through time by means of the stochastic recursive equation $\tilde D \left(t+1\right) = \tilde D \left(t\right) \left(1+\tilde g\right)$, being $D(0)$ the last paid certain dividend and $\tilde g$ the dividends’ growth rate represented by the following finite-state random variable, $$\tilde g = \left\lbrace\begin{array}{@{}l@{}} \begin{array}{cccccc} \mbox{rate of growth} & g_1 & g_2 & ... & g_n & \\ \mbox{probability} & p_1 & p_2 & ... & p_n & \end{array} \end{array}\right.$$ with $-1 < g_1 < ... < g_n$, $\mathbb P\left[\tilde g = g_s \right] > 0$, $s = 1, ..., n$, and $p_1 + ... + p_n =1$. Subscript $i = A,B,M$ relates to the acquiring, acquired, and resulting companies. We assume that each company is characterized by a specific distribution for $\tilde g$, with $\bar g_i$ and $\sigma_{\tilde g_i}$, respectively, its expected value and variance. Let $N_i$ denote the number of company $i$’s outstanding stocks and $\tilde d_i(t) = \tilde D_i(t) / N_i$ its random dividends-per-share (*dps*) at time $t$. The current random stock price is $$\tilde P_i (0) = \sum_{t=1}^{+\infty} \frac{d_i(0) \left(1+\tilde g_i\right)^t}{\left(1+ k_i\right)^t}, \label{Prezzo}$$ being $k_i$ company $i$ constant and deterministic risk-adjusted discount rate. Company $i$’s equity value is, then, $\tilde W_i(0) = \tilde P_i(0) N_i$. $M$’s *dps* in $0$ is $$d_M(0) = \frac{D_A(0) + D_B (0)}{N_A + r N_B}.$$ and will grow according to $\tilde g_M$. Hurley and Johnson (1994, 1998) and Yao (1997) prove that the expected stock price is, as long as $k_i > \bar g_i$, $$\bar{P}_i(0) = \frac{d_i(0) \left(1 + \bar g_i\right)}{k_i - \bar g_i}. $$ Agosto and Moretto (2015) determine the stock price variance $$\sigma^2_i(0) = \frac{\bar P_i^2(0)h\left(\bar g_i,\sigma_{\tilde g_i}\right)\left(1 + k_i\right)^2}{\left(1 + \bar g_i\right)^2},$$ being $$h\left(\bar g_i,\sigma_{\tilde g_i}\right) = \frac{\sigma_{\tilde g_i}}{\sqrt{\Delta_i }}, \hspace{0.35 cm} \sigma_{\tilde{g}_i} > 0,$$ and where $\Delta_i = \left(1 + k_i\right)^2 - \left(1 + \bar g_i\right)^2 - \sigma^2_{\tilde{g}_i}$ has to be strictly positive. It will reveal handy to denote the coefficient of variation of $\tilde{P}_i\left(0\right)$ as $$f_i = \frac{h\left(\bar g_i,\sigma_{\tilde g_i}\right)\left(1 + k_i\right)}{1 + \bar g_i}.$$ The crucial assumption in Yagil is the choice of a deterministic growth rate for $M$. In his setting, the agreement is attainable if stockholders of both company $A$ and $B$ enjoy a positive gain in wealth, that is $P_M(0) \geq P_A(0)$ and $r P_M(0) \geq P_B(0)$, being $P_i(0)$ the stock price of company $i$ resulting when a deterministic growth rate replaces $\tilde g_i$ in (\[Prezzo\]). Moreover, Yagil assumes that the discount rate of the resulting company is the weighted average of $k_A$ and $k_B$, with weights equal to the relative equity values. That is like saying that the merger does not influence the overall risk of the resulting company with respect of the pre-existing ones. Here, $k_M$ is calculated accordingly. The SDDM generalization of Yagil’s model assumes that shareholders of company $A$ (resp. $B$) are better off, in terms of expected values, when $$\bar P_M(0) \geq \bar P_A(0) \; \; (\mbox{resp.} \; \; r \bar P_M(0) \geq \bar P_B(0)) \label{Cond1}$$ and, in terms of variance, when $$\sigma^2_M(0) \leq \sigma^2_A(0) \; \; (\mbox{resp.} \; \; r^2 \sigma^2_M(0) \leq \sigma^2_B(0)) \label{Cond2}$$ hold. An increase in terms of expected wealth for both groups of shareholders (*i.e.*, condition (\[Cond1\]) holds) occurs when $$\frac{N_A}{N_B} \frac{\bar W_B(0)}{\bar W_M(0) - \bar W_B(0)} \leq r \leq \frac{N_A}{N_B} \frac{\bar W_M(0) - \bar W_A(0)}{\bar W_A(0)}, \label{ExchangeRatio1}$$ where $\bar W_i(0) = N_i\bar P_i(0)$. There is a reduction in variance (*i.e.*, condition (\[Cond2\]) holds) when $$\frac{N_A}{N_B} \frac{\bar W_M(0) f_M - \bar W_A(0) f_A}{\bar W_A(0) f_A} \leq r \leq \frac{N_A}{N_B} \frac{\bar W_B(0) f_B}{\bar W_M(0) f_M - \bar W_B(0) f_B}. \label{ExchangeRatio2}$$ Interval (\[ExchangeRatio1\]) is not empty when $\bar W_M(0) \geq \bar W_A(0) + \bar W_B(0)$ that is, the merger creates synergy with positive expected value; (\[ExchangeRatio1\]) collapses to a unique point $r^{\ast} = \bar P_B(0) / \bar P_A(0)$ in case of no synergy, that is if $\bar W_M(0) = \bar W_A(0) + \bar W_B(0)$. Interval (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) is instead not empty when $$f_M\bar W_M \left(0\right) \leq f_A \bar W_A \left(0\right) + f_B \bar W_B \left(0\right). \label{CondVar}$$ Condition (\[CondVar\]) carries some interesting remarks. Firstly, as the coefficient of variation resembles the reciprocal of the Sharpe’s ratio, shareholders should prefer stocks with smaller $f$, that is with larger risk premium (per unit of deviation). This means that if company $M$ guarantees a sufficiently large risk compensation, stockholders will benefit from a reduction in their wealth’s variance. In case of no synergy, (\[CondVar\]) becomes $$f_M \leq \omega_Af_A + \omega_Bf_B, \;\;\;\;\; \omega_i = \frac{\bar W_i \left(0\right)}{\bar W_A \left(0\right) + \bar W_B \left(0\right)},\;\;i = A,B, \label{MeanCV}$$ whose rhs term is the weighted average of $f_A$ and $f_B$ with, as weights, the relative equity values of $A$ and $B$. Merger is, then, profitable if $M$ is less risky than an equity-valued ‘portfolio’ of $A$ and $B$. Unlike (\[ExchangeRatio1\]), in case of no synergy interval (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) does not collapse into a single value. Substituting $\bar W_M(0) = \bar W_A(0) + \bar W_B(0)$ into (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) leads to $$\frac{N_A}{N_B} \left(\frac{f_M}{f_A} - 1 \right) + \frac{\bar P_B(0)}{\bar P_A(0)} \frac{f_M}{f_A} \leq r \leq \left(\frac{N_B}{N_A} \left(\frac{f_M}{f_B} - 1 \right) + \frac{\bar P_A(0)}{\bar P_B(0)} \frac{f_M}{f_B}\right)^{-1}. \label{IntervalloSenzaSinergia}$$ This interval shrinks to $r^{\ast}$ only when $f_M = f_A$ and $f_M = f_B$, the case in which $A$ and $B$ have the same Sharpe ratio and no risk reduction is possible. Finally, it is easy to prove that the intersection between (\[ExchangeRatio1\]) and (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) is not empty if $f_M \leq \min\left(f_A;f_B\right)$; that is, the new company is even less risky than the less risky of both $A$ and $B$, a situation that guarantees proper diversification. This condition also ensures that (\[MeanCV\]) holds so that (\[IntervalloSenzaSinergia\]) contains, at least, $r^{\ast}$. A numerical example {#Examples} =================== To better understand the effects of SDDM on the pre-merger negotiation, thus highlighting the difference with Yagil’s setting, we consider a numerical example where the combined effect of $\bar g_M$ and $\sigma_{\tilde g_M }$ is studied. This allows to check if a negotiation is possible, and how easily the two parties will conclude a merging agreement. We assume that the larger the region defined simultaneously by (\[ExchangeRatio1\]) and (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) the ‘simpler’ the agreement will be. In our general setting, the extrema of intervals (\[ExchangeRatio1\]) and (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) are monotonic with respect to $\bar g_M$ and $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$. If we define the constant $$H_i = \frac{D_A + D_B}{\bar W_i(0)} \geq0 ,\;\;\;i = A,B,$$ interval (\[ExchangeRatio1\]) can be rewritten as $$\frac{N_A}{N_B}\left(\frac{1 + \bar g_M}{k_M - \bar g_M}H_B - 1\right)^{-1} \leq r \leq \frac{N_A}{N_B}\left(\frac{1 + \bar g_M}{k_M - \bar g_M}H_A - 1\right).$$ The infimum (resp. the supremum) of this interval decreases (resp. increases) in $\bar g_M$; the bargaining region defined by (\[Cond1\]) becomes larger because the expected wealth of shareholders of both companies increases; concluding an agreement becomes easier. If we, instead, define the constant $$J_i = \frac{(1 + k_M)H_i}{f_i}\geq0,\;\;\;i = A,B,$$ the region defined by (\[Cond2\]) can be written as $$\frac{N_A}{N_B}\left(\frac{h\left(\bar g_M,\sigma_{\tilde g_M}\right)}{k_M - \bar g_M}J_A - 1\right) \leq r \leq \frac{N_A}{N_B}\left(\frac{h\left(\bar g_M,\sigma_{\tilde g_M}\right)}{k_M - \bar g_M}J_B - 1\right)^{-1}.$$ Again, it is straightforward to prove that the infimum (resp. the supremum) of this interval increases (resp. decreases) both in $\bar g_M$ (for each positive $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$) and $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$ (for each $\bar g_M > - 1$). Here, room for negotiation diminishes if the post-merger standard deviation $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$ increases because it becomes difficult to achieve a lower post-merger risk. An increase in $\bar g_M$ has the same effect; this is so because the mean is the value that minimizes the centered second order moment. Quite interestingly, and somehow counter-intuitively, a variation in $\bar g_M$ has two opposite consequences on the region of negotiation, the overall result depending on which effect is dominating. Table (\[tabelle\].a) depicts the parameters describing pre-merger companies $A$ and $B$ while Table (\[tabelle\].b) reports their SDDM relevant values (stock prices mean and standard deviation, coefficient of variation, absolute ($\bar W_i$) and relative ($\omega_i$) equity values). As $f_B > f_A$, the target company is riskier than the acquiring. According to Yagil, the discount rate for $M$ is $5.72\%$. As a benchmark, if $g_M$ replaces $\bar g_M$ Figure \[bargaining-region-Yagil\] presents, in the plane $(\bar g_M,r)$, the Yagil’s bargaining region, defined by the extrema of interval (\[ExchangeRatio1\]); each point belonging to the region between the two curves, on the right of their intersection point, is such that the stock price of the new company satisfy shareholders of both companies, being admissible for the negotiation. In Figure \[bargaining-region\] we fix four levels of $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$, namely $1\%$, $1.5\%$, $2\%$, $2.5\%$, and superimpose, for each of them, extrema of interval (\[ExchangeRatio2\]) (dashed curves) on the solid curves of Figure \[bargaining-region-Yagil\], which still depict extrema of interval (\[ExchangeRatio1\]). Each point of the region bounded by the two dashed curves on the left of their intersection point fulfills shareholders’ requirements of a smaller wealth variance. The shaded area in each of the four plots in Figure \[bargaining-region\] represents the overall resulting bargaining region, which can eventually be empty (Figure \[bargaining-region\].d). Looking at each plot, it results evident that an increase in $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$ reduces the possibility of negotiation and positively concluding an agreement becomes increasingly difficult. Indeed, the example shows how negotiation does not even take place with $\sigma_{\tilde g_M} = 2.5\%$ as $A$’s shareholders will not accept an excessive post-merger increase in their wealth variance. All regions represented in Figure \[bargaining-region\] shows that negotiation can take place only if $\bar g_M \geq 1.88\%$. Further, if $\bar g_M = 1.88\%$, that is the merger creates no synergy, then the unique acceptable exchange ratio is $r^{\ast} = 0.3059$. This level is larger than the pre-merger company $A$’s expected rate, $\bar g_A = 1\%$ (Table \[tabelle\].a). Therefore, as long as $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$ is sufficiently small stockholders of the acquiring company can accept exchange ratios larger than $1$ (Figures \[bargaining-region\].a and \[bargaining-region\].b). On the other hand, $\bar g_M$ can be way smaller than $\bar g_B$ as the merger will reward $B$’s stockholders with a sharp reduction in the standard deviation of their wealth. In fact, the numerical examples shows that negotiation takes place when $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$ is far smaller then $\sigma_{\tilde g_B} = 9\%$. $B$’s shareholders accept small exchange ratios; in Figures \[bargaining-region\].a, \[bargaining-region\].b, and \[bargaining-region\].c the minimum accepted rate is always less than $0.5$ because the reduction in the expected dividends’ growth rate is adequately rewarded with a smaller level of risk. Lastly, as long as $\sigma_{\tilde g_M}$ increases, the minimum $r$ accepted by $B$ increases whereas the maximum $r$ offered by $A$ decreases. This occurs until the recuction in standard deviation is no more sufficient to satisfy shareholders’ requests. \ Concluding remarks {#Remarks} ================== This article deals with exchange ratio determination model by Yagil and tries to extend it into a stochastic framework where both expected value and variance of stockholders’ wealth have to be considered when evaluating a plausible range for the exchange ratio in stock-for-stock merger agreements. It turns out that dividends’ rate of growth of the company that the merger creates plays a double, conflicting role. In fact, such growth rate is responsible for changes in both the expected value and variance of stockholders’ wealth. It is not always true, at least in this framework, that merging companies should uniquely strive for a large post-merger growth rate as an augmented wealth variance might suggest to either shareholders of the acquired or acquiring companies, or possibly to both groups, not to accept the agreement. [99]{} [^1]: Dipartimento di Economia - Università dell’Insubria, via Monte Generoso 71, 21100 Varese, Italy, and CNR-IMATI, via A. Corti 12, 20133, Milano, Italy. E-mail address: enrico.moretto@uninsubria.it [^2]: Dipartimento di Discipline matematiche, Finanza matematica ed Econometria - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - via L. Necchi 9, 20123, Milano, Italy. E-mail address: alessandra.mainini@unicatt.it

--- address: 'Max–Planck–Institut für Kernphysik, Postfach 103980, 69029 Heidelberg, F.R.G.' author: - 'S. D. Frischat and E. Doron$\,$[@byline]' title: Dynamical Tunneling in Mixed Systems --- [H]{} =cmsy9 at 12.truept Introduction ============ A detailed understanding of how the coexistence of classically regular and chaotic phase space areas is reflected in the corresponding quantum dynamics poses one of the challenging problems in the field of “quantum chaos” [@Bohigas90a]. Even though semiclassical theories exist for the two limiting cases of fully integrable [@EBK], or fully chaotic classical dynamics [@GutzwillerBook], the quantum mechanical properties of systems with “mixed” classical dynamics have up to date not been amenable to a semiclassical formulation. The quest for such a theory is importuned by the fact that mixed systems comprise the majority of dynamical systems found in nature. Out of the wealth of phenomena reported in mixed systems, a particularly interesting one is genuinely quantum-mechanical in nature: tunneling. A situation that has received much attention is the one in which tunneling takes place between distinct, but symmetry-related regular phase space regions separated by a chaotic layer. Interest surged when it was discovered that energy splittings can increase dramatically with chaoticity of the intervening chaotic layer [@LinBallentine; @Bohigas93; @Utermann94]. This was attributed to a suggested mechanism of [*chaos-assisted tunneling*]{} [@Bohigas93; @Bohigas93a; @Tomsovic94] in which tunneling takes place not in a single tunneling transition, but in a multi-step process containing tunneling transitions between regular tori and the chaotic region, as well as chaotic diffusion inside the chaotic sea. Since a large part of the phase space distance is thus traversed via classically allowed transitions, indirect paths can be expected to carry considerably more tunneling flux than direct ones. Additional evidence was given by the observation that, apart from an overall enhancement, the tunneling splittings vary rapidly over many orders of magnitude as a function of energy, Planck’s constant $\hbar$ or other systemparameters. This was attributed to the occurrence of avoided crossings between regular doublets and chaotic states [@Bohigas93], which made it possible to further establish chaos-assisted tunneling by studying its effect on statistical properties such as the splitting distribution function. Comparison with predictions of appropriate random matrix models showed very good agreement [@Bohigas90a; @Tomsovic94; @Leyvraz96]. However, the lack of a semiclassical description of the tunneling processes remained as a gap between the quantum and the classical picture, and — more importantly — the size of the tunneling amplitudes was unknown in the systems under study, which made a [*direct*]{} and [*quantitative*]{} treatment of the phenomenon impossible. Both of these problems were addressed in an earlier publication by the authors of this work [@Doron95b] in which a semiclassical analysis of tunneling processes in the annular billiard was performed, and a formula for the contribution of chaos-assisted paths to the energy splitting was derived. Here, we give a detailed account of our findings. Particular emphasis will lie on the description of how the tunneling rate is affected by phase-space structures within the chaotic region, namely the existence of an intermediate “beach” region sandwiched between classically regular islands and the chaotic sea. The structure of this Paper is as follows. In Section \[dyntunn:sect\], we review the basic ideas underlying this work. Also, we introduce the model system under consideration, the annular billiard. In Section \[quant:sect\], we introduce the method of our analysis, the scattering approach to the quantization of closed systems, and explicitly construct the “scattering matrix” $S$ for the annular billiard. We then show in Section \[cat:sect\] how the scattering matrix approach can, under rather general assumptions, be implemented to the study of tunneling in phase space. We explain how $S$ can be approximated by a five-block matrix model with different blocks representing regular dynamics on either of the islands, beach motion close to each island, and chaotic dynamics in the center of the chaotic sea. We derive formulas for $S$-matrix eigenphase shifts and splittings in terms of paths passing through different combinations of blocks, laying emphasis on the effects arising from the inclusion of the beach blocks. Additionally, we track how tunneling flux spreads in phase space and give a detailed discussion of the interplay of tunneling probabilities into, and transport properties within the chaotic layer. Finally, in Section \[Statistics\] we calculate statistical quantities — such as the splitting distribution function and median values for the splitting — by averaging over the properties of the chaotic block. We conclude with a discussion. Dynamical Tunneling {#dyntunn:sect} =================== Classical and Quantum Mechanics of Mixed Systems ------------------------------------------------ ### Correspondence of Wavefunctions with Classical Structures {#corresp:sect} Systems with classically mixed dynamics display both regular and chaotic behavior, depending on the starting conditions of the trajectory considered. The structure of phase space can conveniently be probed by use of a [*Poincaré surface of section (PSOS)*]{} [@LichtenbergBook], a phase space cut $\Gamma$ giving rise to the [*Poincaré map*]{} $$(Q,P)_i\mapsto (Q,P)_f\ ,\quad (Q,P)_{i/f}=(Q(\bbox{x_{i/f}}),P(\bbox{x_{i/f}}))\ ,$$ where $(Q,P)$ is a set of canonically conjugate variables, and $\bbox{x}_{i/f}\in\Gamma$ are connected by the system dynamics. If one starts out with highly localized distributions and plots iterates of the [*Poincaré cell*]{} $\CP=\{(Q(\bbox{x}),P(\bbox{x})) : \bbox{x}\in\Gamma\}$, then chaotic areas show up as areas which quickly become more or less uniformly covered, while regular motion remains confined to lower-dimensional manifolds on $\CP$. In a mixed system, both types of structures appear, and one arrives at plots of $\CP$ such as the one presented in Fig. \[smat:PSOS:fig\] (see below). In order to associate a system’s quantum eigenstates $\psi$ with classical features — such as chaotic regions or regular tori — one often uses the [*Wigner transformation*]{} [@WignerHillery] of the projector $|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$. By smoothing over minimal-uncertainty wavepackets one obtains the [*Husimi distribution*]{} [@HusimiTakahashi] that defines a real, non-negative probability density in phase space. We will tacitly invoke the Wigner/Husimi concept in the sequel when referring to the correspondence of quantum states with phase space structures. Until now, no general theory for the quantization of mixed systems is at hand. However, the understanding has emerged that, in the semiclassical limit, quantum states can unambiguously be classified as “regular” and “chaotic” (for a review, see [@Bohigas93]). Regular states are supported by classical tori obeying EBK quantization rules [@EBK], whereas chaotic states are associated with chaotic phase space regions (or subsets of it [@Heller84]). The structure of chaotic states is to date not fully understood and is presently the subject of intensive research. Classification of states as regular and chaotic can become problematic at intermediate energy (or $\hbar$), since EBK-like quantization rules can apply also to states residing on chaotic phase space regions lying in close proximity to the regular island [@Noid77; @Bohigas90; @Utermann94]. Loosely speaking, the regularity of classical islands can quantum-mechanically extend into the chaotic sea, and states of an intermediate nature emerge. ### Effect of Phase Space Symmetries To discuss the effect of phase space symmetries on the structure of quantum states, we consider a system with a discrete two-fold phase space symmetry ${\cal T}$. We suppose that there are two disjoint phase space objects ${\cal A}_1$ and ${\cal A}_2$, each of which is invariant under the classical dynamics, mapped onto another by the symmetry operation, ${\cal A}_2={\cal T}{\cal A}_1$. We also suppose that, in the semiclassical limit, each of the ${\cal A}_{1/2}$ supports a set of states primarily localized on it. Let us, for the sake of definiteness, consider the case when the ${\cal A}_{1/2}$ are EBK-quantized tori. On each of the tori, one can construct [*quasi-modes*]{} $\psi_r^{\,(1)}(\bbox{q})$ and $\psi_r^{\,(2)}(\bbox{q})=\psi_r^{\,(1)}({\cal T}\bbox{q})$ that obey the Schrödinger equation to any order of $\hbar$ [@MaslovBook]. The corresponding EBK energy eigenvalues $E_r$ are then degenerate to any order in $\hbar$. However, exact quantum states are constrained to be symmetric or antisymmetric under ${\cal T}$, $$\begin{aligned} \psi_r^{\,\pm}(\bbox{q})\approx\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left( \psi_r^{\,(1)}(\bbox{q})\pm\psi_r^{\,(2)}(\bbox{q})\right)\ , \label{tunn:evenodd}\end{aligned}$$ and the energy degeneracy is lifted by tunneling processes by an amount $\delta E_r$, giving rise to tunneling oscillations with period $2\pi\hbar/\delta E_r$. The best-known example of quantum-mechanical tunneling oscillations is the one-dimensional symmetric double quantum well, where the phase space symmetry ${\cal T}(x,p)=(-x,-p)$ connects regular tori in each of the wells (for a careful discussion along the above line of argument, see [@Tomsovic94]). In systems of more than two-dimensional phase space, symmetries can give rise to more intricate situations. The tori ${\cal A}_1$ and ${\cal A}_2$ must not necessarily be separated by an energy barrier in configuration space, but the transition from ${\cal A}_1$ to ${\cal A}_2$ can also be forbidden by a [*dynamical*]{} law. In this case, there is a dynamical variable other than energy that is conserved by classical dynamics, but violated by quantum dynamics [@Miller7274; @Miller75]. The case of quantum doublets connected by tunneling processes of this type was first reported by Davis and Heller [@Davis81] who also coined the term [*dynamical tunneling*]{}. A particularly clear example of dynamical tunneling will be presented in Section \[annular:sect\] in the discussion of the annular billiard. As in the case of energy barrier tunneling, splittings due to dynamical tunneling can be expected to be very small, since classical transport from ${\cal A}_1$ to ${\cal A}_2$ is forbidden. Note that the formation of doublets is determined by the phase space [*topology*]{} of the supporting region, not its regularity or chaoticity. The occurrence of doublets has also been observed in situations, in which the localizing mechanism was due to dynamical localization [@Bohigas90; @Utermann94; @Casati94] or scarring [@Frischat97]. Conversely, a phase space structure ${\cal B}= {\cal T}{\cal B}$ mapped onto itself supports states that do not form doublets, regardless of its dynamical nature. Chaos-Assisted Tunneling ------------------------ Apart from the possibility of dynamical tunneling, tunneling processes in systems of more than one degree of freedom can have an additional aspect of interest: the appearance of chaos in the region of phase space traversed by the tunneling flux. As an early paradigm of such a system, Lin and Ballentine [@LinBallentine] proposed the periodically driven double well potential, where chaoticity can gradually be introduced by increasing the driving strength. Lin and Ballentine performed a numerical study of tunneling oscillations between states associated with regular tori corresponding to classical motion confined to either bottom of the well. They observed that, as the separating phase space layer grows more chaotic with increasing driving strength, tunneling rates are enhanced by orders of magnitude over the rate in the undriven system (the integrable 1-$d$ double well). In a later study of the same system, Utermann [*et al.*]{} [@Utermann94] established that the tunneling rate of a wave packet initially localized on one regular island is determined not by the wave packet’s overlap with the other island, but by its overlap with the chaotic sea, pointing at a role for classically chaotic diffusion as a mediator of quantum tunneling flux. In a parallel and simultaneous line, Bohigas, Tomsovic and Ullmo advocated the interpretation that the enhancement of tunneling was a case of [*resonant*]{} tunneling due to the occurrence of avoided crossings of the tunneling doublet’s eigenenergies with the eigenenergy of a state residing on the intervening phase space layer [@Bohigas93]. For obvious reasons, the phenomenon was named [*chaos-assisted tunneling*]{}. The interpretation of tunneling enhancement in terms of a three-level process was derived from the observation that splittings of regular doublets are rapidly fluctuating quantities as functions of parameters such as energy, Planck’s constant $\hbar$, or other model parameters — much in contrast to the smooth, at most oscillatory, dependence of tunneling rates on $\hbar$, say, in the case of energy barrier tunneling [@WilkinsonCreagh]. Since a semiclassical description of tunneling matrix elements was lacking, Bohigas and coworkers focussed on the statistical fingerprints of chaos-assisted tunneling, with emphasis on the consequences of resonance denominators on the splitting distribution. To this end, the interaction of regular doublets with chaotic states was formulated in terms of a block matrix model [@Bohigas93], in which properties of states residing on the chaotic sea were approximated by use of random matrix theory [@BohigasSchool]. This model was subsequently refined by Tomsovic and Ullmo [@Tomsovic94] to take into account the effect of additional time scales in the chaotic dynamics that can appear when residual phase space structures, such as cantori, are present in the chaotic sea acting as imperfect transport barriers. Predictions made using these block-matrix models showed good agreement with numerically calculated splitting distributions. Along these lines, Ullmo and Leyvraz [@Leyvraz96] were also able to derive analytic expressions for the splitting distributions in the case of structure-less chaotic dynamics, as well as for a structured chaotic sea. Again, theoretical predictions showed good agreement with exact numerical data. The Annular Billiard {#annular:sect} -------------------- We now introduce the specific system under consideration in this work, the annular billiard. It was proposed by Bohigas [*et al.*]{} [@Bohigas93a] and consists of the area trapped between two non-concentric circles of radii $R$ and $a<R$ centered at $(x,y)$ coordinates $O\equiv(0,0)$ and $O'\equiv(-\delta,0)$, respectively. We consider the case of $\delta<a$ and set $R=1$, unless otherwise stated. Note that the billiard is symmetric under reflections at the $x$-axis. ### Classical Dynamics Classical motion in a billiard is given as free flight between specular reflections at the boundaries. We select the PSOS $\Gamma$ as a circle of radius $r$ concentric with the outer circle and choose $r$ to be infinitesimally smaller than one. Upon in-bound passage through $\Gamma$ — or, equivalently, after reflection from the outer circle — we record the trajectory’s coordinates $(\gamma,L)$, where $\gamma$ denotes the angle of the velocity vector with the $x$-axis and $L=\sin\alpha$ is the classical impact parameter with respect to $O$ (see Fig. \[bla\]). $(\gamma,L)$ are canonically conjugate with respect to the [*reduced*]{} action [@Miller75], and the Poincaré cell is given by $\CP=[0,2\pi]\times]-1,1[$. The billiard’s mirror symmetry $y\mapsto -y$ translates into an invariance of $\CP$ under the mapping $(\gamma,L)\mapsto(2\pi-\gamma,-L)$. In Fig. \[smat:PSOS:fig\] we present a Poincaré plot of $\CP$ at parameter values $a=0.4$ and $\delta =0.2$. Rays of $|L|>a+\delta$ do not hit the inner circle, but forever encircle the inner disc at constant $L$ filling horizontal strips (or subsets of horizontal strips) in the Poincaré plot. Each of these [*whispering gallery (WG)*]{} tori, specified by its impact parameter $L$, is associated with a partner torus $-L$ by the mirror symmetry. These WG tori will be the tunneling tori under consideration in this work. Rays of intermediate impact parameter $|L|<a+\delta$ will eventually hit the inner circle, and since angular momentum is then not preserved, motion is no longer integrable. This can give rise to the whole range of phenomena associated with non-integrable systems of mixed phase space: regular islands and island chains, chaotic regions, partial transport barriers (cantori) and the like. The structure of the phase space layer $|L|<a+\delta$ is primarily organized by two fixed points of the Poincaré map: (i) an unstable fixed point at $(\gamma,L)=(0,0)$ and its stable and unstable manifolds, along which a chaotic region spreads out, and (ii) a stable orbit $(\gamma,L)=(\pi,0)$ at the center of a regular island of “libration” trajectories. The fixed points correspond to rays along the symmetry axis on the left hand side and on the right hand side of the inner circle, respectively. It will turn out to be of great importance that there is a region of chaotic, but relatively stable motion surrounding each regular island. In the strip of $|L|\lesssim a+\delta$ this stability is easy to understand, as trajectories typically encircle the inner disc many times until a hit occurs, and at each hit the change in impact parameter is small. The “stickiness” of this beach region is increased by the presence of regular island chains and of cantori that are the remains of broken WG tori. ### Quantum Mechanics Quantum mechanics of the annular billiard with Dirichlet boundary conditions is given by the Helmholtz equation $$(\Delta+k^2)\,\psi(\bbox{q})=0$$ and the requirement of vanishing wavefunction on the two circles. The wave number $k$ is related to energy by $E=\hbar^2k^2/2m$. (We note that there exists an analogy between quantum billiards and quasi-two-dimensional microwave resonator which has proven instrumental in many experimental realizations of billiard systems [@Richter96].) We give here only a qualitative picture of the quantum states, deferring a full solution to Section \[annular:2\]. It is most appropriate to decompose the wavefunction into angular momentum components by writing $$\begin{aligned} \psi(r,\varphi) \!= \!\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\!i\,^n\left[ \alpha_n \mathop{\rm H{}}^{\text{\,(2)}}\nolimits_n(kr) + \beta_n \mathop{\rm H{}}^{\,(1)}\nolimits_n(kr)\right] \text{e}^{in\varphi} \ , \label{smat:wavefn}\end{aligned}$$ where $(r,\varphi)$ are polar coordinates with respect to $O$, and $\mathop{\rm H{}}^{\,(1,2)}\nolimits_n(x)$ denote Hankel functions of the first and second kind, respectively, of order $n$. We recall that angular momentum quantum numbers $n$ are in the semiclassical limit related to classical impact parameters $L=n/k$. To understand the nature of quantum states supported by the annular billiard, it is instructive to first consider the concentric billiard and then to “turn on” the eccentricity $\delta$. If $\delta=0$, then angular momentum is conserved, and states are paired in energetically degenerate doublets composed of angular momentum components $n$ and $-n$. In the eccentric system ($\delta\neq 0$), the degeneracy is lifted by the breaking of rotational invariance. However, angular momentum doublets are affected to different degrees — depending on the size of $n$ relative to $k(a+\delta)$. The symmetry breaking has large effect on doublets of small angular momentum $|n|<k(a+\delta)$ corresponding to classical motion that can hit the inner circle. For low-$n$ doublets, the doublet pairing disappears quickly with increasing $\delta$ and “chaotic” eigenstates appear that spread out in angular momentum components roughly between $-k(a+\delta)$ and $k(a+\delta)$. High-angular momentum doublets with $|n|>k(a+\delta)$ are affected only little by the symmetry breaking. The doublet-pairing persists, and energy degeneracy is only slightly lifted. States are primarily composed of symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of $n$ and $-n$ angular momentum components, $$\mid \bbox{\alpha}^{\,(\pm)} \rg \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(\mid n\rg \pm \mid -n \rg\big)\ .$$ Note that each of the quasi-modes $|\pm n\rangle$ corresponds to classical motion on the WG torus $\pm L$. We present plots of a “regular” doublet quantized at $k\approx 55$ and a “chaotic” state at $k\approx60$ in Fig. \[compar:fig\] and compare them to classical trajectories with starting conditions in the chaotic sea and on WG tori, respectively. The correspondence between quantum states and the nature of classical dynamics is clearly visible. ### Tunneling Between Whispering Gallery Tori Let us discuss the high-angular momentum doublets in more detail. As explained above, the energy splitting $\delta E_n$ between $| \bbox{\alpha}^{\,(+)} \rangle$ and $| \bbox{\alpha}^{\,(-)} \rangle$ gives rise to tunneling oscillations between quasi-modes $|\pm n \rangle$ associated with WG tori $\pm L=\pm n/k$ $(L>a+\delta)$. A quantum particle prepared in state $|n\rangle$ will therefore change its sense of rotation from counter-clockwise to clockwise and back to counter-clockwise with period $2\pi\hbar/\delta E_n$. Note that this tunneling process serves as a particularly clear example of dynamical tunneling. It occurs in [*phase space*]{} rather than configuration space, as the corresponding tori are identical in configuration space. Also, the tunneling process does not pass under a potential barrier in configuration space. In fact, energy does not play any role in the tunneling, as energy is related only to the absolute value of the momentum vector and not to its direction. Rather, the tunneling process violates the [*dynamical*]{} law of classical angular momentum conservation for rays of large impact parameter. The concept of chaos-assisted tunneling can be nicely visualized for the case of tunneling between WG modes in the annular billiard. In fact, the annular billiard was proposed as a paradigm for chaos-assisted tunneling in Ref. [@Bohigas93a]. In chaos-assisted processes, tunneling tori $\pm L$ are connected not by direct transitions between $n\mapsto -n$, but by multi-step transitions $n\mapsto\ell\ldots -\ell'\mapsto -n$. A particle tunnels from $n$ to some $\ell\lesssim k(a+\delta)$, traverses the chaotic phase space layer by classically allowed transitions to reach the opposite side of the chaotic sea $-\ell'\gtrsim -k(a+\delta)$, and finally tunnels from there to $-n$. To establish this notion, Bohigas [*et al.*]{} [@Bohigas93a] checked the behavior of splittings as the eccentricity is changed to make the intervening phase space layer more chaotic. In a numerical study, they compared the splittings of regular doublets with the rate of classical transport across the chaotic layer. The findings showed that the splittings increase dramatically over many orders of magnitude as chaotic transport becomes quicker. However, without a quantitative — possibly semiclassical — theory, it is impossible to separately analyze the importance of tunneling amplitudes and transport properties of the intervening chaotic layer. Usually, the parameter governing symmetry breaking in a mixed system changes [*both*]{} tunneling amplitudes from/into the regular torus and chaoticity in the intermediate layer. In order to separate the relative importance of these effects, a quantitative understanding of the tunneling processes must be obtained. Such a quantitative description of chaos-assisted tunneling was given in Ref. [@Doron95b] and will be developed in full detail in the sequel. Quantization by Scattering {#quant:sect} ========================== General Description of the Method --------------------------------- In this work, we will employ an scattering approach to quantization [@Doron92b; @Bogomolny92b] which, in essence, is constructed as the quantum-mechanical analogue of the classical Poincaré surface of section method. For the sake of self-containedness, we give a brief review of the scattering method. Let us consider the case of a billiard ${\cal G}$ and introduce a Poincaré cut $\Gamma$ in configuration space, thereby dividing ${\cal G}$ into two parts, ${\cal G}_+$ and ${\cal G}_-$. We suppose that $\Gamma$ can be chosen along a coordinate axis (the $q_2$-axis, say) and that the wave problem is separable on an infinitesimal strip around $\Gamma$. At a given energy, one chooses a complete set of functions $\phi_n^{(2)}(q_2)$ along $\Gamma$ and writes the wavefunction on an infinitesimal strip around $\Gamma$ as $$\begin{aligned} \psi(\bbox{q})=\sum_n\lb \alpha_n\phi_n^{(1,-)}(q_1) + \beta_n\phi_n^{(1,+)}(q_1)\rb \phi^{(2)}_n(q_2) \ . \label{scatt:wavefn}\end{aligned}$$ $\phi_n^{(1,+)}$ and $\phi_n^{(1,-)}$ are functions that, in the semiclassical limit, correspond to waves traversing $\Gamma$ in positive and negative $q_1$-direction, respectively. We assume that the set $\phi_n^{(2)}(q_2)$ is chosen such that quantum numbers $n$ correspond to values $k^{(2)}_n$ of longitudinal wave number. Then, $k_n^{(2)}$ and transverse wave numbers $k_n^{(1)}$ are related by $E_n=\hbar^2[(k_n^{(1)})^2+(k_n^{(2)})^2]/2m$. Note that orthogonality of the modes on $\Gamma$ is ensured by the choice of the $\phi_n^{(2)}$. Each of the domains ${\cal G}_\pm$ constitutes a scattering system that scatters waves $\phi_n^{(1,+)}\,\phi_n^{(2)}$ into waves $\phi_n^{(1,-)}\,\phi_n^{(2)}$ and [*vice versa*]{}. Associated with these scattering systems ${\cal G}_\pm$ are scattering matrices $S_\pm(E)$ that relate the coefficient vectors $$\begin{aligned} \bbox{\beta} \:=\:S_-(E)\,\bbox{\alpha}\qquad\text{ and }\qquad \bbox{\alpha}\:=\:S_+(E)\,\bbox{\beta}\ . \label{scatt:scatt}\end{aligned}$$ The quantization condition is equivalent to the requirement of single-valuedness of the wave function on $\Gamma$, and so to the equivalence of the two scattering conditions. The system supports an eigenstate whenever the product matrix $$S(E)\equiv S_-(E)\,S_+(E)$$ has an eigenvalue of unity, hence the quantization condition reads $$\begin{aligned} \det(S(E)-1)=0\ . \label{poin:secular}\end{aligned}$$ At a quantized energy, the wave function can be reconstructed from the corresponding eigenvector $\bbox{\alpha}$ of $S$ via Eqs. (\[scatt:wavefn\],\[scatt:scatt\]). In principle, $S$ is an infinite-dimensional matrix. However, in many cases of interest one can choose the $\phi_n^{(1,+)}\,\phi_n^{(2)}$ so that in the region of classically allowed motion, the contribution $|\phi_n^{(1,\pm)}(q_1)|$ is exponentially small for all but a finite number of indices (the so-called “open channels”). This allows the truncation of $S$ to finite dimension, say $|n|\le\Lambda$, with an error that is exponentially small. Both scattering matrices $S_\pm$ can be constructed in a representation such that they are unitary in the space of open modes and, if the system is time-reversal invariant, symmetric. $S$ on the other hand is unitary, but not necessarily symmetric. In spite of this, we will in this paper also refer to $S$ as a scattering matrix. It is clear by construction that $S$ is the quantum-mechanical analogue of the Poincaré mapping [@Blumel90]. Its $N$-th iterate $S^N$ constitutes a time-domain-like propagator. Note that the iteration count $N$ of the Poincaré map does not correspond to a stroboscopic discretization of time, but rather to a [ *fictitious*]{} discrete time, since generally the time elapsed between passages of $\Gamma$ can vary. If, however, we select our surface of section properly, then return times will not vary by too much, and $S$ will not be too different from the genuine time-domain propagator. Scattering Matrix of the Annular Billiard {#annular:2} ----------------------------------------- It is fairly straightforward to implement the scattering approach to the case of the annular billiard. As discussed in Section \[annular:sect\], we choose $\Gamma$ as a circle of radius $r$, where $a+\delta<r\lesssim 1$. Since classical impact parameter is conserved by motion on the WG tori, we choose $q_2=\varphi$ and $\phi_n^{\,(2)}=\exp(in\varphi)$ on $\Gamma$. Waves traversing $\Gamma$ are given by outgoing and ingoing cylinder waves $\phi_n^{\,(1,+)}=i^n\Ho_n(kr)$, $\phi_n^{\,(1,-)}=i^n\Ht_n(kr)$, and we obtain the decomposition in Eq. (\[smat:wavefn\]), $$\begin{aligned} \psi(r,\varphi) \!=\! \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}i^n\left[ \alpha_n \mathop{\rm H{}}^{\text{\,(2)}}\nolimits_n(kr) + \beta_n \mathop{\rm H{}}^{\,(1)}\nolimits_n(kr)\right] \text{e}^{in\varphi} \ . \label{smat:wavefn2}\end{aligned}$$ In the present example, outgoing waves are scattered to ingoing waves by the interior of the outer circle — giving rise to the scattering condition — and ingoing waves are reflected off the exterior of the inner circle, which leads to the relation . In order to derive the explicit formulas for $\SO$ and $\SI$, we note that the Dirichlet boundary condition $\psi(R,\varphi)=0$ on the outer circle leads to $$\SO_{n,m}(k)=-\frac{\Ho_n(kR)}{\Ht_n(kR)}\:\delta_{n,m}\ . \label{smat:external}$$ $\SO(k)$ is diagonal, in accordance with angular momentum conservation in scattering events off the outer circle. $\SI(k)$ is derived by performing a coordinate change to the primed coordinates defined with respect to $O'=(\delta,0)$. In this representation the scattering matrix is $S^{\,\prime\,\text{(I)}}(k)=-\Ht_n(ka)/\Ho_n(ka)\,\delta_{n,m}$. Transformation back to unprimed coordinates is done by the addition theorem for Bessel functions (see e.g. [@Abramowitz]) $$\Hot_n(kr)\,\ee^{in\varphi}=\sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty \J_{n-\ell}(k\delta)\, \Hot_\ell(kr')\,\ee^{i\ell\varphi'}$$ for $\delta<a=r'$. $\J_n(x)=(\Ho_n(x)+\Ht_n(x))/2$ denotes the Bessel function of order $n$. We arrive at $$\SI_{n,m}(k)=-i^{(n-m)} \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty \mathop{\rm J{}}\nolimits_{n-\ell}(k\delta)\, \mathop{\rm J{}}\nolimits_{m-\ell}(k\delta)\: \frac{\mathop{\rm H{}}^{\text{\,(2)}}\nolimits_\ell(ka)} {\mathop{\rm H{}}^{\,(1)}\nolimits_\ell(ka)} \;.$$ Time-reversal invariance imposes the symmetry$\SI_{m,n}(k)=(-)^{(n-m)}\,\SI_{n,m}(k)$ on $\SI(k)$ and by virtue of the mirror symmetry $\SI_{-n,-m}(k)=\SI_{n,m}(k)$. (Note that the formula given for $\SI(k)$ differs by the factor $i\,^{(n-m)}$ from a formula given earlier by us [@Doron95b] and consequently, also the symmetries are different. This is due to a slightly different choice of basis in (\[smat:wavefn2\]).) The full $S$-matrix is then given as $$\begin{aligned} &&S_{n,m}(k)=\nonumber\\ &&i\,^{(n-m)}\frac{\Ho_n(kR)}{\Ht_n(kR)}\, \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty\mathop{\rm J{}}\nolimits_{n-\ell}(k\delta)\, \mathop{\rm J{}}\nolimits_{m-\ell}(k\delta)\: \frac{\mathop{\rm H{}}^{\text{\,(2)}}\nolimits_\ell(ka)} {\mathop{\rm H{}}^{\,(1)}\nolimits_\ell(ka)} \;. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using the relation $\Hot_{-n}(x)=(-)^n\Hot_n(x)$ for integer $n$, one verifies that the spatial symmetry of the annular billiard translates into the $S$-matrix symmetry $$\begin{aligned} S_{-n,-m}\:=\:S_{n,m}\ . \label{smat:smatsymm}\end{aligned}$$ For eigenvectors $\bbox{\alpha}^{(j)}$ of $S$, $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{-n}^{(j)} ={\sigma_j}\, \alpha_n^{(j)}\ , \label{smat:vecsymm}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_j\in\{\pm 1\}$. Whenever the system supports an eigenstate, $\sigma_j$ determines the symmetry of the corresponding wave function with respect to the $x$-axis. In Fig. \[Smat:fig\], we show a grayscale plot of $|S_{n,m}|$ as a function of ingoing and outgoing angular momentum for the parameter values $a=0.4$, $\delta=0.2$, $k=100$. The overall structure of $S$ is governed by classically allowed transitions: it is mainly diagonal in the region of high angular momentum $|n|,|m|>k(a+\delta)$, whereas the inner block reflects the dynamics given by the classical deflection function. Here, the main amplitude is delimited by two ridges that correspond to classical rainbow scattering. The tunneling amplitudes relevant to the WG splitting are contained in $S$ as non-diagonal entries $S_{n,m}$ with $n>k(a+\delta)$. Fig. \[tunnel:fig\] depicts $|S_{n,m}|$ for the above parameter values and $n=70$ (at $k(a+\delta)=60$). The tunneling amplitudes are largest ($\sim 10^{-4}$) around $m=63$ and fall off faster than exponentially away from this maximum. As can be seen in the inset of Fig. \[tunnel:fig\], the line of maximal tunneling amplitudes continues the line of rainbow ridges into the regime of classically forbidden transitions. Close to these tunneling ridges, and in the direction away from the diagonal, one can observe oscillations in $|S_{n,m}|$ that resemble the Airy oscillations well-known in diffraction theory [@Berry72]. It is interesting to note that the behavior of the tunneling probabilities is [*not*]{} a monotonous function of $|n-m|$, that is, of the phase space distance traversed. A mere [*distance*]{} in phase space can therefore not serve to estimate the behavior of tunneling probabilities. We finally mention that the tunneling transitions considered here can be given a semi-classical interpretation in terms of complex rays that interact with the analytical continuation of the inner circle to complex configuration space [@Doron95b; @SteffenThesis; @us_later]. These rays can either scatter off the inner complex circle by a generalization of specular reflection, or they can creep along a complexified inner circle (of complex radius determined by the poles of the internal scattering matrix) by a mechanism similar to that proposed by Franz [@Franz54] and Keller [@Keller62]. Every tunneling pair $n_i,n_f$ is connected by at least one complex reflection trajectory with real initial (final) impact parameter $L_i=n_i/k$ $(L_f=n_f/k)$ and complex initial (final) angle $\gamma_i$ $(\gamma_f)$. Complex reflection and creeping trajectories give rise to contributions to the tunneling matrix elements that scale with $k$ like $$\begin{aligned} S_{\text{reflection}} &\sim& k^{-1}\:\exp\Big(-k A_{\text{ref}} (i,f)\:\Big)\ , \nonumber\\ S_{\text{creeping}} &\sim& k^{-2/3}\:\exp\Big(-k A_{\text{cr}} (i,f) + k^{1/3} B_{\text{cr}}(i,f)\:\Big)\ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $A_{\text{ref}}$, $A_{\text{cr}}$ and $B_{\text{cr}}$ are classical properties of the associated trajectories that are independent of $k$. The relative importance of the two contributions depends on $k$, the billiard geometry, and the initial and final angular momenta considered. At the present parameter values, the contribution due to reflected rays usually dominates the one arising from creeping rays. The semiclassical picture provides an intuitive explanation to the tunneling ridges mentioned above: they can be identified as combinations $n,m$ where one of the angles $\gamma_i,\gamma_f$ is closest to reality. Also, the nearby oscillations can be understood as arising from a coalescence of two reflection saddle points. Treatment of Chaos-Assisted Tunneling {#cat:sect} ===================================== Implementation of the Scattering Approach ----------------------------------------- We now discuss how the scattering approach can be implemented to the treatment of chaos-assisted tunneling. Let us suppose that the system under consideration has a phase space symmetry of type $(q_2,p_2)\mapsto(-q_2,-p_2)$, and that the $q_2$-axis can be chosen as a PSOS $\Gamma$. We assume that the wave problem is locally separable around $\Gamma$, which renders the problem tractable by the scattering approach. Let us now pick two classical objects ${\cal A}_{1}$ and ${\cal A}_2={\cal T}{\cal A}_1$ and consider quasi-modes $\psi_r^{\,(1/2)}(\bbox{q})$ supported by ${\cal A}_{1/2}$, as discussed in Section \[dyntunn:sect\]. We assume that motion on ${\cal A}_1$ and ${\cal A}_2$ corresponds to conservation of $p_2$ and $-p_2$, respectively, and that $\pm p_2$ is semiclassically related to the quantum number $\pm n$. (Note that in a general system, the choice of the PSOS $\Gamma$ and a proper basis for the scattering matrix can be a very difficult task. In this Paper, we will not deal with the problem of solving a general scattering problem — except for the annular billiard — and assume the scattering matrix $S_{n,m}$ to be known.) By symmetry $p_2\mapsto-p_2$, we find that $S_{n,n}=S_{-n,-n}$, and by virtue of the classical conservation of $p_2$, $S_{n,n}$ is almost unimodular. The deviation of $|S_{n,n}|$ from unity will be due to classically forbidden (i.e. tunneling) transitions, and so is expected to be small. Let the quantization energies of the doublet be denoted by $E_n^\pm$, and let $|\bbox{\alpha}^\pm(E_n^\pm)\rangle$ be the eigenvectors corresponding to the two quantum states. We now make the approximation that the properties of these two vectors are, to good precision, given by the eigenvector doublet $|\bbox{\alpha}^\pm(E)\rangle$ at [*one*]{} fixed energy $E$ lying between $E_n^+$ and $E_n^-$. The corresponding (generally non-zero) eigenphases be denoted by $\theta_n^\pm(E)$. Dropping the energy variable $E$, we decompose the eigenphases $\theta_n^\pm$ in the form $$\begin{aligned} \theta_n^\pm\:\equiv\:\theta_n^{\,(0)} + \Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)} +i\Delta\theta_n^{\,(I)}\pm \frac{1}{2}\,\delta\theta_n \ , \label{shift:phase}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R,I)}$ are taken to be real, and $\theta_n^{\,(0)} =-i\log S_{n,n}$. The quantities $\Delta\theta_n=\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)} +i\Delta\theta_n^{\,(I)}$ and $\delta\theta_n$ can be interpreted as the shift and the splitting, respectively, of the exact eigenphases due to tunneling processes. These eigenphase quantities are trivially related to the energy shift and splitting, as will be explained below, and it is therefore sufficient to calculate $\Delta\theta_n$ and $\delta\theta_n$. Note that the $\theta_n^\pm$ are real by unitarity of $S$, and therefore also $\theta_n^{\,(0)}+\Delta\theta_n$ and $\delta\theta_n$ are real quantities. We also note that $$\begin{aligned} \left[S^N\right]_{\pm,\pm}&\equiv& \langle\bbox{\alpha}^\pm |S^N|\bbox{\alpha}^\pm\rangle \nonumber\\ &=&\ee^{iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\, \exp\lb iN\left[\Delta\theta_n \pm \frac{1}{2}\,\delta\theta_n\right]\rb \label{shift:iter:phase}\end{aligned}$$ for any integer $N$. From the eigenvector doublet $|\bbox{\alpha}^\pm\rangle$ we can now obtain the vector equivalent of quasi-modes $$\begin{aligned} |\pm\bbox{n}\rangle\:\equiv\:\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\,\mid\bbox{\alpha}^+\:\rangle \pm \mid\bbox{\alpha}^-\:\rangle\,\Big)\ . \label{shift:quasi}\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that $|\bbox{n}\rangle$ and $|-\bbox{n}\rangle$ are localized at (or around) components $\pm n$, respectively. Using the symmetry of $S$ and $|\bbox{\alpha}^\pm\rangle$, we write $$\left[S^N\right]_{+,+}\pm\left[S^N\right]_{-,-} \:=\: 2\,\langle\:\bbox{n}\mid S^N\mid\pm\bbox{n}\:\rangle\ . \label{shift:iterates}$$ In order to derive formulas for $\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)}$ and $\delta\theta_n$ that relate these quantities to matrix elements of $S^N$, we now combine Eqs. (\[shift:iter:phase\]) and (\[shift:iterates\]). We choose a positive $N$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned} N \ll|\Delta\theta_n\pm\delta\theta_n/2|^{-1} \label{shift:split:con}\end{aligned}$$ and expand the second exponential in Eq. (\[shift:iter:phase\]) to first order. Considering upper signs in Eq. (\[shift:iterates\]) and taking imaginary parts we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)} \approx \frac{1}{N}\,\IM \Big\{ \ee^{-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\: \langle\:\bbox{n}\mid S^N\mid\bbox{n}\:\rangle \Big\}\ . \label{shift:shiftSN1}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, taking lower signs in Eq. (\[shift:iterates\]) gives $$\begin{aligned} \delta\theta_n \approx \frac{2}{N}\,\IM \Big\{ \ee^{-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}} \: \langle\:\bbox{n}\mid S^N\mid-\bbox{n}\:\rangle \Big\}\ . \label{shift:splittingSN1}\end{aligned}$$ It is instructive to rephrase Eq. (\[shift:splittingSN1\]) for the splitting: starting from Eqs. (\[shift:iter:phase\],\[shift:iterates\]) one can also contract the exponentials to a sine and arrive at $$\begin{aligned} \Big|\:\sin\lb\frac{N\delta\theta_n}{2}\rb\:\Big| \:=\: \left|\langle\:\bbox{n}\mid S^N\mid-\bbox{n}\rangle\right|\ , \label{shift:alternative}\end{aligned}$$ which has the form of tunneling oscillations in time, $|\sin(\delta Et/2\hbar)|= |\langle \bbox{n}|\exp(-iHt/\hbar)|-\bbox{n}\rangle|$, with iteration count $N$ taking the role of time and eigenphase splitting taking the role of energy splitting. By considering Eq. (\[shift:splittingSN1\]) we therefore probe the onset of tunneling oscillations in the linear regime. Use of Eqs. (\[shift:shiftSN1\],\[shift:splittingSN1\]) for low $N$ will however necessitate precise knowledge of the eigenmodes $|\pm\bbox{n}\rangle$ (see e.g. [@Hackenbroich97b] for a recent application of a similar formula for $N=1$). However, to exponential precision, eigenvectors may be just as difficult to obtain as the shift or the splitting itself. It is therefore important to realize that use of Eqs. (\[shift:shiftSN1\],\[shift:splittingSN1\]) for [*large*]{} $N$ may allow to extract the quantities of interest using much less precise eigenvector information. Instead, one then uses [*dynamical*]{} information — in the framework of time-domain like propagation with $S$ — which will eventually allow the interpretation of tunneling processes in terms of sums over paths in phase space. To this end, let us reformulate Eq. (\[shift:quasi\]) by writing $$\begin{aligned} \mid\bbox{\alpha}^\pm\,\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big(\,\mid n\:\rangle \pm \mid -n \:\rangle\,\Big) + \sum_m\kappa^\pm_m \mid m \:\rangle\ , \label{shift:vector}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\kappa^\pm_m$ are expected to be small and $\kappa^\pm_{-m} =\pm\kappa^\pm_m$, according to the symmetry of $|\bbox{\alpha}^\pm\rangle$. The right-hand side of Eq. (\[shift:iterates\]) then reads $$2 \langle\:\bbox{n}\mid S^N \mid \pm\bbox{n}\:\rangle \:=\: 2\,\left[S^N\right]_{n,\pm n} + {\cal C}_n^{\,(N,\pm)}\ . \label{shift:iterates2}$$ Here, $[S^N]_{n,\pm n}$ denotes a matrix element of the $N$-th iterate of $S$, and ${\cal C}_n^{\,(N,\pm)}={\scal c}_n^{\,(N,+)}\pm {\scal c}_n^{\,(N,-)}$ with $$\begin{aligned} {\scal c}_n^{\,(N,\pm)} &=& \sqrt{2}\,\sum_m\lb \kappa_m^\pm \left[S^N\right]_{n,m} +(\kappa_m^\pm)^*\left[S^N\right]_{m,n}\rb\, \nonumber\\ &&+\:\sum_{m,m'} (\kappa_m^\pm)^*\,\kappa_{m'}^{\pm}\,\left[S^N\right]_{m,m'} \ . \label{shift:corrections}\end{aligned}$$ We see that $\langle\bbox{n}|S^N|\pm\bbox{n}\rangle$ can be replaced by $\langle n|S^N|\pm n\rangle$ at the price of corrections ${\cal O}(\kappa)$ at most. However, since the left hand side of (\[shift:iterates2\]) is of size $\sin(N\Delta\theta_n/2)\sim {\cal O}(1)$ (considering the positive sign) for large $N$, the first term on the right hand side must also grow with $N$ and become of ${\cal O}(1)$. In particular, for $N\gg\kappa/|\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)}|$, the $\kappa$-corrections can be neglected. The same holds for the negative sign in (\[shift:iterates2\]), but then $N\gg\kappa/|\delta\theta_n|$ must hold. Therefore, whenever either of these lower bounds on $N$ holds simultaneously with the upper bound (\[shift:split:con\]) we can write $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)} &\approx& \frac{1}{N}\,\IM \Big\{ \ee^{-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\left[S^N\right]_{n,n} \Big\}\ ,\label{shift:shiftSN}\\ \delta\theta_n &\approx& \frac{2}{N}\,\IM \Big\{ \ee^{-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\left[S^N\right]_{n,-n} \Big\}\ . \label{shift:splittingSN}\end{aligned}$$ We note that the conditions on $N$ necessary for Eq. (\[shift:shiftSN\]) are met if $|\Delta\theta_n|>|\delta\theta_n|$ which, as we will find later, is always the case. However, the conditions for Eq. (\[shift:splittingSN\]) might not be met simultaneously. In this case, one has to expand in (\[shift:alternative\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned} |\delta\theta_n|\approx\frac{2}{N}\, \left|\left[S^N\right]_{n,-n}\right|\ , \qquad \label{shift:altern2}\end{aligned}$$ requiring $\kappa/|\delta\theta_n|\ll N \ll |\delta\theta_n|^{-1}$ — a condition that can always be fulfilled (if $\kappa\ll 1$). However, we will in the sequel calculate the splitting by use of Eq. (\[shift:splittingSN\]), as this expression constitutes a linear relation between the splitting and the different contributions. We therefore assume that the use of Eq. (\[shift:splittingSN\]) is justified and only comment on the use of Eq. (\[shift:altern2\]). (We note that Eq. (\[shift:altern2\]) was employed in an earlier account of this work [@Doron95b].) Returning to Eqs. (\[shift:shiftSN\],\[shift:splittingSN\]) recall that any matrix element $[S^N]_{n,m}$ can be expressed as a [*sum over paths*]{} in matrix element space of length $N$ that start at $n$ and end at $m$ by writing out the intermediate matrix multiplications. This yields the real part of the shift and the splitting as $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)} &\approx& \frac{1}{N} \IM\Big\{ \ee^{-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}} {\sum_{\{n\:\rightarrow n\}}} \prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\:S_{\lambda_{i},\lambda_{i+1}} \Big\} \ , \label{shift:shift}\\ \delta\theta_n\; &\approx& \frac{2}{N} \IM\Big\{ \ee^{-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)}} {\sum_{\{n\:\rightarrow -n\}}} \prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\:S_{\lambda_{i},\lambda_{i+1}}\Big\} \ . \label{shift:splitting}\end{aligned}$$ The eigenphase shift and the splitting are therefore given in terms of paths of length $N$ that lead from index $n$ back to $n$ or to $-n$, respectively. Note that in order to contribute to the shift, the path must leave the index $n$ at least once; the trivial path of constant matrix index $n$ does not contribute, as $\exp(-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)})\:[S^N]_{n,n}=1$ is real. For the sake of completeness, we also comment on the imaginary part of the shift. Since $\theta_n^{\,(0)}+\Delta\theta_n$ is real, $\Delta\theta_n^{\,(I)}=-\IM \{\theta_n^{\,(0)}\}$. By unitarity of $S$, one finds $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\theta_n^{\,(I)} \approx -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m\neq n} |S_{n,m}|^2\ . \label{shift:imagshift}\end{aligned}$$ It remains to connect eigenphase shifts and splittings to the corresponding energy quantities. At a given energy $E$ — which need not necessarily be an eigenenergy of the system — the eigenphases $\theta_j(E)$ are distributed on the unit circle, with the position of regular doublets determined by Eqs. (\[shift:phase\],\[shift:shift\],\[shift:splitting\]). Regular doublets revolve around the unit circle with “velocity” $\partial\theta_n^{\pm}/\partial E \approx\partial\theta_n^{\,(0)}/\partial E$ given by the energy dependence of the $\theta_n^{\,(0)}(E)$. These quantities can be taken constant on the scale of the energy splittings, and eigenenergy splittings are therefore trivially related to eigenphase splitting. Consequently, we will in the sequel consider shifts and splittings of eigen[*phases*]{} rather than eigenenergies. This has the numerical advantage that we can consider $S(E)$ at any $E$ without having to worry about quantization. In order to extract the shift or the splitting of the doublet peaked at indices $\pm n$ we therefore have to consider paths in $S$-matrix index space that lead from $n$ back to $n$ or to $-n$, respectively. Let us briefly focus on the splitting. In principle, there are two types of paths: [*direct*]{} paths and [*chaos-assisted*]{} ones [@LinBallentine; @Bohigas93; @Bohigas93a]. Direct paths tunnel directly from $n$ to $-n$ in a single transition over a long distance in phase space. Their contribution to the splitting is of the order $|S_{n,-n}|$. Chaos-assisted paths include at least two tunneling transitions over relatively small phase space distances. They tunnel from $n$ to some index $\ell$ such that $\ell$ lies in the inner block of classically chaotic motion, then propagate — via classically allowed transitions — to some $\ell'$ within the inner block and finally tunnel from $\ell'$ to $n$. Contributions arising from chaos-assisted paths are then of the order $|S_{n,\ell} \,S_{\ell',-n}|$. As we have seen in the example of the annular billiard, tunneling matrix elements $S_{n,\ell}$ fall off very rapidly (faster than exponential) for large phase space distances $|n-\ell|$. This rapid decay strongly suppresses the contributions from direct paths and explains why the combination of two tunneling transitions can be much more advantageous. A Block-Matrix Model -------------------- We now formulate a generalization of the block matrix models usually encountered in the treatment of chaos-assisted tunneling [@Bohigas93; @Tomsovic94] that takes into account the effect of the transition region between classically regular and chaotic motion. Statistical modeling of chaos-assisted tunneling is usually done in terms of a block matrix model of the type [*regular-chaotic-regular*]{} in which properties of the chaotic block are approximated by random matrix ensembles [@Bohigas93]. This three-block approximation, however, discards all information about phase space structures inside the chaotic sea, such as the inhibition of mixing by broken invariant tori (cantori) [@MacKay8484]. Inhibition of classical transport can lead to dynamical localization of states in regions of phase space. Chaotic states then do not extend over the full chaotic region of phase space any more, but only over components of it. This additional structure would not be reproduced by the approximation by a single random matrix block. Block matrix models for chaos-assisted tunneling were amended to the presence of imperfect layers in Refs. [@Tomsovic94; @Leyvraz96] by introduction of separate, weakly coupling blocks for each of the phase space components. A relationship between classical flux crossing imperfect transport barriers and quantum Hamiltonian matrix elements was given in Ref. [@Bohigas90a]. We now argue that the treatment of chaos-assisted tunneling in a generic mixed system usually requires a [*five*]{}-block model at least. The reason is that classical motion in the “beach” regions close to regular domain is relatively stable, despite of its long-time chaotic behavior. In particular, transport in the direction away from the regular phase space region can be strongly inhibited. This dynamical stability leads to the formation of quantum [*beach states*]{} that have most of their amplitude in the beach region and little overlap with the chaotic sea. It has been reported on many occasions that beach states have great similarity to regular states residing on the adjacent island and that they follow EBK-like quantization rules [@Noid77; @Swimm79; @Bohigas90; @Utermann94]. Note that the importance of the beach region is highlighted in chaos-assisted tunneling processes: as tunneling amplitudes $S_{n,\ell}$ decay rapidly away from the regular island, chaos-assisted paths of largest amplitude will typically lead to indices $\ell$ and $\ell'$ such that the corresponding momenta $P_2(\ell)$ and $P_2(\ell')$ lie [*just inside*]{} the chaotic sea on either side, that is, in the beach regions. In order to take account of the special role of the beach regions (or “edge” regions, we will use these two expressions as synonyms), we propose to generalize the usual three-block model [*regular-chaotic-regular*]{} to a five-block model of the type [*regular-edge-chaotic-edge-regular*]{}. (In this work we assume that, apart from the edge layers, no further transport-inhibiting structures are present. The existence of further transport-inhibiting structures inside the chaotic sea will require the addition of further blocks.) In the sequel, we approximate $S$ by a five-block model $\tilde{S}$ as depicted in Fig. \[model:fig\] in which each regular region, each beach region and the center chaotic region are modeled in a separate block, and coupling between different blocks is weak. We assume that $\tilde{S}$ has, by a unitary transformation, been converted such that all intra-block transitions vanish. We use indices $n$ and $-n'$ for the properties of the two regular blocks, $\ell$ and $-\ell'$ for the beach blocks and $\gamma$ for chaotic states. For the diagonal elements, we write $\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\lambda}=\exp(i\tilde{\theta}_{\lambda})$, where $\lambda\in\{n,\ell,\gamma,-\ell',-n'\}$. Note the symmetries $\tilde{S}_{n,n}=\tilde{S}_{-n,-n}$ and $\tilde{S}_{-\ell,-\ell}=\tilde{S}_{\ell,\ell}$, and therefore $\theta_{-n}=\theta_{n}$, $\tilde{\theta}_{-\ell}=\tilde{\theta}_{\ell}$. Inter-block coupling elements are denoted by $\tilde{S}_{n,\ell}$, $\tilde{S}_{n,\gamma}$, $\tilde{S}_{\ell,\gamma}$ and so on. It is natural to assume that the tunneling elements $\tilde{S}_{n,\ell}$ between regular tori and the beach region will be much smaller than the transition amplitudes $\tilde{S}_{\ell,\gamma}$ between beach and the center block. We now explain how the properties of $\tilde{S}$ can be extracted from the original matrix $S$. Note that a block that is almost diagonal $\tilde{S}$ will be changed only little in the transformation to $S$. The outermost regular blocks are diagonal in all orders of $1/k$ (or $\hbar$), and matrix elements of the transformed matrix will differ from the original ones only by exponentially small corrections. We can therefore approximate $\tilde{S}_{n,n'}\approx S_{n,n}\,\delta_{n,n'}$. The argument also holds for the edge region, since the choice of basis for the regular blocks will also be good in the edge blocks, and we can approximate $\tilde{S}_{\ell,\ell'}\approx S_{\ell,\ell}\,\delta_{\ell,\ell'}$ and in the non-diagonal block $\tilde{S}_{n,\ell}\approx S_{n,\ell}$. Consequently, the choice of the border index between regular and edge blocks does not affect the results to the present approximation. We model quantum dynamics within the inner block by a superposition of two Gaussian ensembles [@Bohigas84; @Blumel88; @Blumel90] — in our case two Circular Orthogonal Ensembles (COE) [@Dyson62a] — that approximate the sets of chaotic states with even and odd symmetry, respectively. For a given regular mode $n$ coupling matrix elements $\tilde{S}_{n,\gamma}$ are chosen as Gaussian distributed independent random variables of variance determined by $\sigma^2_{n,\text{C}}=|\tilde{S}_{n,\text{C}}|^2/(2\ell_{\text{COE}}+1)$ with $$\begin{aligned} |\tilde{S}_{n,\text{C}}|^2 = \sum_{g=-\ell_{\text{COE}}}^{\ell_{\text{COE}}} |S_{n,g}|^2\ , \label{block:effcoup}\end{aligned}$$ where we have taken the chaotic block to extend from $\ell_{\text{COE}}$ to $-\ell_{\text{COE}}$. Coupling matrix elements $\tilde{S}_{\ell,\gamma}$ are defined analogously, $$\begin{aligned} |\tilde{S}_{\ell,\text{C}}|^2 = \sum_{g=-\ell_{\text{COE}}}^{\ell_{\text{COE}}} |S_{\ell,g}|^2\ , \label{block:edge:effcoup}\end{aligned}$$ The choice of $\ell_{\text{COE}}$ contains some uncertainty that will affect the results as an overall factor in the effective coupling elements. Note that an approximation for single coupling matrix elements $\tilde{S}_{n,\gamma}$, $\tilde{S}_{\ell,\gamma}$ in terms of the original $S$-matrix elements — or, even more, as a semiclassical expression — is presently not possible, as too little is known about the precise nature of the quantum localization on the beach layer. Also, standard semiclassical methods break down in the beach. For the brevity of notation, we will drop the tildes on $\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{\theta}$. Extracting the Shift, Splitting and Eigenvector Structure {#block:sum:section} --------------------------------------------------------- We now use the block matrix model and formulas (\[shift:shift\],\[shift:splitting\]) to extract approximations for the shift and the splitting of eigenphase doublets. Also, we comment on how to extract eigenvector structure and to calculate eigenphase properties from it. ### Eigenphase Splitting When using Eq. (\[shift:splitting\]) and the block matrix representation of $S$ to calculate the splitting, we have to perform the sum over paths $${\cal P}^N_{n,-n} \,\equiv\, {\sum_{\{n\:\rightarrow -n\}}} \prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\:S_{\lambda_i,\lambda_{i+1}}$$ of length $N\gg\kappa/|\delta\theta_n|$. As $N$ is large (and under the assumption that none of the internal diagonal elements $S_{\lambda_i,\lambda_i}$ is equal to $S_{n,n}$) it is sufficient to collect contributions that are of order $N$. We consider three families of paths: paths of type [*regular-regular (rr)*]{} that contain one single jump from $n$ to $-n$, paths of type [*regular-chaotic-regular (rcr)*]{} that pass through the center block, and paths [*regular-edge-chaotic-edge-regular (recer)*]{} that pass through all five blocks. Adding up the different contributions gives the eigenphase splitting as a sum $$\begin{aligned} \delta\theta_n \approx \delta\theta_n^{(rr)}+ \delta\theta_n^{(rcr)}+\delta\theta_n^{(recer)}\ . \label{block:threesplit}\end{aligned}$$ Within each of these families, one has to sum over indices of staying times of the path at each diagonal element. We show in Appendix \[App:splittings\] how this can be done and quote the result: The sum over paths with $M+1$ jumps passing through $M$ intermediate blocks $S^{(i_1,i_1)},\ldots,S^{(i_M,i_M)}$ is given as $$\begin{aligned} && {\cal P}_{n,-n}^{N\,(i_1,\ldots,i_M)} \nonumber\\ &&\sim N \ee^{i(N-1)\theta_n^{\,(0)}} \sum_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_M} S_{n,\lambda_1} \prod_{i=1}^{M} \frac{S_{\lambda_i,\lambda_{i+1}}} {\ee^{i\theta_n^{\,(0)}}-\ee^{i\theta_{\lambda_i}}} \ , \label{block:pathsum}\end{aligned}$$ where the sums over the $\lambda_\nu$ run over all indices of the corresponding blocks $S^{(i_\nu,i_\nu)}$, and $\lambda_{M+1}=-n$. Corrections to (\[block:pathsum\]) are of lower order in $N$ or higher order in transition amplitudes. The phase denominators $$\ee^{i\theta_n^{\,(0)}}-\ee^{i\theta_{\lambda_i}}\:\equiv\:d_{n,\lambda_i}$$ arise from the summation over staying times $T_i$ at the different blocks. Within a given family, each path contributes a factor $\exp[iT_i(\theta_{\lambda_i}-\theta_n^{\,(0)})]$, and geometrical summation over $T_i$ results in the denominators listed. Note that only phase differences appear that combine the outermost phase $\theta_n^{\,(0)}$ with one of the phases $\theta_{\lambda_i}$ of the inner blocks. Contributions containing other phase denominators decay exponentially in $N$. Also, we have only taken into account paths that pass through each of the inner blocks once. This “never look back” approximation is justified since paths containing loops are of higher order in the inter-block transition elements. For a treatment of loops in index space, see Appendix \[App:splittings\]. Let us now discuss the contributions of the different families in turn. For paths of type [*regular-regular*]{}, we apply Eq. (\[block:pathsum\]) for $M=0$ and find $$\begin{aligned} \delta\theta_n^{\,(rr)}\:\approx\: 2\IM\{\ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\,{S_{n,-n}}\} \sim \mid S_{n,-n}\mid\ . \label{block:split:rr}\end{aligned}$$ Chaos-assisted paths of type [*regular-chaotic-regular*]{} visit the center block. By application of Eq. (\[block:pathsum\]) for $M=1$, we find that the [*rcr*]{}-contribution to the splitting is $$\begin{aligned} \delta\theta_n^{\,(rcr)}\:\approx\: 2\IM\Big\{ \ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}} \sum_\gamma \frac{S_{n,\gamma}\,S_{\gamma,-n}}{d_{n,\gamma}} \Big\} \ . \label{block:split:rcr}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the paths [*regular-edge-chaotic-edge-regular*]{} pass through three intermediate blocks ($M=3$), hence $$\delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}= 2\IM\Big\{\ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}} \sum_{\gamma,\ell,\ell'} \frac{S_{n,\ell}}{d_{n,\ell}} \frac{S_{\ell,\gamma}\,S_{\gamma,-\ell'}} {d_{n,\gamma}} \frac{S_{-\ell',-n}}{d_{n,\ell'}}\Big\}\ . \label{block:split:recer}$$ One sees that all tunneling rates mediated by internal blocks can be strongly enhanced by two effects. \(1) Combinations of tunneling matrix elements may become progressively more advantageous as more steps are allowed. \(2) Coherent summation over staying times results in phase denominators. Avoided crossings of these phases turn the splittings into a rapidly fluctuating quantity with respect to small changes in energy, say, or an external parameter of the system. The phase denominators also lead to an [*overall*]{} increase in the tunneling rate since, at a given wave number $k$, there are of order $k$ internal states available. This means that typically, there will be one phase denominator of size $d_{n,\gamma}^{-1}\sim k/2\pi$ at least. Both effects, (1) and (2), can also enhance the [*recer*]{} contributions with respect to the [*rcr*]{} ones. We can therefore expect the [*recer*]{} contributions to dominate the tunneling rate. For a given system, their relative importance may vary, depending on the size of $|S_{n,\gamma}|$ and $|S_{n,\ell}S_{\ell,\gamma}/d_{n,\ell}|$. ### Eigenphase Shift Paths that contribute to the real part of the shift lead from $n$ back to $n$ and have to leave this index at least once. To do so, they can either tunnel to the center block or to the edge block, which leads to a decomposition of contributions into $$\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)} \:\approx\: \Delta\theta_n^{(rer)} + \Delta\theta_n^{(rcr)} +\Delta\theta_n^{(recer)} \ .$$ The summation over these paths can be done by the same procedure used above, and one finds that the contributions to the real part of the shift are $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\theta_n^{\,(rer)} &=& \IM\Big\{\ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}} \sum_\ell \frac{S_{n,\ell}\,S_{\ell,n}}{d_{n,\ell}}\Big\}\ ,\!\!\! \label{block:shift:rer}\\ \Delta\theta_n^{\,(rcr)} &=& \IM\Big\{\ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\sum_\gamma \frac{S_{n,\gamma}\,S_{\gamma,n}}{d_{n,\gamma}} \Big\}\ ,\!\!\! \label{block:shift:rcr}\\ \Delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)} &=& \IM\Big\{\ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}} \sum_{\gamma,\ell,\ell'} \frac{S_{n,\ell}\,S_{\ell,\gamma}\, S_{\gamma,\ell'}\,S_{\ell',n}} {d_{n,\ell}\,d_{n,\gamma}\,d_{n,\ell'}} \Big\}\ . \!\!\! \label{block:shift:recer}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the rapid decay of tunneling matrix elements we expect that $|\Delta\theta_n^{\,(rer)}|\gg |\Delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}|\gtrsim|\Delta\theta_n^{\,(rcr)}|$. Furthermore from Eqs. (\[block:split:recer\],\[block:shift:recer\]), $|\Delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}|\simeq|\delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}|$. Consequently, the shift will typically be much larger than the splitting. ### Eigenvectors We can also use the block matrix model to approximate regular eigenvector doublets $\bbox{\alpha}^\pm$. We set $\alpha^\pm_n=1/\sqrt{2}$ and $\alpha^{\pm}_{-n}=\pm1/\sqrt{2}$, and solve $$(S-\ee^{i\theta_n^\pm})\,\bbox{\alpha}^\pm=0$$ to leading order in the coupling matrix elements between neighboring blocks (neglecting all other coupling matrix elements). We find that the components of $\bbox{\alpha}^\pm$ in the beach regions are $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_\ell^{\pm}\approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, \frac{S_{n,\ell}}{d_{n,\ell}}\; \label{block:vectors:edge}\end{aligned}$$ and $\alpha^\pm_{-\ell}=\pm\alpha^\pm_\ell$. Components in the center block are given by $$\alpha_\gamma^\pm= \frac{\sqrt{2}}{d_{n,\gamma}} \sum_{\ell} \frac{S_{n,\ell}\,S_{\ell,\gamma}} {d_{n,\ell}} = \sigma_\gamma \sum_{\ell'} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{d_{n,\gamma}} \frac{S_{\gamma,-\ell'}\,S_{-\ell',-n}} {d_{n,\ell}}\ , \label{block:vectors:coe}$$ \[block:vectors\] if the symmetry $\sigma_\gamma\in\{\pm 1\}$ of the block-diagonalizing vector $|\gamma\rangle$ is the same as that of $\bbox{\alpha}^\pm$, and $\alpha_\gamma^\pm=0$ otherwise. In both Eqs. (\[block:vectors\]) the relative error is ${\cal O}(|S_{n,\ell}|^2/d_{n,\ell}, |S_{\ell,\gamma}|^2/d_{n,\gamma})$. This approximation for the eigenvectors can be used to relate eigenphase properties to the size of eigenvector components in the different blocks. Upon comparison of Eqs. (\[block:shift:rer\]) and (\[block:vectors:edge\]), we see that the dominant contribution to the shift can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\theta_n^{\,(rer)}= 2 \IM\Big\{ \sum_\ell \ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\,d_{n,\ell}\: (\alpha_\ell)^2\Big\}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bbox{\alpha}$ is either of the $\bbox{\alpha}^\pm$. Therefore, the eigenphase shift is related to the eigenvector’s overlap with the beach region. Similarly, from Eqs. (\[block:split:recer\]) and (\[block:vectors:coe\]), $$\begin{aligned} \delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)} = \IM \Big\{ \sum_\gamma \ee^{-i\theta_n^{\,(0)}}\,d_{n,\gamma}\: [(\alpha^+_\gamma)^2-(\alpha^-_\gamma)^2] \Big\}\ . \label{block:splitvec}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[block:splitvec\]) relates the presumably dominant contribution to the splitting to the eigenvector’s overlap with the center block. This explains and quantifies the observation of Utermann [*et al.*]{} [@Utermann94], that regular doublet splittings in a mixed system are in close correlation with the states’ projection onto the chaotic sea. Similarly, Gerwinski and Seba [@Gerwinski94] related tunneling rates between a chaotic phase space region and a regular island to the overlap of a chaotic scattering state with the regular island. However, we see that the [*ad hoc*]{} association $$\begin{aligned} |\,\Delta\theta_n| \sim \sum_\ell \,|\,\alpha_\ell\,|^2\ ,\qquad |\,\delta\theta_n| \sim \sum_\gamma |\,\alpha_\gamma\,|^2 \label{block:adhoc}\end{aligned}$$ is not complete: in the exact relation (\[block:splitvec\]), each summand is weighted by a phase difference. ### Comments In view of the explicit formulas, we see that the results are not significantly changed by approximating the regular and edge blocks of $\tilde{S}$ by the corresponding elements of the original matrix $S$. Only in the immediate vicinity of resonances between regular and beach eigenphases the approximation $\tilde{S}_{\ell,\ell}\approx S_{\ell,\ell}$ is not appropriate, as it over-estimates the imaginary part of the phase $\theta_\ell$ and leads to a spuriously broad resonance. (With the neglect of $\Delta\theta_\ell^{\,(R)}$ we shall not be concerned, because we do not aim at an exact reproduction of the peak positions.) For most beach states, it is therefore more appropriate to make the somewhat [*ad hoc*]{} approximation of $\theta_\ell=\arg\{S_{\ell,\ell}\}$ instead of $-i\log S_{\ell,\ell}$. This approximation now leads to an under-estimate of the resonance width, but we have checked that in the cases discussed in Section \[numres:sect\] the edge $\ell$ are sufficient large ($\ell\ge 59$) that the resonances $|S_{n,n}-\tilde{S}_{\ell,\ell}|^{-1}$ and $|S_{n,n}-\exp(i\theta_\ell)|^{-1}$ cannot be distinguished by eye. From a methodological point of view, it is worthwhile mentioning that the formulas for the shift and the splitting can also be derived from a complementary approach. One can expand the characteristic polynomial $$P_S(x)=\det(S-x)$$ of $S$ around $x_n=\exp(i\theta_n^{\,(0)})$ to second order in the external coupling elements $|S_{n,\lambda_1}|$, $|S_{\lambda_M,-n}|$, and then solve for its roots $x^\pm$, $P_S(x^\pm)=0$. Upon definition of shift and splitting via $x^\pm=x_n+\Delta x \pm \delta x/2$, one finds formulas that, to lowest order in the internal coupling elements, are identical to Eqs. (\[block:split:recer\],\[block:shift:rer\]). Hence, the “never look back” summation over paths corresponds to the lowest order of a formal expansion of the eigenvalues, containing the coupling elements as small parameters. It is important to realize that the different phase denominators $d_{n,\ell}$ and $d_{n,\gamma}$ may [*fluctuate on different scales*]{} as functions of the energy or an external parameter. Typically, the center block will be much larger than the beach blocks, and avoided crossings of $\theta_n^{\,(0)}$ with one of the $\theta_\gamma$ will occur more often than those with one of the $\theta_\ell$. Also, since beach states display EBK-like behavior with actions that can be similar to those of the regular states, we can expect phase differences $\theta_n^{\,(0)}-\theta_\ell$ to vary more slowly than phase differences $\theta_n^{\,(0)}-\theta_\gamma$. (For the case of the annular billiard, a semiclassical argument is given in Ref. [@Frischat97].) Consequently, eigenphase splittings $\delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}$ will show fluctuations on [*two*]{} scales: There will be a rapid sequence of peaks due to avoided crossings of regular eigenphases with chaotic ones and a slow modulation due to the relative motion of regular and beach eigenphases. Let us conclude by summarizing those predictions that genuinely depend on the explicit inclusion of the beach layers into the five-block matrix model: \(I) Eigenphase splitting: Contributing paths typically pass through all blocks. As a function of an external parameter, the splitting varies on two scales: a slow one attributed to the change of the $d_{n,\ell}^{-2}$, and a rapid one attributed to the change of the $d_{n,\gamma}^{-1}$. Consequently, one sees resonances of different line shapes. \(II) Eigenphase shift: Paths contributing to the shift typically visit only the beach layer. The shift is much larger than the splitting, and it varies with $d_{n,\ell}^{-1}$ on the slow scale only. None of these statements would hold for the three-block model, and therefore (I) and (II) can serve as a test of our five-block model. Numerical Results {#numres:sect} ----------------- We now give numerical examples of the formulas just presented. In particular, we will give the most quantitative and direct proof of the chaos-assisted tunneling picture yet. Also, we will test the predictions derived from the explicit treatment of the beach layer in our five-block matrix model. Again, we consider the annular billiard at parameter values $k=100$, $a=0.4$ and $\delta=0.2$. First of all, we have to decide on where to set the borders between the different blocks. As was already mentioned, the outer borders between the regular blocks and the edge blocks do not pose any problem as in both blocks, matrix elements are approximated by the corresponding matrix elements of the original $S$-matrix. Due to the tunneling ridges in the region $\ell \gtrsim k(a+\delta)$, paths starting from high $n$ will most likely tunnel into this region first. In order to include these paths, we extend the beach region into the regular block whenever necessary. The border between the beach region and the chaotic block is more difficult to determine. In Section \[Wigner\] we give numerical evidence that some of the beach states’ structure arises from trapping of classical motion near KAM-like regular island extending into the chaotic sea down to impact parameters $|L|\approx 0.55$. This would suggest the choice of $|\ell|=55$ for the borders between the edges and the chaotic block. However, chaotic states that can carry transport between positive and negative angular momenta have sizeable overlap only with angular momentum components between $\ell=-50$ and $\ell=50$. Therefore, we will take the chaotic block to extend over angular momenta $|\ell|\le\ell_{\text{COE}} =50$. The uncertainty inherent in the choice of $\ell_{\text{COE}}$ affects the final results via the effective couplings $S_{\ell,\gamma}$, $S_{n,\gamma}$ which can therefore only be determined up to an overall constant of order one. Let us briefly discuss the magnitudes of the tunneling amplitudes involved in the different contributions to the splitting. As expected, the direct $n$ to $-n$ tunneling matrix element is of negligible size. At the present parameter values $\delta\theta_{70}^{\,(rr)}\sim|S_{70,-70}|\sim 10^{-60}$ which is by many orders of magnitude smaller than the observed splitting $\delta\theta_{70}\sim 10^{-10}$. The difference between contributions $\delta\theta_n^{\,(rcr)}$ and $\delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}$ is less drastic. At the parameter values considered, effective coupling elements $S_{n,\ell}S_{\ell,\gamma}/d_{n,\gamma}$ are usually by at least an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding $S_{n,\gamma}$. The dominance of [*recer*]{} contributions is particularly clear when studying the behavior of shift and splitting as a function of an external parameter. We show in Fig. \[block:splitfig1\] the shift and the splitting of the doublet $n=70$ as obtained from numerical diagonalization of the $S$-matrix as a function of the outer circle’s radius $R=0.985$–$1.025$. $R$ varies over a sufficiently small interval as to leave the classical billiard dynamics essentially unchanged. The choice of $R$ as external parameter has the advantage that the tunneling magnitudes given by the [*inner*]{} scattering matrix $|S_{n,\ell}|=|\SI_{n,\ell}|$ remain constant, as variation of $R$ affects only the [*outer*]{} scattering matrix $\SO$. Fig. \[block:splitfig1\](a) displays the real part of the shift $\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)}$. The shift varies slowly as a function of $R$ and is over long ranges well reproduced by just a single term of Eq. (\[block:split:recer\]). (The dashed line shows $|S_{70,59}^2/d_{70,59}|$ with $d_{70,59}\approx\theta_{70}^{\,(0)}-\theta_{59}$ extracted from $S$, slightly shifted to account for $\Delta\theta_{59}$.) Over relatively large ranges of $R$, one single $\ell$ is clearly dominant. Transitions between domains of different dominant $\ell$ are marked by very small shifts due to cancelations between contributing paths. Fig. \[block:splitfig1\](b) shows the splitting of the same doublet. Note that the logarithmic scale in plot (b) ranges over twice the number of orders of magnitude than in (a). As predicted by the five-block model, the splitting is much smaller than the shift and shows variations on two scales. The overall, slow modulation is determined by the beach resonance $\propto d_{70,59}^{-2}$ and closely follows the behavior of the shift. On top of this modulation lies a rapid sequence of spikes that we attribute to quasi-crossings with eigenphases of the internal block. For the $\ell=59$ contribution to the splitting (dashed line), we used Eq. (\[stat:median\]) of the next Section to estimate the median taken over the properties of the chaotic block and divided out a factor $\sim 15$ to make the dashed line coalesce with the splitting [*away*]{} from the $d_{n,\gamma}$-resonances. Note that the change of dominant edge index $\ell$ is signaled by a strong cancelation of tunneling paths. In the inset, we compare the line shapes of the two types of resonances by plotting $|\delta\theta_{70}|$ as a function of $|R-R_p|$ in a double logarithmic plot near the “beach” peak ($R_p=0.9946$, full circles) and a “chaotic” peak ($R_p=1.0043$, empty circles). Power laws with exponents $-2$ and $-1$ are obeyed to good precision, thus confirming the prediction of the five-block model. It is evident that the predictions of the five-block model serve very well to explain the data. We stress again that the effects just described — different line shapes and fluctuations on two parameter scales — genuinely depend on the role of the beach layer in tunneling processes. They serve as clear fingerprints of the quantum implications of the presence of an beach layer between phase space regions of classically regular and chaotic motion. Let us however mention that the correspondence between shift and splitting can be less clear. For large $n$ the shift can show additional modulations that do not appear in the splitting whenever there is a degeneracy with an beach mode with large $\ell$ [@SteffenThesis]. In the shift, this resonance is weighted with $|S_{n,\ell}|^2$, which favors $\ell$ near the tunneling ridge. In the splitting, the resonance’s contribution has the weight $|S_{n,\ell}S_{\ell,\gamma}|^2$ which can become very small if $\ell$ is too large. This does however not contradict the predictions (I) and (II), it merely means that shift and splitting arise by coupling to different beach modes. For later purposes it is important to note that whenever the same beach state is dominant in both shift and splitting, the correspondence between the shift and the slow modulations of the splitting can be used to “unfold” the splitting data from beach properties. By Eqs. (\[block:split:recer\],\[block:shift:rer\]), the ratio $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\delta\theta}_n = \frac{4}{\pi} \frac{\delta\theta_n}{[\Delta\theta_n^{\,(R)}]^2} \left|\frac{S_{n,\ell}}{S_{\ell,C}} \right|^2 \sim \frac{1}{{|S_{l,\text{C}}|^2}} \left| \sum_\gamma \frac{S_{\ell,\gamma}\,S_{\gamma,-\ell}}{d_{n,\gamma}} \right| \label{block:unfolded}\end{aligned}$$ then contains only properties of the center block and can therefore be used to extract its “bare” quantities. Evolution of Tunneling Flux on the PSOS {#Wigner} --------------------------------------- Let us recall that the scattering matrix $S$ is the quantum analogue of the classical Poincaré mapping; it constitutes a time domain-like propagator in the representation fixed by Eq. (\[scatt:wavefn\]). This makes it possible to study the evolution of ”wave packets” — vectors $\bbox{\alpha}_0$ corresponding to initial conditions localized in phase space — under the action of $S$. In particular, it is here of interest to follow the evolution of a tunneling process in phase space. The comparison of quantum dynamics and classical phase space can, in the context of the scattering approach to quantization, conveniently be done by use of Wigner- and Husimi-like functions of quantum operators [@Klakow96; @Frischat97]. Let ${\bcal A}$ be some operator that, for definiteness, we represent in angular momentum basis. As explained in detail in Ref. [@Frischat97], ${\bcal A}$ can be transformed to a function $\rho^{\text{H}}[{\bcal A}](\gamma,L)$ on the Poincaré cell $\CP$ by first performing a Wigner-transform on ${\bcal A}$ and then smoothing with a minimal-uncertainty wave packet. One obtains $$\begin{aligned} &&\rho^{\text{H}}[{\bcal A}](\gamma,L) = \sum_{\ell \ell'} {\bcal A}_{\ell,\ell'} \times \nonumber\\ &&\exp\left\{\frac{-\Delta\gamma^2}{2}\left[ \left(kL-\frac{\ell+\ell'}{2}\right)^2 + (\ell-\ell')^2\right] -i\gamma(\ell-\ell') \right\} \ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $(\gamma,L)$ are the coordinates in $\CP$, $k$ is the wave number, and $\Delta\gamma^2$ is a parameter determining the shape of the smoothing wave packet. We choose $\Delta\gamma^2=4/k$. In case that ${\bcal A}=\bbox{\alpha}\cdot\bbox{\alpha}^\dagger$ is the projector of a (normalized) vector $\alpha$, its transform $\rho^{\text{H}}_{\bbox{\alpha}}(\gamma,L)$ constitutes a positive semi-definite, normalized density distribution on the Poincaré cell, the [*Husimi Poincaré Density (HPD)*]{}. By use of HPDs, it becomes possible to follow the phase space evolution of a tunneling process from one regular torus to its counterpart. The “dynamics” (in iteration count $N$ as the time variable) of such a process is visualized by projecting iterates $\bbox{\omega_N}=S^N\bbox{\omega}_0$ of some initial vector $\bbox{\omega}_0$ onto $\CP$. Returning to the annular billiard, we consider a starting vector $\bbox{\omega}_0$ peaked at high angular momentum $n$ and calculate the Husimi densities $\rho^{\text{H}}[\langle\bbox{\omega}_N\cdot\bbox{\omega}_N^\dagger\rangle]$ of averaged autocorrelations $$\lg\bbox{\omega}_N\cdot\bbox{\omega}_N^\dagger\rg \:=\:\sum_{M=0}^{50} \tilde{\bbox{\omega}}_{N+M}\cdot \tilde{\bbox{\omega}}_{N+M}^\dagger$$ in which the mean over 50 iterations has been performed in order to average out the internal dynamics of the center block. The tilde indicates that the $n$-th component of $\bbox{\omega}$ has been set to zero. (This truncation is necessary because the smoothing tails of the large $n$-th component would obscure all features in the nearby beach regions.) Fig. \[Pdist:dyn:wig1\] depicts the flow of tunneling probability on $\CP$ by showing $\rho^{\text{H}}[\langle\bbox{\omega}_N\cdot\bbox{\omega}_N^\dagger\rangle]$ for $n=66$ and $N=50$, $100$ and $500$. At these parameter values, the tunneling period between WG tori is $2\pi/\delta\theta_{66}\sim 10^7$. As predicted by the five-block matrix model, probability is fed from the starting angular momentum $n$ into the nearby beach region until it reaches a value $\sim |S_{n,\ell}|^2$ ($\ell=58$) and spreads over the chaotic sea up to a value $\sim |S_{n,\ell}S_{\ell,\text{C}}|^2$, see Fig. \[Pdist:dyn:wig1\](a). Oscillations between the beaches set in with period $2\pi/\delta\theta_{58}\sim 1000$, see Fig. \[Pdist:dyn:wig1\](b,c). On a much larger time scale, probability amplitude starts to build up at at $-n$ (not shown here). One clearly sees that the shape of the HPD is structured by the underlying classical dynamics: in the beaches, most probability builds up around the chains of small KAM-like islands, whereas in the chaotic sea, the center island and its satellites are not penetrated. Also, the regions around the satellite islands and the homoclinic tangles between them are filled only weakly. Chaotic phase space can also be filled in a different manner, depending on the phases $\theta_n$, $\theta_\ell$ and $\theta_\gamma$ involved in the tunneling process. In Fig. \[Pdist:dyn:wig2\] we present the case of a close degeneracy between $\theta_n$ and one of the $\theta_\gamma$. We show $\langle\bbox{\omega}_{N}\cdot\bbox{\omega}_N^\dagger\rangle$ for $N=4000$ and the starting vector $\bbox{\omega}_0$ peaked at $n=65$. In this case, there is high probability amplitude in the sticking regions around the center satellite islands. Finally, we present in Fig. \[Pdist:states:fig\] HPDs of nine eigenvectors of $S$ at $k=100$, $a=0.4$ and $\delta=0.2$ ($k=100$, one should note, is not an eigenenergy of the annular billiard). By the Weyl formula [@Baltes] these vectors would, when quantized at a close-by energy, correspond to the $\sim 2000$-th exited states. We show grayscale plots of HPDs $\rho_{\bbox{\alpha}}^{\text{H}}$ with steps in grayscale corresponding to equidistant probability contour lines. The overall scales vary with each sub-plot. These HPDs at hand, the spread of tunneling amplitude can now be understood in terms of participating eigenvectors. For example, the doublet depicted in (b) and (c) is the beach doublet involved in the tunneling process of Fig. \[Pdist:dyn:wig1\]. Likewise, the vector (f) peaked around the center satellite islands is the nearly degenerate one in the tunneling process shown in Fig. \[Pdist:dyn:wig2\]. Evidently, their shape forms the spread of tunneling probability on the Poincaré cell. We note that similar figures for much higher wavenumber $k=600$, corresponding to the $\sim 75000$-th excited states, can be found in Ref. [@Frischat97]. How Important is Chaoticity? {#dis:chaos:section} ---------------------------- Let us now discuss a numerical study similar to that performed in the original work by Bohigas [*et al.*]{} [@Bohigas93a] in which regular level splittings are calculated as a function of eccentricity $\delta$ at constant $a+\delta$. It is important to note that increasing $\delta$ has two effects: classical motion in the inner layer $|L|<a+\delta$ becomes chaotic, and simultaneously tunneling rates from the regular torus to the chaotic layer are enhanced. [*A priori*]{}, it is not clear which one of these effects governs the rate at which the splittings change, but a quantitative estimate of either effect has now become possible. We calculated the splittings of high-angular momentum modes for $\delta=0.03$–$0.2$ and $a+\delta=0.6$ at $k=60$. Fig. \[dis:manyd39:fig\] displays the eigenphase splitting $|\delta\theta_n|$ for $n=39$ ($n/k=0.65$). Exact splittings (full lines) increase over eight orders of magnitude and roughly follow an exponential increase with $\delta$. A description of the data in terms of our block-matrix model that reproduces all the fine details might be a difficult task — even with exact $S$-matrix elements at hand — as the model relies on classical information to select the borders between the different blocks and assumes that, apart from the beach layers, no significant phase space structure is present. Therefore, the block-matrix model would have to be adjusted to the varying classical dynamics as $\delta$ changes, and the effect of remaining structure at lower $\delta$ might have to be taken into account with the introduction of different blocks. However, the now-familiar slow modulations in Fig. \[dis:manyd39:fig\] point to the effect of beach layer states mediating the tunneling flux — however complicated the internal structure might be. Indeed, we find that over the range $\delta=0.07$–0.16 the tunneling processes are mediated by two beach states peaked around $\ell=29$, with $\ell/k=0.48$ well inside the non-integrable regime. In Fig. \[dis:manyd39:fig\], we have plotted $|S_{n,\ell}|^2$ as a dotted line (with arbitrary offset) to give a rough estimate of the change of regular-to-beach tunneling elements via these particular beach states. Taking into account also the effect of beach denominators, we have plotted $|S_{n,\ell}/d_{n,\ell}|^2$ (dashed line). This estimate is multiplied with an overall factor $2\cdot 10^{-5}$ to make the line coincide with the exact data at small $\delta$. The dashed line already gives a fair reproduction of the data. It misses only the sharp peaks due to resonances with the chaotic states, the depression of $\delta\theta_n$ between the $d_{n,\ell}^{-2}$ peaks due to destructive interference, and the change of coupling strength of the beach state to the chaotic center states. We conclude that between $\delta=0.07$ and $\delta=0.2$, the splitting is predominantly determined by the change of [*beach*]{} parameters, and that the change of internal coupling between beach and chaotic sea accounts only for a factor of the order $10$ (difference between the dashed line and the exact data at $\delta=0.15$). For larger $\delta$, different beach doublets take over, but the basic structure is preserved. The dashed-dotted line displays the [ *recer*]{}-contributions for $\ell=35$ and $\ell_{\text{COE}}=20$. At $\delta$-values below $0.07$, numerical precision does not allow us to calculate the splitting directly. We can however get an impression by looking at the splitting of states supported by quasi-integrable structures at small $\delta$. Presumably, these states will mediate the tunneling of high-angular momentum doublets. In Fig. \[dis:manyd27:fig\], we show the splitting of the doublet predominantly peaked at $\ell=27$ ($\ell/k=0.45$). The splitting shows resonance peaks below $\delta\approx 0.075$ and then flattens out. This behavior can be understood by looking at the HPDs of the states involved. In Fig. \[dis:ratpanel\] we depict one partner of the tunneling doublet and its resonant state at (a–c) $\delta=0.0402$, (d–f) $\delta=0.0687$, and (g–h) $\delta=0.09$. In the corresponding classical Poincaré cells, we have started trajectories from initial conditions $(\pi,L)$ with $L>0$ only to indicate the classical inhibition of transport. We can make two interesting observations: First of all, the resonant tunneling process is mediated by [ *regular*]{} states residing on the inner island. Resonant tunneling via the center island remains the dominant mechanism, even when classical transport from positive to negative $L$ becomes allowed (d–f). Here, tunneling between a [*chaotic doublet*]{} is mediated by a [*regular*]{} state. Secondly, the outer doublet supported by the KAM-like tori at small $\delta$ evolves into a doublet of states scarred near the unstable periodic orbit and stretched along its stable and unstable manifolds. By quantum localization effects, the doublet structure persists — despite of the seemingly chaotic classical motion (see also [@Frischat97]). Tunneling between the scarred doublet is direct, as indications of resonances are absent in the splitting beyond $\delta=0.075$. We are led to the conclusion that the enhancement of tunneling rates between symmetry-related phase space objects ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal T}{\cal A}$ by resonance with quantum states supported by an intervening phase-space structure ${\cal B}$ is only very loosely related to the chaoticity of ${\cal B}$, but rather depends on the [*topological*]{} character of ${\cal B}$. In ${\cal B}$, it must merely be possible to traverse phase space distance in classically allowed steps. It might therefore be more appropriate to refer to “transport-assisted tunneling,” a phenomenon of a more general class than the chaos-assisted tunneling one. Statistical Analysis of Eigenphase Splittings {#Statistics} ============================================= Asymptotic Behavior of the Splitting Distribution ------------------------------------------------- This Section is devoted to the distribution of level splittings. We determine the asymptotic large-$\delta\theta_n$ behavior of the splitting distribution and find “typical” splitting values by calculating the median of the distribution obtained by extrapolation of the asymptotic behavior towards smaller splittings. We assume that [*recer*]{} contributions dominate and that properties of the beach blocks vary slowly. It is straightforward to apply the calculation to the case of [*rcr*]{} contributions as well. Starting from Eq. (\[block:split:recer\]) we introduce a number of notational simplifications. For a given $n$, we write phases with respect to $\theta_n^{\,(0)}$ (that is, set $\theta_n^{\,(0)}=0$), define $x_\gamma=2\sin(\theta_\gamma/2)$ and collect the coupling of $\pm n$ to a chaotic state $\gamma$ via the edge into an effective overlap $$\begin{aligned} && v_{n,\gamma}=\nonumber\\ && -2\RE\Big\{\, \sum_{\ell,\ell'} \ee^{-i(\theta_\gamma+\theta_\ell+\theta_{\ell'})/2}\: \frac{S_{n,\ell}\,S_{\ell,\gamma}\,S_{\gamma,-\ell'}\,S_{-\ell',-n}} {2\sin(\theta_\ell/2)\, 2\sin(\theta_{\ell'}/2)}\Big\}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\delta\theta_n^{\,(recer)}\:=\:\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_\gamma}\: \frac{v_{n,\gamma}}{x_\gamma}\ .$$ $N_\gamma$ denotes the dimension of the center block. In the sequel we drop the subscript $n$. To devise a statistical treatment for the center block, we make the following assumptions concerning the distribution of the chaotic eigenphases $\bbox{\theta}=\{\theta_\gamma\}$, and the effective overlaps $\bbox{v}=\{v_\gamma\}$, $\gamma=1,\ldots,N_\gamma$. We assume that \(1) there is no correlation between the overlaps and the eigenphases, \(2) eigenphases $\theta_\gamma$ are real, ranging from $[-\pi,\pi]$, and the joint distribution function $P(\bbox{\theta})$ of the eigenphases either (a) is Poissonian, i.e. the eigenphases are uncorrelated, or (b) has the property that degeneracies of eigenphases $\theta_\gamma$ are suppressed (as is the case in Dyson random matrix ensembles), \(3) the overlaps are mutually independent Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$. $\sigma$ will be fixed in terms of $S$-matrix elements in the following. The joint probability distribution of the $\theta_\gamma$ and $v_\gamma$ is then given by $$P( \bbox{\theta},\bbox{v}) = P(\bbox{\theta}) \prod_{\gamma=1}^{N_\gamma}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\,2\pi \sigma ^2}}\: \exp\left(-\frac{v_\gamma^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right) \ .$$ We can write the probability density of $\delta\theta$ in the form $$\begin{aligned} P(\delta\theta)\: =\:\int \dd\bbox{\theta}\;P(\bbox{\theta}) \,P( \delta\theta|\,\bbox{\theta}) \ , \label{stat:fulldist}\end{aligned}$$ where $P(\delta\theta|\,\bbox{\theta})$ is the conditional probability of $\delta\theta$ given $\bbox{\theta}$, and the integral is performed over $[-\pi,\pi]^{N_\gamma}$. For fixed $\bbox{\theta}$, the $v_\gamma/x_\gamma$ are mutually independent Gaussian random variables with variances $(\sigma/\gamma)^2$, and thus $P(\delta\theta|\,\bbox{\theta})$ is a Gaussian of variance $\sigma^2\eta(\bbox{\theta})$, where $\eta(\bbox{\theta})$ is given by $$\eta(\bbox{\theta}) = \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_\gamma}\frac 1{x_\gamma^2}\ .$$ To perform the integration over $\bbox{\theta}$ in Eq. (\[stat:fulldist\]), we introduce $\eta(\bbox{\theta})$ as an additional integration variable by re-writing $P(\delta\theta)$ as $$\begin{aligned} P(\delta\theta)\:=\: \int_0^\infty \dd\eta \; P(\eta)\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{\,2\pi \sigma ^2\eta }}\: \exp\left( -\frac{\delta\theta^{\,2}}{2\sigma^2\eta}\right) \label{Pdelta1}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} P(\eta)\:=\:\int\dd\bbox{\theta}\: P(\bbox{\theta})\, \delta\left(\eta-\sum_\gamma\frac{1}{x^2_\gamma}\right)\ . \label{Peta:def}\end{aligned}$$ Note that, by virtue of the Central Limit Theorem, almost all overlap distributions will give rise to a Gaussian form of $P(\delta\theta|\,\bbox{\theta})$ in Eq. (\[Pdelta1\]). We continue by examining the large-$\eta$ asymptotic behavior of $P(\eta)$ for the two cases listed in condition (2). \(a) If the $\theta_\gamma$ obey a Poissonian distribution, then $\eta$ is a sum over independent identically distributed variables $\eta_\gamma$, each of which is distributed as $$\begin{aligned} P(\eta_\gamma)&=&\frac 1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\dd\theta\;\delta \left(\eta_\gamma-\frac{1}{x^2}\right) \nonumber\\ &=&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1\,/[\,2\pi\eta_\gamma\sqrt{\eta _\gamma-1/4}\,] & \quad {\rm for}\quad \eta _\gamma\ge \frac 14 \ ,\\ 0 & \quad {\rm for}\quad \eta _\gamma<\frac 14\ . \end{array} \right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that for large $\eta_\gamma$ this asymptotically behaves like $P(\eta _\gamma)\sim 1/2\pi\eta_\gamma^{3/2}$. In order to obtain the distribution $P(\eta)$ of the sum, we evaluate the characteristic function $$\hat{P}_1(\omega )=\frac 1{2\pi }\int_{1/4}^\infty \dd y\;\frac{\ee^{-i\omega y}} {y\sqrt{y-1/4}}=\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\sqrt{i\omega }}{2}\right) \ ,$$ (see [@Gradshteyn Eqs. 3.383.4 and 9.236.1]) where $\text{erfc}(x)$ denotes the complementary error function. We use the fact that the characteristic function of a sum of $N_\gamma$ independent random variables is the product of all their characteristic functions, to get $$P(\eta )=\frac 1{2\pi }\int_{-\infty }^\infty\dd\omega \; \text{erfc}^{N_\gamma}\left(\frac{\sqrt{i\omega }}{2}\right) \:\ee^{i\omega\eta}\ .$$ The structure of the $\eta\rightarrow\infty$ tail is determined by the non-analytic behavior of $\hat{P}_1(\omega)$ at the origin. Thus we can approximate $P(\eta)$ in that regime by expanding in a power series in $\omega$, $$\text{erfc}^{N_\gamma}\!\left(\frac{\sqrt{i\omega}}{2}\right) =1-N_\gamma\sqrt{\frac{i\omega }{\pi }} +{\cal O}\left(\frac{N_\gamma^2\,\omega}{2\pi}\right)\ .$$ The leading (non-analytic) square root term is proportional to $N_\gamma$. Thus the frequency dependence scales with $N_\gamma^2$, and the resulting distribution $P(\eta)$ scales asymptotically as $N_\gamma^{-3}\,P(\eta/N_\gamma^2)$. We thereby obtain the asymptotic distribution of $\eta$, $$P(\eta)\propto\:\frac {N_\gamma}{\eta ^{3/2}} \qquad{\rm for}\quad \eta\rightarrow \infty \ . \label{PEtaPoisson}$$ \(b) Next we will evaluate $P(\eta )$ for a general eigenphase distribution in which the occurrence of eigenphase degeneracies is suppressed [@FelixNote]. In order to re-write the distribution function Eq. (\[Peta:def\]) in terms of products over the eigenvalues, rather than sums over them, we introduce the integration parameter $\alpha=\prod_\gamma x_\gamma$ by writing $$P(\eta)\:=\:\int_{-1}^1\!\dd\alpha\!\int\!\dd\bbox{\theta} P(\bbox{\theta})\;\delta\!\left( \eta-\sum_{\gamma}\frac{1}{x_\gamma^2}\right) \;\delta\!\left( \alpha\!- \!\prod_\gamma x_\gamma \right) \ .$$ In the first $\delta$-function, we can now substitute $$\sum_\gamma\frac{1}{x_\gamma^2}\;=\;\ \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\:\sum_\gamma\,\prod_{\gamma'\neq\gamma}x^2_{\gamma'} \;\equiv\;\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\,\sum_\gamma\, {\cal X}^2_\gamma\ ,$$ where we have introduced the notation ${\cal X}_\gamma=\prod_{\gamma'\neq\gamma} x_{\gamma'}$. By changing the integration variable $\alpha\mapsto\alpha/\sqrt{\eta}$ we can extract the explicit $\eta$-dependence from the first $\delta$-function and arrive at $$\begin{aligned} P(\eta)=\frac{1}{\eta ^{3/2}} \int \dd\bbox{\theta} P(\bbox{\theta}) \int_{-\eta^{1/2} }^{\eta^{1/2}} \!\dd\alpha\: \delta\left( 1-\frac 1{\alpha ^2} \sum_\gamma {\cal X}_\gamma^2\right) \nonumber\\ \times\:\delta\left( \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\eta}}-\prod_\gamma x_\gamma\right)\ . \label{PetaInt}\end{aligned}$$ By inspection of the first $\delta$-function, and recalling that $|{\cal X}_\gamma|<1$, we see that contributions to the integral can only arise from the range $|\alpha|<N_\gamma^{1/2}$. However, for finite $\alpha$, the second $\delta$-function is in the limit $\eta\ra\infty$ given by $$\delta \left( \frac \alpha {\sqrt{\eta }}-\prod_\gamma x_\gamma\right) \sim \sum_\gamma\,\delta(x_\gamma) \:|{\cal X}_\gamma|^{-1}\ , \label{deltaDecomp}$$ provided all the $x_\gamma$ are [*distinct*]{}. Hence, the second $\delta$-function is asymptotically independent of $\alpha$, and the $\alpha$-integration can be performed explicitly, using $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \dd\alpha \;\delta \left( 1-\frac 1{\alpha ^2} \sum_\gamma {\cal X}^2_\gamma\right) =\left(\sum_\gamma{\cal X}^2_\gamma\right)^{1/2}\ . \label{alphaInt}$$ Finally, we substitute the form (\[deltaDecomp\]) of the second $\delta$-function and the result (\[alphaInt\]) of the $\alpha$-integration into Eq. (\[PetaInt\]). Noting that if $x_\gamma=0$, then ${\cal X}_{\gamma'}=0$ for all $\gamma'\neq\gamma$, and that $\delta (\theta_\gamma)=\delta(x_\gamma)$, we arrive at the distribution $$P(\eta )\sim\frac {N_\gamma}{2\pi \eta ^{3/2}} \qquad{\rm for}\quad \eta\rightarrow \infty \ . \label{EtaLevi}$$ It is remarkable that the distributions $P(\eta)$ in Eqs. (\[PEtaPoisson\]) and (\[EtaLevi\]) display the same asymptotic power-law dependence. Finally, we note that, by virtue of the Gaussian form of the integrand in Eq. (\[Pdelta1\]), the integral depends primarily on large $\eta\ge\delta\theta^{\,2}/\sigma^2$. To extract the asymptotic behavior of $P(\delta\theta)$, we only need the asymptotic form of $P(\eta)$ for large $\eta$. Inserting (\[EtaLevi\]) into Eq. (\[Pdelta1\]) gives $$P(\delta\theta)\sim N_\gamma \int_0^\infty \dd\eta \; \frac {\ee^{ -\delta\theta^{\,2}/2\eta \sigma^2}} {(2\pi)^{3/2}\eta^2\sigma } =\frac{\sigma N_\gamma}{\pi \sqrt{2\pi}\,\delta\theta^{\,2}} \label{PKhatFinal}$$ for large $\delta\theta$. This is the large-$\delta\theta$ tail of a Cauchy distribution, in accordance to the prediction of Leyvraz and Ullmo [@Leyvraz96]. We stress that we have derived this result for the case of a Poissonian eigenphase distribution and, in a second derivation, without assuming any explicit form of the joint eigenphase distribution function. In the latter case, we only had to make the assumption that the joint distribution function vanishes whenever two eigenphases approach each other. Our derivation is therefore more general than the one given in [@Leyvraz96]. In a broader context, it is also interesting to mention that the calculation (b) can be generalized to the case of a distribution $$\begin{aligned} P_\nu(\delta\theta)\:=\:\int\dd\bbox{\theta}\;P(\bbox{\theta})\;\delta \left( \eta - \sum_\gamma \frac{1}{x_\gamma^{2\nu}}\right) \label{stat:generaldist}\end{aligned}$$ which corresponds to the distribution resulting from a sum over paths that contains a power of the phase denominator. The procedure is analogous to the case $\nu=1$ just described, but for a substitution $\alpha\ra\alpha/\eta^{1/2\nu}$, and one arrives at $P_\nu(\eta)\:=\:(2\pi\nu)^{-1}N_\gamma/\,\eta^{-(2\nu+1)/2\nu}$. This leads to a large-$\delta\theta$ splitting distribution $$\begin{aligned} P(\delta\theta)\propto\frac{1}{ \delta\theta\,^{(\nu+1)/\nu}}\ . \label{stat:general}\end{aligned}$$ Let us return to Eq. (\[PKhatFinal\]). Having integrated out the eigenphase dependence of $P(\delta\theta)$, we are left with the determination of the variance $\sigma^2$ of the effective overlaps $v_{n,\gamma}$. It is given by $$\begin{aligned} &&\sigma ^2\approx \nonumber\\ &&\left\langle \left| \,2\,\RE \sum_{\ell ,\ell'} \ee^{-i(\theta_\gamma+\theta_\ell+\theta_{\ell'}) /2}\: \frac{S_{n,\ell}\,S_{\ell,\gamma}\,S_{\gamma,-\ell'}\,S_{-\ell',-n}} {2\sin(\theta_\ell/2)\, 2\sin(\theta_{\ell'}/2)} \,\right| ^2\right\rangle \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We assume the phases of the $S_{\ell ,\gamma}$ to be arbitrary and uncorrelated, assume the $\theta_\ell$ to be real, and absorb all phases into a random phase factor $\exp (i\phi _{\ell ,\ell',\gamma})$. Using $|S_{\ell ,\gamma}|=|S_{\gamma,\ell }|=|S_{-\ell ,\gamma}|=|S_{\gamma,-\ell }|$ we can write $$\begin{aligned} \sigma ^2 &\approx& \left\langle \left| \,\sum_{\ell ,\ell'}\, \frac{| S_{n,\ell} S_{n,\ell'} S_{\ell,\gamma} S_{\ell',\gamma} | \,\cos\phi_{\ell,\ell',\gamma}} {2\,\sin(\theta_\ell/2)\, \sin[(\theta_{\ell'}-\theta_n^{\,(0)})/2]} \,\right| ^2 \right\rangle \nonumber\\[.2cm] &=&\:\sum_{\ell,\ell'}\, \frac{| S_{n,\ell}S_{n,\ell'}|^2\, \left\langle| S_{\ell,\gamma} S_{\ell',\gamma} |^2\right\rangle } {8\,\sin^2(\theta_\ell/2)\,\sin^2(\theta _{\ell'}/2)}\ , \label{stat:randphas}\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that the $\phi _{\ell ,\ell',\gamma}$ are uncorrelated and equi-distributed on the interval $[-\pi ,\pi ]$. Let us now write $|S_{\ell,\gamma}|^2=N_\gamma^{-1} |S_{\ell,\text{C}}|^2 \xi_{\ell,\gamma}^2$, where $|S_{\ell,\text{C}}|^2=\sum_{\gamma}|S_{\ell,\gamma}|^2$ is the total coupling of the $\ell$ state to the chaotic block, see also Eq. (\[block:effcoup\]), and where the $\xi_{\ell,\gamma}$ are independent Gaussian variables with unit variance. Using that $\langle \,\xi_{\ell,\gamma}^2 \xi_{\ell',\gamma}^2\,\rangle =(2 + \delta_{\ell,\ell'})$ we find a statistical enhancement of the diagonal ($\ell =\ell'$) terms. More importantly, the sum is dominated by the terms with the smallest phase denominators. Consequently, we can neglect the non-diagonal terms and write $$\sigma ^2\approx \frac 3{8 N_\gamma^2}\sum_\ell \left| \frac{S_{n,\ell }S_{\ell {\rm C}}}{\sin (\theta _\ell/2)}\right| ^4\ . \label{stat:variance}$$ Median Splittings ----------------- As we have just shown, the splitting distribution behaves asymptotically like $P(\delta\theta)\sim\delta\theta^{\,-2}$, and it is well known that the mean of a Cauchy distribution does not exist. Therefore, a “typical” value for the level splittings must be obtained otherwise. We propose to consider the [*median*]{} $|\delta\theta|_M$ of $|\delta\theta|$ defined by $$2\,\int_{|\delta\theta|_M}^\infty \dd(\delta\theta)\;P(\delta\theta) \:=\:\frac{1}{2}\ .$$ The factor two on the left hand side arises from the fact that we integrate over positive $\delta\theta$ only. By extrapolation of the asymptotic form of $P(\delta\theta)$ as given by Eq. (\[PKhatFinal\]) towards smaller $|\delta\theta|$, we find $$\begin{aligned} |\delta\theta|_M \sim \frac{4\sigma N_\gamma} {\pi \sqrt{2\pi}}\ . \label{KMedian1}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the variance $\sigma^2$ of Eq. (\[stat:variance\]) into Eq. (\[KMedian1\]) we finally get for the median splitting $$|\delta\theta|_{M,n} \:\approx\: \frac 1\pi \left(\sum_\ell \left| \frac{S_{n,\ell} S_{\ell,\text{C}}} {\sin[(\theta_\ell-\theta_n^{\,(0)})/2]} \right|^4\:\right)^{1/2}\ , \label{stat:median}$$ where we have inserted the index for the $n$-dependence again, as well as the phase $\theta_n^{\,(0)}$. Formula (\[stat:median\]) for the median splittings estimates the enhancements of tunneling splittings due to chaos-assisted processes and constitutes one of the central results of this work. Note that all quantities appearing in Eq. (\[stat:median\]) are defined in terms if the original $S$-matrix, and the most a [*direct*]{} and [*quantitative*]{} check of the chaos-assisted tunneling picture yet becomes possible. We note that Eq. (\[stat:median\]) can be used to recast Eq. \[PKhatFinal\]) for the splitting distribution in a numerically more convenient form $$\begin{aligned} P(\delta\theta_n)\:=\:\frac{\:\:| \delta\theta|_{M,n}}{4\,\delta\theta_n^2}\ . \label{stat:dist:conv}\end{aligned}$$ We now turn to the discussion of the approximations made in the derivation of the central results Eqs. (\[PKhatFinal\],\[stat:median\],\[stat:dist:conv\]) for the splitting distributions and the median splittings. There are four sources of error. (i) The estimate (\[stat:variance\],\[block:edge:effcoup\]) for the variance $\sigma^2$ is correct only within an order of magnitude due to the ambiguity of $\ell_{\text{COE}}$ (see discussion after Eq. (\[block:edge:effcoup\])). Up to now, an [*a priori*]{} determination of $\ell_{\text{COE}}$ is not possible. Note, however, that the size $N_\gamma$ of the center block does not enter in the expressions. (ii) The effect of imaginary parts of the $\theta_\gamma$ is not included in our calculation. By unitarity of the block-transformed matrix, $\IM\{\theta_\gamma\}\sim\sum_\ell|S_{\ell,\gamma}|^2$, which in the splitting distribution introduces a cutoff of the Cauchy-like tail at $|\delta\theta|\sim|S_{n,\ell}/\sin(\theta_\ell/2)|^2$. The resulting relative correction of the median splitting is ${\cal O}(|S_{\ell,\text{C}}|^2)$. (iii) Extrapolation of the asymptotic tail towards smaller $\delta\theta$ is another source of error of ${\cal O}(1)$. (For example, the median calculated from an exact Cauchy distribution $1/\pi(1+x^2)$ is $1+\sqrt{2}\approx 2.4$, whereas the median estimated by integrating over its tail $1/\pi x^2$ is $4/\pi\approx 1.3$.) (iv) Our five-block model neglects the effect of transport barriers other than the one separating the beach from the center of the chaotic block. Further transport barriers lead to the inhibition of tunneling flux and thereby decrease the splitting. We conclude that (\[stat:median\]) reproduces the exact median splittings only up to a factor of the order one. If the neglect of remnant phase space structure is the dominant source of error, then Eq. (\[stat:median\]) gives an over-estimate. However, the error is expected to be independent of $n$, and we can correct for it by introducing an [*overall*]{} factor $c$ that we extract from the numerical data. The formula Eq. (\[stat:dist:conv\]) for the splitting distribution function has to be corrected correspondingly. We finally return to the issue of the two different representations Eq. (\[shift:splittingSN\]) and Eq. (\[shift:altern2\]) for the splitting that differ by taking either imaginary parts of $\exp(-iN\theta_n^{\,(0)})[S^N]_{n,-n}$ or absolute values of $[S^N]_{n,-n}$. In a statistical treatment, these two approaches give slightly different results, because in the average over the random phases $\phi_{\ell,\ell'\gamma}$, one obtains $\langle|\ee^{i\phi_{\ell,\ell,\gamma}}|\rangle=1$ after taking absolute values, as opposed to $\langle\cos^2(\phi_{\ell,\ell,\gamma})\rangle=1/2$ after taking imaginary parts. The median splittings derived from Eq. (\[shift:altern2\]) would therefore be twice the splittings predicted in Eq. (\[stat:median\]). This explains why a formula given by us earlier [@Doron95b Eq. (8)] differs by a factor two from the one in Eq. (\[stat:median\]). Numerical Results {#stat:res:section} ----------------- This Section is concluded by a presentation of numerical data for the eigenphase splitting and its distribution for the annular billiard. We choose parameter values $k=100$, $a=0.4$, $\delta=0.2$ and vary the outer radius $R$ over $490$ values between $R=0.985$ and $R=0.1035$. Recall that changing $R$ leaves the $|S_{n,\ell}|$ constant and changes only the eigenphase configuration and the couplings $S_{\ell,\gamma}$. Fig. \[stat:angmom:fig\] depicts the median values of eigenphase splittings of doublets peaked at angular momenta $n=65,\ldots,80$ as a function of $n$. Full circles represent median splittings $|\delta\theta|_{M,n}$ as obtained from numerical diagonalization. Since the diagonalization routine cannot differentiate between eigenvalues which are closer than $\sim 10^{-15}$, splittings beyond $n=75$ could not be resolved directly. Instead, they were extracted by use of Eq. (\[shift:altern2\]), that is, by numerical calculation of $2[S^N]_{n,-n}/N$ for large $N\lesssim|\delta\theta_n|^{-1}$. Empty circles represent median splittings thus obtained from $30$ configurations with $R$ ranging from $R=1$ to $R=1.3$. We have taken the edge region to extend over angular momenta $\ell=56,\ldots,64$ and have chosen $\ell_{\text{COE}}=50$. To account for the over-estimate of the splitting by Eq. (\[stat:median\]), theoretical predictions are multiplied by an overall factor $c\approx 1/6$. The dashed line shows the resulting approximation for the median splittings. Apart from the factor $c$, the formula (\[stat:median\]) is in good agreement with the exact median splittings. Let us turn to the splitting statistics. If one is interested in the fluctuations due to changes in the chaotic dynamics, one first has to discard the slow modulation due to the change of beach layer properties. We do so by considering the “reduced” splitting $\widetilde{\delta\theta}_n$ of Eq. (\[block:unfolded\]) for those values of $R$ at which one single $\ell$ is dominant in both shift and splitting (for $n=65,\ldots,67$, and here $\ell=n-7$). We find that the median of $\widetilde{\delta\theta}_n$ is approximately equal to $c$, independent of $n$ (not shown). Fig. \[stat:unfolded:fig\] confirms that the distribution $P(|\widetilde{\delta\theta}|)$ falls off like a Cauchy distribution of width $c$. For the figure, 750 exact splittings were transformed to reduced ones (see inset) and collected in a histogram with log-binning (main figure, solid line). This is compared to the Cauchy distribution $2c\pi^{-1}/(c^2+\widetilde{\delta\theta}{}^{\,2})$ (main figure, dashed line). The agreement is very good. Finally, we show in Fig. \[stat:folded:fig\] the distribution function $P(|\delta\theta_n|/|\delta\theta|_{M,n}\!)$ of exact splittings divided by the median splittings displayed in Fig. \[stat:angmom:fig\]. The actual splittings display a power law $P(|\delta\theta|)\sim |\delta\theta|^{-3/2}$ (dashed line). This can be understood by realizing that the variation in $R$ is sufficiently large to average not only over avoided crossings between chaotic and regular eigenphases, but also over avoided crossings between regular and beach eigenphases. These avoided crossings, however, appear in the sum (\[block:split:recer\]) with a squared phase denominator $d_{n,\ell}^{-2}$, and we have argued in Eq. (\[stat:general\]) that the distribution generated by such contributions displays a power-law decay with exponent $-3/2$. The exponent $-3/2$ conforms to the findings of Leyvraz and Ullmo [@Leyvraz96], who studied chaos-assisted tunneling in the presence of a imperfect transport barrier in the chaotic sea. Discussion {#disc:sect} ========== Possible Experimental Realizations ---------------------------------- Even though the occurrence of chaos-assisted tunneling should be a very general phenomenon, an experimental proof of the effect has not yet been given. The main difficulty might not be to [*measure*]{} the effect, but to [*recognize*]{} it. As long as little is known about tunneling in multi-dimensional mixed systems in general, it will be difficult to separate out the different contributions to the tunneling rates and to identify the effects of classical transport. It is our strong suspicion that, as soon as qualitative theories for experimental systems are developed, chaos-assisted tunneling will turn out to be a frequent effect in the splitting of dynamical tunneling doublets. ### Superconducting Microwave Cavities It has been argued in this work that the annular billiard serves as an excellent paradigm for chaos-assisted tunneling. An experimental realization of it is presently investigated by the Darmstadt group of Richter [*et al.*]{} [@Hofferbert]. Performing resonance measurements on a superconducting niobium microwave cavity, the Darmstadt group has extracted high-quality spectra in the frequency range 0–20 GHz, corresponding to $k=0$–50 in our units, but experimental accuracy does not yet allow a resolution of the splittings of high-angular momentum doublets. However, it might be just as interesting to measure the energy splittings of [*beach*]{} doublets, as these splittings are also chaos-assisted, but by orders of magnitudes larger than those of the regular doublets. ### Atomic Systems Atomic systems have served as paradigms of many predictions in quantum chaos, and there are some atoms in which an observation of chaos-assisted tunneling might be conceivable. Hydrogen in a weak magnetic field [@FriedrichDelande] may be such a case. In the weak field limit, the classical system has symmetry-connected regular islands corresponding to low-angular momentum motion along the field axis on either side of the hydrogen core. These islands are separated by a chaotic sea, and dynamical tunneling between the corresponding low-angular momentum quantum states should therefore be enhanced by chaos-assisted processes. It is however not clear, whether these splittings are large enough to be experimentally accessible. Another much-studied system in the field of quantum chaos, the quantum kicked rotor, has recently been experimentally realized by Moore [ *et al.*]{} [@Moore95] using ultracold sodium atoms in pulsed, near-resonant light. Rotor systems have been considered by several groups in studies of dynamical tunneling in the presence of chaos [@Casati94; @Averbukh95], and a link between theory and experiment might soon become possible. Again, the experiment might still be far from the required degree of accuracy. ### Open Systems Finally, chaos-assisted processes can enhance not only tunneling oscillations, but also the [*decay*]{} of regular modes in a mixed, open system in which the dominant coupling to the continuum is mediated by states residing on the chaotic layer. Experimental realizations of such systems were studied by Nöckel [*et al.*]{} and others [@Noeckel9496] who considered the $Q$-spoiling of whispering gallery modes in deformed lasing droplets. In a recent work, Hackenbroich and Nöckel [@Hackenbroich97] also considered mixed systems in which the direct coupling of regular modes to the continuum is suppressed, but where chaotic states have sizable coupling to the continuum. Regular modes may then decay via a multi-step process of type [*regular-chaotic-continuum*]{}. Their results were motivated by a study of a modified version of the annular billiard, in which the outer circle is replaced by a mirror, and the billiard is supposed to have higher optical density that the exterior region outside the mirror. It was found that chaos-assisted decay can lead a dramatic enhancement of level widths. Discussion and Conclusions -------------------------- Having discussed the experimental perspectives, one is immediately led to the question of the general applicability of the method and the block-matrix model proposed in this work. It is clear that the scattering problem must be solved separately for each system under consideration. In a general system, it might be very difficult to formulate the $S$-matrix and to find a basis in which the $S$-matrix elements $S_{n,n}$ and $S_{-n,-n}$ corresponding to motion on the tunneling tori are sufficiently close to unity. It must however be said in favor of the scattering approach that the difficulty of finding an EBK-quantization scheme in non-separable systems is by no means inherent to the scattering approach, but presently poses one of the most serious problems of semiclassical theory in general [@Tomsovic9596]. (In fact, it is one of the fortunate aspects of the annular billiard that the angular momentum basis is semiclassically diagonal in the region of regular motion.) In situations where $S_{\pm n,\pm n}$ are not sufficiently close to unity, Eqs. (\[shift:shiftSN1\],\[shift:splittingSN1\]) may still work well, provided that sufficient knowledge of eigenvector structure is available (see [@Hackenbroich97b] for an application to the case of rough billiards [@Frahm97] and other systems). However, calculation of the splitting by summation over long paths from $n$ to $-n$ relies on a sufficient localization of $|\bbox{n}\rangle$ at the $n$-th component. Clearly, the block matrix model used in the summation over paths must be adopted to the specific transport situation encountered. In case of structure other than the beach layers, additional blocks must be introduced. This does however not lead to problems in the summation Eq. (\[block:pathsum\]) as long as the outermost tunneling element is smaller than any of the internal coupling elements. At present, there is no [*a priori*]{} method to determine the border indices of neighboring blocks inside the chaotic layer. However, use of classical information will warrant correct results to within an order of magnitude. We note that our treatment is not limited to the case of an $S$-matrix symmetry $S_{n,m}=S_{-n,-m}$ and could easily be extended to non-symmetric systems (for example, an annular billiard with the inner circle replaced by some non-symmetric shape), or even to the case of tunneling at an accidental degeneracy between two eigenphases. In the summation over paths, we merely require that the initial and the final diagonal $S$-matrix elements are equal, $S_{n_i,n_i}=S_{n_f,n_f}$. Note, however, that in the non-symmetric case the contributions $\langle \bbox{n}_i|S^N|\bbox{n}_i\rangle$ and $\langle \bbox{n}_f|S^N|\bbox{n}_f\rangle$ in Eq. (\[shift:iterates\]) will in general not cancel. Their difference is then likely to dominate the splitting. It is one of our main results to point out the importance of the beach layer to the chaos-assisted tunneling phenomenon. The appearance of classically chaotic, but not too unstable regions around regular islands is generic in mixed systems. Such regions should always support states if the mixing with the rest of phase space is sufficiently slow (or if energy is sufficiently low). However, it must be checked whether some of the importance of the beach layer should actually be attributed to the tunneling ridge that favors tunneling processes into the beach region (see Fig. \[tunnel:fig\]). Such a test is given in our version of the Bohigas numerical experiment, see Section \[dis:chaos:section\]. We have verified that, at small $\delta$, there are [ *no*]{} visible tunneling ridges, and the tunneling amplitudes decay monotonically away from the diagonal. Nevertheless the beach region still governs the behavior of the eigenphase splittings (see Fig. \[dis:manyd39:fig\]). It must however be noted that, in this case, the correspondence between slow splitting modulations and the shift breaks down. The shift is then determined by paths $n\ra n-1\ra n$ instead of paths leading to the beach and back to $n$. It is another interesting point that the statistical results found in Section \[Statistics\] are independent of the explicit joint distribution function of eigenphases, but can be derived under rather general assumptions. We merely require that the joint distribution of eigenphases vanishes at eigenphase degeneracies. This generality is extended even further by the observation that enhancement of tunneling can also appear with help of [*regular*]{} states. Indeed, in Section \[dis:chaos:section\] we have even observed the case of tunneling between a [*chaotic*]{} doublet via a resonant regular state. This should serve as a reminder that only the phase space [*topology*]{} determines the occurrence of tunneling, not its regularity or chaoticity, and that chaos-assisted tunneling is, in fact, a more general phenomenon of [*transport*]{}-assisted tunneling. Additionally, the tunneling rate seems to be rather insensitive to the rate of classical flux connecting the opposite beach regions — as long as there exists a classically allowed path between them. When changing $\delta$ in Section \[dis:chaos:section\], most of the tunneling enhancement was related to the change of tunneling properties between the torus and the beach region. Progressively rapid classical propagation across the chaotic layer was related to tunneling enhancement of only one order of magnitude — out of five orders of magnitude in total ($\delta=0.07$–0.15). Our study of chaos-assisted tunneling has led to the most quantitative treatment of the phenomenon to date. At the same time, some challenging problems have been encountered. For example, we have seen that tunneling can occur between doublets localized on “soft” phase space structures such as the beach regions or scarring periodic orbits. For these states, transport from one phase space structure to its symmetry-related partner is classically allowed, but quantum mechanically forbidden. Apart from the intriguing question about the quantum-mechanical localization mechanism giving rise to these states, their doublet structure introduces additional complications. For example, some of the doublets tunnel via resonant processes, while others tunnel directly. A quantitative treatment would certainly be desirable. Summary ------- We studied dynamical tunneling between symmetry-related phase space tori that are separated by a chaotic region. Using scattering theory, we introduced a unitary matrix $S$ that constitutes the quantum analogue of the classical Poincaré map. By expressing eigenphase splittings and shifts in terms of matrix elements of high iterates of $S$, we related these quantities to paths in phase space. While paths contributing to the splitting connect the two tunneling tori, paths that contribute to the shift lead from a tunneling torus back to itself, leaving the torus at least once. We performed the summation over paths within a block-matrix approximation, allocating different blocks to the two regular regions, the chaotic sea, and the two intervening beach layers. Within this approximation, we derived analytic expressions for the contributions to the tunneling properties. Explicit inclusion of the beach blocks enabled us to predict a number of new effects that could be verified for the case of the annular billiard. (I) As a function of an external parameter the splitting varies on two scales: a rapid one attributed to resonance denominators of regular and chaotic states, and a slow one attributed to (squared) resonance denominators between regular states and beach states. This diversity of scales is also observed in statistical quantities, e.g the distribution function $P(\delta\theta)$ of eigenphase splittings $\delta\theta$. When averaging over a sufficiently small range of a system parameter (such that beach properties remain effectively constant), the splittings are distributed with a Cauchy tail $P(\delta\theta)\sim \delta\theta^{-2}$. When averaging over a large parameter range (such that beach resonances occur), the squared resonance denominators lead to a $P(\delta\theta)\sim\delta\theta^{-3/2}$ power-law behavior. (II) Typically, the shift varies on the slow scale only and is much larger than the splitting. Analytical formulas at hand, we could also asses the relative importance of tunneling amplitudes and classical transport properties within the chaotic sea. As the annular billiard’s eccentricity is increased, most of the enhancement of tunneling rates can be attributed to the tunneling amplitudes and resonances between regular tori and the beach regions. Progressively faster classical transport within the chaotic sea was found to play a minor role in the splitting enhancement. Finally, we derived the asymptotic form $P(\delta\theta)\sim\delta\theta^{-2}$ of the splitting distribution’s large-$\delta\theta$ tail (average over a small parameter range). In this calculation, no explicit assumption about the form of the joint distribution function of chaotic eigenphases was made; it was merely required that the distribution is either Poissonian or vanishes for degenerate eigenphases. In order to give “typical” splitting values, we calculated the median splitting by averaging over the properties of the chaotic sea. Apart from an over-estimate by an overall factor $\sim 5$, the predicted values for the median splittings closely follow the numerical results over many orders of magnitude. It is a pleasure to thank H. A. Weidenmüller for many conversations and support. Also, we thank O. Bohigas, F. von Oppen, S. Tomsovic, and D. Ullmo for discussions on several occasions. This work was partially funded by a grant from MINERVA. Summation over Paths in the Splitting Formulas {#App:splittings} ============================================== In this Appendix we will derive formula (\[block:pathsum\]) that contains the contributions of the different families of paths to the full sum over paths $${\cal P}^N_{n,-n} = {\sum_{\{n\:\rightarrow -n\}}} \prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\:S_{\lambda_i,\lambda_{i+1}}$$ leading from $n$ to $-n$. Recall that ${\cal P}^N_{n,-n}$ is related to the splitting of the doublet $\delta\theta_n^{\pm}$ by Eq. (\[shift:splitting\]). As $N\sim\kappa/ \delta\theta_n$ is taken to be large, we need only collect the leading-order contribution in $N$. Let us consider the general case in which the $S$-matrix and block-diagonalized into any number of blocks $S^{(i,j)}$, $i,j=0,\ldots,K$. For the summation over paths, we merely require that the outermost couplings $S_{\lambda,\lambda'}^{(0,j)}$ and $S_{\lambda,\lambda'}^{(j,K)}$ be much smaller than entries of the internal coupling matrices. Suppose we want to collect the contributions from paths with $M+1$ steps that start from $n$ and pass through the $M$ intermediate diagonal blocks $S^{(i_1,i_1)},S^{(i_2,i_2)},\ldots, S^{(i_{M},i_{M})}$ before arriving at $-n$, and let us for the moment neglect repetitions in the block indices. It is equivalent to sum over all such paths in the block-tridiagonal matrix $$\begin{aligned} \left(\begin{array}{cccccc} D_0 & C_0' & & & & \\ C_0 & D_1 & C_1' & & 0 & \\ & C_1 & D_2 & \ddots & & \\ & &\ddots & \ddots & C_{M-1}' & \\ & 0 & & C_{M-1} & D_{M} & C_{M}' \\ & & & & C_{M} & D_0 \end{array} \right)\ , \label{app1:matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where each of the diagonal blocks $D_i=S_{\lambda,\lambda}^{(i,i)}\delta_{\lambda,\lambda'} $ is coupled to its neighbor by the coupling block $C_i=S_{\lambda,\lambda'}^{(i,i+1)}$. $C'$ is a short notation for the other coupling block, $C_i'=S_{\lambda',\lambda}^{(i+1,i)}$ (which need however not be the transpose of $C_i$, as $S$ is in general not symmetric). $D_0=S_{n,n}=S_{-n,-n}$ contains the diagonal $S$-matrix element associated with the tunneling tori. In addition to summations over the matrix indices of each block, we have to sum over the staying times $N_0, \ldots, N_M$ inside the diagonal blocks $D_0,\ldots,D_M$, respectively. Explicitly, we have to perform the sum $$\begin{aligned} &&\sum_{\{N_0,\cdots N_M\}}\!\! D_0^{\,N_0}\,C_0\,D_1^{\,N_1}\cdots D_M^{N_M}\,C_{M}\, D_0^{\,N-N_0-N_1\ldots -N_M-M} \nonumber\\ &&= \:D_0^{\,(N-M)}\!\!\sum_{\{N_0,\cdots N_M\}}\!\! C_0\,(D_1/D_0)^{N_1}\cdots (D_M/D_0)^{N_M} \,C_M\ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the summations go over $N_M=0,\ldots,N-M$, $N_{M-1}=0,\ldots,N-N_M-M$, and so on, up to $N_0=N-N_M-N_{M-1}-\ldots-N_1-M$. Summing over $N_0$ is trivial and generates a factor $(N-N_M-\ldots-N_1-M+1)$. The remaining sums are then performed by repeated use of the formula $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\rho=0}^{R} (R-\rho+1)\,z^\rho=\frac{R+2}{1-z} + \frac{z^{R+2}-1}{(1-z)^2}\ , \label{app1:formula}\end{aligned}$$ For $z=D_i/D_0$ of absolute value $|z|<1$, we need only keep the term $R/(1-z)$, because in further summations the remaining terms generate sub-dominant contributions of ${\cal O}(1)$ or ${\cal O}(|z|^N)$. Neglecting these terms is justified in our case, because we have assumed that the outermost (tunneling) matrix elements are much smaller than internal transition elements and by unitarity, $|D_i|<|D_0|$ for all $i\neq 0$. Keeping only the term $R/(1-z)$ of (\[app1:formula\]), the structure of the sum always remains the same, and each summation results in a multiplicative factor . We arrive at the result that the sum over paths of length $M$ passing through the blocks $D_0,\ldots,D_M$ is given as $$\begin{aligned} {\cal P}_{n,-n}^{N\,(i_1,\ldots,i_M)} \sim N \:D_0^{\,(N-1)}\: C_0\: \prod_{i=1}^{M}\:\left[\:\frac{1}{D_0-D_i}\,C_i\:\right]\ . \label{app1:pathsum}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[app1:pathsum\]) was formulated without allowing for repetitions in block indices and contains all coupling elements to lowest order. Loops in block index space that stay within the inner blocks can however be included by allowing repeated indices in Eq. (\[app1:pathsum\]). Paths with $k$ repetitions of the index combination $(i,i+1)$, say, then give rise to contributions containing a factor $[(D_0-D_i)^{-1} C_i' (D_0-D_{i+1})^{-1}C_i]^k$. The number of repetitions can be summed over, which leads to an expression as in Eq. (\[app1:pathsum\]) with the replacement $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{1}{D_0-D_i}\:C_i \quad\mapsto\quad \nonumber\\ &&\frac{1}{D_0-D_i}\:C_i\;\left[ 1- \frac{1}{D_0-D_{i+1}}\:C_i'\: \frac{1}{D_0-D_i}\:C_i\right]^{-1}\ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ All types of loops can be included by the corresponding replacements, giving rise to a continued fraction structure of ${\cal P}_{n,-n}^{N\,(i_1,\ldots,i_M)}$. [10]{} Permanent address: Mathematics-Physics Department, University of Haifa at Oranim, Tivon 36006, Israel. O. Bohigas, S. Tomsovic, and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 5 (1990). A. Einstein, Verhandl. deut. physik. Ges. [**19**]{}, 82 (1917); L. Brillouin, J. phys. radium [**7**]{}, 353 (1926); J. B. Keller, Ann. Phys. (New York) [**4**]{}, 180 (1958). M. C. Gutzwiller, [*Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Springer–Verlag, New York, 1990). W. A. Lin and L. E. Ballentine, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2927 (1990); Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{}, 3637 (1992); A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 158 (1991). O. Bohigas, S. Tomsovic, and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rep. [**223**]{}, 43 (1993). R. Utermann, T. Dittrich, and P. H[ä]{}nggi, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, 273 (1994). O. Bohigas, D. Boos[é]{}, R. Egydio de Carvallho, and V. Marvulle, Nucl. Phys. A [**560**]{}, 197 (1993). S. Tomsovic and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, 145 (1994). F. Leyvraz and D. Ullmo, J. Phys. A [**10**]{}, 2529 (1996). E. Doron and S. D. Frischat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3661 (1995). A. J. Lichtenberg and M. A. Lieberman, [*Regular and Stochastic Motion*]{} (Springer, New York, 1983). E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. [**40**]{}, 749 (1932); M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rep. [ **106**]{}, 121 (1984). K. Husimi, Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jpn. [**22**]{}, 264 (1940); K. Takahashi, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. [**98**]{}, 109 (1989). E. J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 1515 (1984). D. W. Noid and R. A. Marcus, J. Chem. Phys. [**67**]{}, 559 (1977). O. Bohigas, S. Tomsovic, and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1479 (1990). V. P. Maslov, [*The Perturbation Series and Asymptotic Methods*]{} (Moscow University, Moscow, 1965). W. H. Miller and T. F. George, J. Chem. Phys. [**56**]{}, 5668 (1972); Adv. Chem. Phys. [**25**]{}, 69 (1974). W. H. Miller, Adv. Chem. Phys. [**30**]{}, 77 (1975). M. J. Davis and E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. [**75**]{}, 246 (1981). G. Casati, R. Graham, I. Guarneri, and F. M. Izrailev, Phys. Lett. A [**190**]{}, 159 (1994). S. D. Frischat and E. Doron, J. Phys. A [**30**]{}, 3613 (1997). M. Wilkinson, Physica [**21D**]{}, 341 (1986); M. Wilkinson, J. Phys. A [**20**]{}, 635 (1987); S. C. Creagh and N. D. Whelan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4975 (1996). O. Bohigas, in [*Proceedings of the 1989 Les Houches Summer School on “Chaos and Quantum Physics”*]{}, edited by M.-J. Giannoni, A. Voros, and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1991), p. 547. A. Richter, Playing Billiard with Microwaves (to appear in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on “Emerging Applications of Number Theory”*]{} University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1996). E. Doron and U. Smilansky, Nonlinearity [**5**]{}, 1055 (1992). E. B. Bogomolny, Nonlinearity [**5**]{}, 805 (1992). R. Bl[ü]{}mel and U. Smilansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 241 (1990). M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions*]{} (Dover Publications, New York, 1964). M. V. Berry and K. E. Mount, Rev. Prog. Phys. [**35**]{}, 315 (1972). S. D. Frischat, Ph.D. thesis, Heidelberg University, 1996. E. Doron and S. D. Frischat, (unpublished). W. Franz, Z. Naturforschg. [**9**]{}, 705 (1954). J. B. Keller, J. Opt. Soc. Am. [**52**]{}, 116 (1962). G. Hackenbroich, E. Narimanov, and A. D. Stone, Quantum Perturbation Theory for the Level Splitting in Billiards, (preprint, May 1997). R. S. MacKay, J. D. Meiss, and I. C. Percival, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 697 (1984); Physica D [**13**]{}, 55 (1984). R. T. Swimm and J. B. Delos, J. Chem. Phys. [**71**]{}, 1706 (1979). O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 1 (1984). R. Bl[ü]{}mel and U. Smilansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 477 (1988). F. J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. [**3**]{}, 140 (1962). P. Gerwinsiki and P. [Š]{}eba, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, 3615 (1994). D. Klakow and U. Smilansky, J. Phys. A [**29**]{}, 3213 (1996). H. P. Baltes and E. R. Hilf, [*Spectra of Finite Systems*]{} (BI Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, 1978). I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series and Products*]{} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1965). We thank Felix von Oppen for contributing the main idea for this calculation. R. Hofferbert, Untersuchung von wellendynamischem Chaos in supraleitenden Mikrowellen-Billards, master thesis, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1994. H. Friedrich and D. Wintgen, Phys. Rep. [**183**]{}, 37 (1989); D. Delande, in [*Proceedings of the 1989 Les Houches Summer School on “Chaos and Quantum Physics”*]{}, edited by M.-J. Giannoni, A. Voros, and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1991), p. 665. F. L. Moore [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4598 (1995). V. Averbukh, N. Moiseyev, B. Mirbach, and H. J. Korsch, Z. Phys. D [**35**]{}, 247 (1995). J. U. N[ö]{}ckel, A. D. Stone, and R. K. Chang, Opt. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1693 (1994); A. Mekis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2682 (1995); J. U. N[ö]{}ckel and A. D. Stone, Nature [**385**]{}, 45 (1997). G. Hackenbroich and J. U. N[ö]{}ckel, Chaos-assisted tunneling in open systems, (preprint, June 1996). S. Tomsovic, M. Grinberg, and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4346 (1995); D. Ullmo, M. Grinberg, and S. Tomosovic, Phys. Rev. E [ **54**]{}, 136 (1996). K. M. Frahm and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1440 (1997).

--- abstract: | A ribbon is, intuitively, a smooth mapping of an annulus $S^1 \times I$ in 3-space having constant width $\varepsilon$. This can be formalized as a triple $(x,\varepsilon, \mathbf{u})$ where $x$ is smooth curve in 3-space and $\mathbf{u}$ is a unit vector field based along $x$. In the 1960s and 1970s, G. Călugăreanu, G. H. White, and F. B. Fuller proved relationships between the geometry and topology of thin ribbons, in particular the “Link = Twist + Writhe" theorem that has been applied to help understand properties of double-stranded DNA. Although ribbons of small width have been studied extensively, it appears that less is known about ribbons of large width whose images (even via a smooth map) can be singular or self-intersecting.. Suppose $K$ is a smoothly embedded knot in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Given a regular parameterization $\mathbf{x}(s)$, and a smooth unit vector field $\mathbf{u}(s)$ based along $K$, we may define a ribbon of width $R$ associated to $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{u}$ as the set of all points $\mathbf{x}(s) + r\mathbf{u}(s)$, $r \in [0,R]$. For large $R$, these wide ribbons typically have self-intersections. In this paper, we analyze how the knot type of the outer ribbon edge $\mathbf{x}(s) + R\mathbf{u}(s)$ relates to that of the original knot $K$. We show that, generically, there is an eventual limiting knot type of the outer ribbon edge as $R$ gets arbitrary large. We prove that this eventual knot type is one of only finitely many possibilities which depend just on the vector field $\mathbf{u}$. However, the particular knot type within the finite set depends on the parameterized curves $\mathbf{x}(s)$, $\mathbf{u}(s)$, and their interactions. Finally, we show how to control the curves and their parameterizations so that given two knot types $K_1$ and $K_2$, we can find a smooth ribbon of constant width connecting curves of these two knot types.\ AMSC: 57M25, 53A04, 53A05 author: - 'Susan C. Brooks' - Oguz Durumeric - Jonathan Simon bibliography: - 'bibliography.bib' title: Knots Connected by Wide Ribbons --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ A closed “ribbon" is a smooth mapping (or the image set) of an annulus, $S^1 \times [0,1]$ into $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^3$, where the sets ${s} \times [0,1]$ are mapped to line segments all of the same length. To avoid degenerate situations, we assume the mapping is an embedding on $S^1 \times \{0\}$ and think of a ribbon as being a smooth closed curve with the surface growing out of it following a vector field emanating from the curve. Note we are [*not*]{} assuming the line segments emanating from $S^1 \times \{0\}$ are orthogonal to the curve, but the restriction to [*constant width*]{} is essential in our study A thin ribbon does not self-intersect, and the ribbon itself gives an isotopy (which extends to an ambient isotopy) of the two boundary curves. The geometry of thin ribbons has proven to be important in the study of double-stranded DNA (see e.g. [@DS92; @ER96]). The key is the “link = twist + writhe" theorem ([@GC61; @FF71; @JW69]). We are led to several questions about wide ribbons, the first being how the knot types of the boundary curves can be related. Wide ribbons generally do intersect themselves, and the boundary curves can be of different knot types. As a ribbon is allowed to grow arbitrarily wide, does the knot type of the outer boundary curve stabilize to something we can predict? Does the restriction to constant width limit which knot types can be connected to which others? Examples: Knot type may, or may not, change. -------------------------------------------- Having the ribbon self-intersect does not force the outer boundary curve to cross itself. For example, start with any smooth knot and let the vector field be just one constant vector. The ribbon will eventually intersect itself, but the outer boundary curve remains a rigid copy of the original knot, as in Figure \[fig:ParallelKnots\]. On the other hand, with more more general vector fields, the outer boundary knot can change, as in Figure \[fig:changetypes\]. Main Results ------------ It is conceivable that the outer ribbon edge is self-intersecting for all sufficiently large widths, or for some unbounded sequence. However, we show that [*generically*]{}, this does not happen: in general, as a ribbon grows beyond some width, the outer ribbon edge does not cross itself any more, so the outer ribbon edge eventually stabilizes to a fixed embedded knot type (Theorem \[thm:nogoalposts\]). In Section \[sec:goalpost\], we introduce a geometric condition ([*“no goal posts"*]{}) that ensures this eventual stabilization. In Section \[sec:stability\], we show the condition of having no goal posts is a generic property of ribbons in an appropriate topology (Theorem \[generic\]). In Section \[sec:bound\], we show that for such non-degenerate ribbons, the limiting knot type is one of finitely many knot types that can be listed from the starting data: in particular, this set of possible knot types is determined by the vector field along which the ribbon is expanding and not the starting boundary curve (Theorem \[thm:2kknottype\]). The particular choice from the finite set depends on interplay between the initial curve, the vector field, and how they are parameterized. In Section \[sec:constructrib\], we control the curves and parameterizations to show that given any two knot types, we can construct a ribbon of constant width whose boundary curves represent those knot types (Theorem \[thm:constructribbon\]). Definitions and assumptions {#GeneralAssumptions} --------------------------- We assume all maps are $\mathcal{C}^{1}$-smooth. Let $D$ denote $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}/\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\cong S^1$. When we talk about a smooth, closed curve, we mean, in particular, that the curve is smoothly closed. Let $X$ be a smoothly embedded closed curve in $\mathbb{R}^3$, with regular parameterization $\mathbf{x}: D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\mathbf{x}$ is of unit speed. Let $\uu: D \rightarrow S^2$ be a regular smooth closed curve on the unit sphere $S^2$. We make the following additional assumption, analogous to the usual knot theory definition of “regular projection": [*$\uu$, as a curve on $S^2$, has only transversal self-intersections, and there are no triple points.*]{} Since the domain $D$ is compact, there can be only finitely many pairs $s \neq \bar{s}$ where $\vecu(s) = \vecu(\bar{s})$. If we view the vector $\vecu(s)$ as being based at the point $\vecx(s)$, we can think of the function $\vecu$ as a smooth unit vector field along the curve $X$. The *ribbon of width $R$* associated to $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{u}$ is defined to be $Y= \{\mathbf{x}(s) + r\mathbf{u}(s) \;|\; s \in D \mbox{ and } r \in [0, R]\}$. The *outer ribbon edge* $Y_{R}$ of $Y $ is the set of points $\mathbf{y}_{R}(s) = \mathbf{x}(s) + R\mathbf{u}(s)$. Our notion of [*width*]{} is more general than some others, because we do not assume $\mathbf{u}$ is perpendicular to $\mathbf{x}$. We allow $\mathbf{u}(s) \cdot \mathbf{x}'(s)$ to vary. Intuitively, one might expect that the knot type of the outer ribbon edge $Y_R$ should stabilize for sufficiently large $R$. The property we define in the next section is a potential obstruction to such stabilization. In Section \[sec:goalpost\], we show that the absence of this property, hence the desired stabilization, is in fact generic. So almost all ribbons have eventually constant knot type of the outer curve. The Goal Post Property {#sec:goalpost} ====================== Points $\mathbf{x}(s)$ and $\mathbf{x}(\bar{s})$ along the knot are said to have the *goal post property* with respect to the vector field $\mathbf{u}$ if - $\mathbf{x}(s) \neq \mathbf{x}(\bar{s})$ - $\mathbf{u}(s) = \mathbf{u}(\bar{s})$ - $\mathbf{u}(s) \cdot \left(\mathbf{x}(s)-\mathbf{x}(\bar{s})\right) = 0$. The pair $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ has the goal post property if there exists such a pair of points. We will show that if the outer ribbon edge $Y_R$ crosses itself for arbitrarily large $R$ then $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ has the goal post property. Suppose $s$ and $\bar{s}$ are distinct parameter values for which the outer ribbon edge intersects itself at some positive width $R$; that is, $\mathbf{y}_{R}(s) = \mathbf{y}_{R}(\bar{s})$. Then $$\label{EqnForCrossing} \mathbf{x}(s) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}) = R(\mathbf{u}(\bar{s}) - \mathbf{u}(s)).$$ If this happens for a given pair $(s, \bar{s})$ and two widths, $R_1, R_2$, then we have $$R_1(\mathbf{u}(\bar{s}) - \mathbf{u}(s)) = \mathbf{x}(s) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}) = R_2(\mathbf{u}(\bar{s}) - \mathbf{u}(s))\;.$$ So $\vecu(s)=\vecu(\bar{s})$ or $R_1=R_2$. But we cannot have $\vecu(s)=\vecu(\bar{s})$ since (equation \[EqnForCrossing\]) this would imply $\vecx(s)=\vecx(\bar{s})$. We thus have a well-defined function defined on those pairs $(s, \bar{s})$ where $\vecu$ crosses itself. For each pair of distinct parameters $(s, \bar{s})$, either the rays emanating from $\vecx(s)$ and $\vecx(\bar{s})$ never meet, or there is a single width, which we denote $R(s,\bar{s})$, at which they cross. We also will make use of the following lemma, which is obtained by applying the Mean Value Theorem in each coordinate. \[lem:seqderiv\] If $\vecf:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ is $\mathcal{C}^1$ and we have two sequences $\{s_n\}$ and $\{\bar{s}_n\}$ *[($s_n \neq \bar{s}_n$)]{} converging to the same limit, $s_n \rightarrow s_0$ and $\bar{s}_n \rightarrow s_0$, then $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\vecf(s_n) - \vecf(\bar{s}_n)}{s_n - \bar{s}_n} = \vecf'(s_0).$$* We can now establish our first theorem: [*If there are no goal posts, then the outer ribbon edge eventually stabilizes.*]{} \[thm:nogoalposts\] Suppose we have a smooth closed curve $X$, with parameterization $\vecx(s)$ and unit vector field $\vecu(s)$ satisfying the conditions specified in Section (\[GeneralAssumptions\]). Let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the set of all widths at which the outer curve $Y_R$ fails to be embedded; that is, $\mathcal{R} = \{R(s,\bar{s}) \; |\; s \neq \bar{s} \mbox{ and } \mathbf{x}(s) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}) = R(s,\bar{s})(\mathbf{u}(\bar{s}) - \mathbf{u}(s))\}$. If there are no goal posts, then the set $\mathcal{R}$ is bounded and the knots $Y_R$ are isotopic to each other for all $R>\mathop{sup} \mathcal{R}$. If $\mathcal{R}=\emptyset$ then all curves $Y_R$ are isotopic to $X$. Suppose $\mathcal{R}$ is nonempty and unbounded. Then we can find convergent sequences $s_n \to s_0$ and $\bar{s}_n \to \bar{s}_0$ ($s_n \neq \bar{s}_n$) such that $\lim R(s_n, \bar{s}_n) = \infty$. We will show $s_0 = \bar{s}_0$ implies $\vecu'(s_0)=\mathbf{0}$ (which contradicts our regularity condition on $\vecu$), and $s_0 \neq \bar{s}_0$ implies the existence of goal posts. Let $R_n$ denote $R(s_n, \bar{s}_n)$. Suppose first that $s_0 = \bar{s}_0$. From equation (\[EqnForCrossing\]), we have $$\label{eq:seqbound} \frac{||\mathbf{u}(s_n) - \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_n)||}{||\mathbf{x}(s_n) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_n)||} = \frac{1}{R_n} \longrightarrow 0.$$ On the other hand, applying Lemma \[lem:seqderiv\] separately to $\vecu$ and $\vecx$ , we have $$\frac{||\mathbf{u}(s_n) - \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_n)||}{||\mathbf{x}(s_n) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_n)||} \longrightarrow \frac{||\vecu'(s_0)|| }{||\vecx'(s_0)||}$$ so $||\vecu'(s_0)||=0$. Ňow, suppose $s_0 \neq \bar{s}_0$. From Equation (\[eq:seqbound\]), we see that $$\frac{||\mathbf{u}(s_0) - \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_0)||}{||\mathbf{x}(s_0) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_0)||} = 0\;,$$ so $\mathbf{u}(s_0) = \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_0)$. To see that $\mathbf{x}(s_0)$ and $\mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_0)$ have the goal post property, we need only show that $\mathbf{u}(s_0) \cdot (\mathbf{x}(s_0) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_0)) = 0$. Consider the isosceles triangles whose vertices are $\mathbf{x}(s_n)$, $\mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_n)$ and $\mathbf{x}(s_n) + R_n\mathbf{u}(s_n) = \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_n) + R_n \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_n)$ as shown in Figure \[fig:isotris\]. Since the length of the base edge $|\mathbf{x}(s_n) - \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_n)|$ is bounded (by the diameter of the knot) and the sides (of length $R_n$) get arbitrarily large, the base angles $\beta_n$ converge to $\pi/2$. Now, if we assume that no distinct pair of points $\mathbf{x}(s)$ and $\mathbf{x}(\bar{s})$ has the goal post property, then by the above argument, there exists an $R^* \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $R^* = \mathop{sup} \mathcal{R}< \infty.$ In other words, there does not exist a distinct pair of parameter values $s$ and $\bar{s}$ such that $R(s,\bar{s}) > R^*$. Hence, $\mathbf{y}_R$ serves as an ambient isotopy of $\mathbf{y}_{R_1}$ to $\mathbf{y}_{R_2}$ for $R^* < R_1 \leq R \leq R_2 < \infty$, implying that the knot type of $Y_{R}$ is unique for $R > R^*$. Generic Stabilization of the Outer Ribbon Edge {#sec:stability} ============================================== In this section, we show that stabilization of the outer ribbon edge is a generic property of ribbons, in the sense that within the space of all pairings $(\mathbf{x},\uu)$, the subspace of those having no goal posts is open and dense. Since the term “ribbon" includes a specified width $R$, we will refer to a pair $(\vecx, \vecu)$ as a [*ribbon frame*]{}. Ľet $\H_1 = \{\vecx:D \to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^3\}$ and $\H_2 = \{\vecu:D \to S^2\}$ where $\vecx$ and $\vecu$ are $\C^1$ smooth maps. In each factor, use a $\mathcal{C}^1$ metric: $$\begin{aligned} d_1(\vecx_1, \vecx_2) = \max_{s \in D}(||\vecx_1(s)-\vecx_2(s)||) \; + \; \max_{s \in D}(||\vecx_1'(s)-\vecx_2'(s)||) \\ d_2(\vecu_1, \vecu_2) = \max_{s \in D}(||\vecu_1(s)-\vecu_2(s)||) \;+\;\max_{s \in D}(||\vecu_1'(s)-\vecu_2'(s)||) \end{aligned}$$ Let $\H = \H_1 \times \H_2$ and use $d_1+d_2$ as the metric on $\H$: $$d((\vecx_1,\vecu_1), (\vecx_2,\vecu_2)) = d_1(\vecx_1,\vecx_2)+d_2(\vecu_1,\vecu_2)\;.$$ Let $\G$ be the subset of $\H$ consisting of all $(\vecx, \vecu)$ satisfying the various conditions in Section (\[GeneralAssumptions\]), and in addition, having no goal posts. Specifically, the pairs $(\vecx, \vecu) \in \G$ are those where 1. $\vecx$ and $\vecu$ are regular maps, i.e. $|\vecx'|$ and $|\vecu'|$ are never 0, so both are immersions; \[xuregular\] 2. $\vecx$ is an embedding; \[xembedded\] 3. $\vecu$ has no triple points; \[notriplepoints\] 4. at each double point of $\vecu$, the self-intersection is transversal; \[uselftransversal\] 5. (no goal posts) whenever $\vecu(s_1) = \vecu(s_2)$, ($s_1 \neq s_2$), we have $\vecu(s_1) \cdot (\vecx(s_1)-\vecx(s_2)) \neq 0$. \[nogoalposts\] We wish to show that $\G$ is open and dense. To that end, we begin by proving two general lemmas regarding sequences of functions. \[lem:fnsn\] Suppose $P,Q$ are metric spaces, $P$ compact, and $f_n:P \to Q$ where $(f_n)$ is a sequence of continuous functions converging uniformly to a continuous map $f:P \to Q$. If $s_n$ is a sequence of points in $P$ converging to $s_0 \in P$, then $\lim_nf_n(s_n)=f(s_0)$. From the triangle inequality, $\operatorname{dist}(f(s_0),f_n(s_n)) \leq \operatorname{dist}(f(s_0),f_n(s_0)) + dist(f_n(s_0),f_n(s_n))\;.$ The first terms converge to $0$ because $f_n \rightarrow f$ at each point. The uniformly convergent sequence $(f_n)$, with compact domain $P$, is equicontinuous (converse of Arzelà-Ascoli theorem), and so the second terms also converge to 0. The next lemma says that if smooth maps $(f_n)$ converge $C^1$ uniformly to an immersion, in particular a locally $1-1$ map, then the functions $f_n$ are eventually locally $1-1$, and in a uniform way. We need the derivatives to converge and $f$ an immersion, otherwise $x \to x^3-t^2x$, $t\to 0$, is an easy counterexample. \[lem:LocallyInjective\] Suppose $f_n:D=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}/\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^3$ where $(f_n)$ is a sequence of smooth maps converging in $C^1$ to an immersion $f:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}/\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^3$. Then there exists $\lambda>0$ and index $N$ such that for all $s, \bs \in D$ and all $n \geq N$, if $s \neq \bs$ and $\mathop{dist}(s, \bs) < \lambda$ then $f_n(s) \neq f_n(\bs)$. Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists a sequence of parameter pairs $(s_n, \bs_n)$ with $s_n \neq \bs_n$, $\mathop{dist}(s_n, \bs_n) \to 0$, and $f_n(s_n)=f_n(\bs_n)$. Since $D$ is compact, we may assume w.l.o.g. that the parameter sequences converge: $s_n \to s_0$ and $\bs_n \to \bs_0$. Since $\mathop{dist}(s_n, \bs_n) \to 0$, we have that $s_0=\bs_0$. For each $n$, since $f_n(s_n)=f_n(\bs_n)$, in particular there is equality in each of the coordinate functions $f_n^1, f_n^2, f_n^3$ of $f_n$. So there exists points $t_n^1, t_n^2, t_n^3$ in the interval between $s_n$ and $\bs_n$ with derivatives $df_n^1(t_n^1)=0$, $df_n^2(t_n^2)=0$, and $df_n^3(t_n^3)=0$. Since the numbers $t_n^j$ are pinched between $s_n^j$ and $\bs_n^j$ $(j=1,2,3) $, we know $t_n^j \to s_0^j$. Now apply Lemma \[lem:fnsn\] to each coordinate of the derivatives: $t_n^j \to s_0^j$ and $df_n^j \to df^j$ uniformly, so $df_n^j(t_n^j) \to df^j(s_0)$. Thus we have $\mathbf{0} =\langle df_n^1(t_n^1), df_n^2(t_n^2), df_n^3(t_n^3)\rangle \to \langle df^1(s_0), df^2(s_0), df^3(s_0) \rangle \neq \mathbf{0}$. The set $\G$ is open and dense in $\H$. \[generic\] STEP 1: [**[$\G$ is open in $\H$]{}**]{}. Suppose $(\vecx_n, \vecu_n)$ is a sequence in $\H$ converging to $(\vecx_0, \vecu_0) \in \G$. We want to show that for sufficiently large $n$, $\xun$ eventually satisfies the five properties that characterize $\G$. The claim is similar in spirit to the stability theorem(s) in [@GP74]. 1. Since $\x$ and $\uu$ are regular maps, and the domain $D$ is compact, the values of $|\x'|$ and $|\uu'|$ are bounded away from $0$. With $\C^1$ convergence, the values of $|\xn'|$ and $|\un'|$ are eventually also bounded away from $0$. 2. \[ItemInjective\] We wish to show the maps $\xn$ are $1-1$ for sufficiently large $n$. Suppose, to the contrary, that for infinitely many $n$, there exist $s_n \neq \bsn$ with $\xn(s_n)=\xn(\bsn)$. Since $D$ is compact, we can extract convergent subsequences and assume $s_n \to s_0$ and $\bsn\to \bso$. By Lemma \[lem:LocallyInjective\], we must have $s_0 \neq \bso$. But then, Lemma \[lem:fnsn\] would say $\x(s_0)=\x(\bso)$. 3. If infinitely many $\un$ have triple points, then, as in item \[ItemInjective\], the map $\vecu$ would have triple points. 4. \[transversal\] As before, if infinitely many $\un$ have non-transversal double points, then there are sequences $s_n \to s_0$, $\bsn \to \bso$, with $s_n \neq \bsn$, $\un(s_n)=\un(\bsn)$ and the vectors $\un'(s_n)$ and $\un'(\bsn)$ collinear. Applying Lemma \[lem:LocallyInjective\] to show $s_0 \neq \bso$, we would have that $\vecu$ has a non-transversal double point. 5. Suppose infinitely many $\xun$ have goalposts. Then argue as in item \[transversal\] to conclude that $(\vecx,\vecu)$ would as well. STEP 2: [**[$\G$ is dense in $\H$]{}**]{}. We are given $(\x, \uu) \in \H$ and want to approximate it with ribbon frames in $\G$. Much of the work is done by classical results (as in [@HWhit36], [@JMil07]). In particular, we can approximate a continuous curve $\x$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^3$ with smooth embeddings, and we can approximate a continuous curve $\uu$ in $S^2$ with immersions. We can make the first step in our approximation by perturbing $(\x,\uu)$ slightly to assume $(\x,\uu)$ satisfies properties 1 and 2 in the definition of $\G$: Both $\x$ and $\uu$ are regular maps, and $\x$ is an embedding. Note that any sufficiently close first-order approximation of $\uu$ will now preserve being an immersion. We further perturb $\uu$ to ensure that $\uu$ has only finitely many pairs of self-intersection (e.g. by stereographic projection to $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and then first order Fourier approximation in each coordinate, similar to [@AT95; @Traut98]); and further adjust $\uu$ to have only double points where the self-intersections are transversal. We are left with the problem of eliminating goal posts. Suppose $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{u})$ has some goal posts. Let $\S = \{(s_1, \bs_1), \ldots, (s_k, \bs_k)\}$ be the pairs of distinct parameters for which $\uu(s_i) = \uu(\bs_i)$, and let $\S^*$ be those pairs where there are goal posts, i.e. where $\uu(s_i) \cdot (\x(\bs_i)-\x(s_i)) = 0$. Let $F$ be the map from domain $\tilde{D} = D - \{(s,s)\}$ to $S^2$ given by $$F(s,t) = \frac{\x(t)-\x(s)}{{\|\x(t)-\x(s)\|}|}\;.$$ Finally, let $\P$ denote the set of all self-crossing points of $\uu$ on $S^2$. The goal post condition is that a point $\uu(s_i) = \uu(\bs_i)$ lies on the great circle of $S^2$ traced by vectors orthogonal to $F(s_i, \bs_i)$. We have only finitely many such great circles, so almost all uniform rotations of $S^2$ will move the finite set $\P$ off the union of those great circles. Let $\alpha:S^2 \to S^2$ be such a rotation, as small as we want, and define a new unit vector field along the given knot $X$ by $\tilde{\uu}(s) = \alpha \circ \uu$. Note that $\tilde{\uu}$ has the same set $\S$ of double point parameter pairs as $\uu$, and now, for all these pairs, $\tilde{\uu}(s_i)$ is not orthogonal to $F((s_i, \bs_i))$; i.e. $(\x, \tilde{\uu})$ has no goal posts. This completes the proof of Theorem \[generic\]. Bounding the Knot Type of the Outer Ribbon Edge {#sec:bound} =============================================== For small values of $R$, it is natural to think of the outer ribbon edge as a perturbation of the curve $\mathbf{x}$. However, as $R$ increases, we gain more insight by viewing the ribbon edge as a perturbation of the spherical curve $\uu$. The *rescaled outer ribbon edge* is $\zz_t(s) = \frac{1}{R} Y_R = t\mathbf{x}(s) + \uu(s)$ for $t = \frac{1}{R}$. [**[Since $\zz_t$ is just a scalar multiple of $Y_R$, they are topologically equivalent knots.]{}**]{} To understand the limiting knot type of $Y_R$ as $R \to \infty$, we will analyze $\zz_t$ as $t \to 0$, along with its normalization (i.e. spherical projection) $\zhat_t(s) = \frac{\zz_t(s)}{||\zz_t(s)||}$. In the following discussions, we often use the phrase “for $t$ small enough”. We always require $t>0$, and “$t$ small enough” is equivalent to “$R$ large enough”. Note that since $||\uu||=1$ and $||\mathbf{x}||$ is bounded, for sufficiently small $t$ we know $||\zz_t|| \neq 0$ and $\zhat_t$ is defined. The functions $\zz_t$ converge uniformly in $\C^1$ to $\uu$ as $t \to 0$. With a little more work, we have the same property for $\zhat_t$. \[lem:convergence\] As $t \rightarrow 0$, $\mathbf{\hat{z}_t} \xrightarrow{\C^1} \uu$ uniformly. By definition, $$d_2(\mathbf{\hat{z}_t},\uu) = \max_{s \in D}(||\zhat_t - \uu||) + \max_{s \in D}(||\mathbf{\hat{z}'_t} - \uu'||).$$ Since $\uu$ is unit and $||\mathbf{x}||$ is bounded, $\zz_t $ converges uniformly to $\uu$ and $||\zz_t|| \to 1$. Similarly, since $||\mathbf{x}'|| = 1$, we have that $\zz'_t $ converges uniformly to $\uu'$. Now consider $||\mathbf{\hat{z}_t} - \uu||$. For any $s$, we have the following: $$\begin{aligned} ||\zhat_t - \uu|| & \leq & ||\zhat_t - \zz_t|| + ||\zz_t - \uu||\\ & = & \left|\left|\frac{\zz_t}{||\zz_t||} - \zz_t\right|\right| + ||t\mathbf{x}+ \uu - \uu||\\ & = &\left\lvert \;\frac{1}{||\zz_t||} - 1 \;\right\rvert||\zz_t|| + t||\mathbf{x}|| \rightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ Next, consider $||\zhat'_t - \uu'||$: $$||\zhat'_t - \uu'|| \leq ||\zz'_t - \zhat'_t|| + ||\zz'_t - \uu'||$$ As noted above, since $\zz'_t $ converges uniformly to $\uu'$, $||\zz'_t - \uu'|| \rightarrow 0$. To complete the proof, we need to show $||\zz'_t - \zhat'_t|| \to 0$. Using the quotient formula for the derivative of $\zhat_t$ and the fact that $||\zz_t||^2 = \zz_t \cdot \zz_t$ to calculate the derivative of $||\zz_t||$, we have $$\begin{aligned} ||\zz'_t - \zhat'_t|| & = & \left|\left| \zz'_t - \left(\frac{\zz_t}{||\zz_t||}\right)' \right|\right|\\ & = & \left|\left| \zz'_t - \left(\frac{\zz'_t}{||\zz_t||} - \frac{\zz_t \cdot \zz'_t}{||\zz_t||^3}\ \zz_t \right) \right|\right|\\ & = & \left|\left| \frac{\zz'_t}{||\zz_t||}\left(||\zz_t|| -1\right) + \frac{\zz_t \cdot \zz'_t}{||\zz_t||^3}\ \zz_t \right|\right|\\ & \leq & \frac{||\zz'_t||}{||\zz_t||}\;|\left(||\zz_t|| - 1\right)| + \frac{|\zz_t \cdot \zz'_t|}{||\zz_t||^2}\end{aligned}$$ Since $||\zz_t|| \rightarrow 1$, $\zz_t' \to \uu'$ which is bounded, and $\zz_t \cdot \zz'_t \rightarrow \uu\cdot \uu' = 0$ since $\uu$ is constant length, both summands converge to 0. Next, we show that for $t$ small enough, the maps $\zhat_t$ look like regular projections of spatial knots into the sphere. There exists $t_0>0$ such that for $t<t_0$: - $\zhat_t$ is an immersion, - each self-intersection of $\zhat_t$ is a transversal double point. \[lem:ZhatTnice\] From Lemma \[lem:convergence\], $||\zhat_t'||$ converges uniformly to $||\uu'||>0$, so the maps $\zhat_t$ are eventually immersions. For small $t$, the map $D \times [0,t_0) \to S^2$ given by $(s,t) \to \zhat_t(s)$ is a smooth homotopy in $S^2$ between maps $\zhat_t$ and $\uu$. The Transversality Theorem [@GP74] implies that the property that $\uu$ has transversal self-intersections in $S^2$ is a stable property, so $\zhat_t$ eventually has only transversal self-intersections. It remains to show that (eventually) the self-intersections of $\zhat_t$ are only double points. Suppose there exists a sequence $t_n \rightarrow 0$ such that $\hat{\zz}_{t_n}$ has triple points. Then there exist distinct parameter values $a_n$, $b_n$, and $c_n$ such that $$\hat{\zz}_{t_n}(a_n) = \hat{\zz}_{t_n}(b_n) = \hat{\zz}_{t_n}(c_n).$$ By compactness, there exists convergent subsequences $$a_n \rightarrow a_0 \hspace{1 cm} b_n \rightarrow b_0 \hspace{1 cm} c_n \rightarrow c_0\;.$$ We have two cases: Either all three are distinct, or some two are equal, say $a_0=b_0$. Applying Lemma \[lem:LocallyInjective\] to $\zhat_t \to \uu$, we know that for $t$ sufficiently small, there is a positive lower bound $\lambda$, uniform in $t$, on the distances $|a_n-b_n|$. But if $a_0=b_0$, these distances would have to become arbitrarily small. If all three $\{a_0, b_0, c_0\}$ are different, then $\uu$ has a triple point, contradicting our initial assumption that $\uu$ has only double points. We can paraphrase the combination of the previous sections, Lemma \[lem:convergence\], and Lemma \[lem:ZhatTnice\] as follows: - [**Basic limiting properties of $\zz_t$ and $\zhat_t$:**]{} Under the generic assumptions of regularity with no “goal posts", for sufficiently small $t$, the curves $\zz_t$ are oriented, embedded space curves which are smoothly isotopic to one another via the ribbon and converging uniformly to the oriented spherical curve $\uu$. Furthermore, the spherical projections $\zhat_t$ are oriented regular curves on the sphere, each having only transversal double point self-intersections, and converging $\C^1$-uniformly to $\uu$ as $t \to 0$. We want to characterize the (single) knot type of the curves $\zz_t$ as being obtained from $\uu$ by resolving the double points of $\uu$ into over- or under-crossings. We showed above that the curves $\zhat_t$ look like knot projections; now we want to see which knot. We claim that for sufficiently small t, the double points of $\zz_t$ occur at essentially the same parameter values as for $\uu$, in the same order, with the same orientations of the curves as for $\uu$. The fact that we have $\C^1$-convergence ensures that the handedness of crossings will agree with the corresponding resolution of $\uu$, so the space curves $\zz_t$ have the same extended Gauss code as a particular resolution of $\uu$. We establish the desired relationship between double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ and $\uu$ in several steps, sometimes choosing a tolerance $\delta$ on neighborhoods in $D$ of the double point parameter values of $\uu$ and sometimes making $t$ small enough to force $\zhat_t$ to approximate $\uu$ closely enough. Much of the story is told in Figure \[fig:DoublePointsOfZt\]. In a box-shaped neighborhood of a double point of $\uu$, we see two arcs of the curve $\uu$ crossing at some angle, with the neighborhood chosen so the arcs span from one “side" of the box to the opposite side. (Note that the angle is bounded away from zero due to transversality.) Nearby are two approximating arcs of $\zhat_t$, which cross at a similar angle and follow $\uu$ closely enough to span between the same sides of the box. The fact that the $\zhat_t$ arcs span across the box implies, by the Jordan Curve Theorem, that they meet somewhere inside the box. At the same time, the fact that their tangent vectors are close to the tangents for $\uu$ prevents $\zhat_t$ from having a second double point close to the first. These two facts are the essential ingredients in establishing the desired 1-1 correspondence between double points of $\zhat_t$ and double points of $\uu$. ![Arcs of $\zhat_t$ are $\C^1$-close to arcs of $\uu$. Spanning across the box neighborhood $\implies$ each double point of $\uu$ has a nearby double point of $\zhat_t$. Crossing at a similar angles $\implies$ double points of $\zhat_t$ are not too close together. []{data-label="fig:DoublePointsOfZt"}](BoxNeighborhood3_SeparateDoublePointsOfZt.png){width="2.0in"} First choice of $\delta$-intervals about the double point parameters of $\uu$ {#FirstDelta} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $\{s_1, \bar{s}_1, s_2, \bar{s}_2, \ldots s_k, \bar{s}_k\}$ be the parameter values for the self-intersection points of $\uu$, where $\uu(s_i) = \uu(\bar{s}_i)$. Call $s_i, \bar{s}_i$ a [*matched pair of parameter values*]{}. For $\delta>0$, let $B_\delta(s_i)$ (resp. $\bar{s}_i$) be the interval in the domain $D$ of radius $\delta$ about $s_i$. Call $B_\delta(s_i)$ and $B_\delta(\bar{s}_i)$ a [*matched pair of intervals*]{}. Finally, for any $\delta>0$, let $\mathscr{B}$ be the union of the $B_\delta$ neighborhoods of all the double point parameters of $\uu$. We first note that by making $t$ small enough, we can ensure that the double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ lie within $\mathscr{B}$. \[lem:AllDPPinB\] There exists $t_0>0$ such that for $t<t_0$, all double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in $\mathscr{B}$. Suppose there exists a sequence $t_n \rightarrow 0$ where $\hat{\zz}_{t_n}$ has double point parameters $r_n$ and $\bar{r}_n$ such that at least one of the parameter values, call it $r_n$, is not contained in the open set $\mathscr{B}$. Since $\mathscr{B}$ is open, by choosing convergent subsequences, we may assume $r_n$ converges to $r_0$, which is in the complement of $\mathscr{B}$, and $\bar{r}_n$ converges to $r_\#$ that is somewhere. By Lemma \[lem:convergence\], regardless of where $r_\#$ lies, we know $\uu(r_0) = \uu(r_\#)$. If $r_\# \neq r_0$ then $\uu$ has a double point parameter $r_0$ in the complement of $\mathscr{B}$. If $r_\# = r_0$ then parameters $r_n, \bar{r}_n$ are eventually closer than $\lambda$ from Lemma \[lem:LocallyInjective\]. Since $\uu$ has only finitely many double points, there exists $\delta_1>0$ so that the intervals are disjoint, and in particular: - each interval $B_{\delta_1}$ contains [**exactly one**]{} double point parameter for $\uu$, and - for sufficiently small $t$, all the double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in the union of these intervals. Any smaller $\delta$ neighborhoods also isolate the double point parameters of $\uu$; and, at the expense of further decreasing $t$, all of the double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in the smaller $\mathscr{B}$. So we can choose $\delta_2$ and $t$ small enough that no two matched double point parameters of any $\zhat_t$ are as close as $2\delta_2$. In particular, for $\delta \leq \delta_2$, $$\bullet \;\; \text{ no } B_\delta \text{ can contain a matched pair of double point parameters for any } \zhat_t. \label{NoCloseMatchedParameters}$$ For future technical reasons, shrink $\delta_2$ if necessary to ensure that - the [**closed**]{} $B_\delta$ intervals are disjoint. Again, note that any smaller $t_1$ or $\delta_2$ satisfy the above conditions. This does not yet imply that each interval $B_\delta(s_i)$ (resp. $\bar{s}_i$) contains any double point parameter for $\zhat_t$, or contains only one - perhaps there are many [**[un]{}**]{}matched parameters inside one $B_\delta$. Choose $\delta_3$ and $t_2$ so the $B_\delta$ isolate parameters for $\zhat_t$ {#IntervalsIsolateDoublePoints} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We know that matched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ cannot be too close together; we need to establish the same property for [**[un]{}**]{}matched parameters. This takes a few steps. We first sharpen the statement that all the double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in $\mathscr{B}$. \[lem:MatchedParameters\] For small enough $t$, matched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in matched $B_\delta$ intervals. If not, then there exists $t_n \rightarrow 0$ with matched parameters $r_n, \bar{r}_n$ such that the $B_\delta$ intervals containing these parameter values are not matched. As usual, since $D$ is compact, we can extract convergent subsequences: $r_n \rightarrow r_0$ and $\bar{r}_n \rightarrow r_\#$. Since there are only finitely many $B_\delta$ intervals, we can further extract subsequences so that all $r_n$ are contained in $B_\delta(s_i)$ for one particular $i$. The distance between matched double point parameters for $\zhat_t$ is bounded away from 0 (recall $\lambda$) so $r_0 \neq r_\#$. But then, since $\uu(r_0) = \uu(r_\#)$ by Lemma \[lem:convergence\], $r_0$ and $r_\#$ are double point parameters for $\uu$. Thus, $r_0$ must equal $s_i$ and $r_\# = \bar{s}_i$. In particular, all $r_n$ are contained in $B_\delta(s_i)$ and all but finitely many $\bar{r}_n$ are contained in the matching interval $B_\delta(\bar{s}_i)$, contradicting the assumption that the pairs $r_n, \bar{r}_n$ are contained in unmatched intervals. We also will use a general property of smooth space curves. Let $\gamma: [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be a $\C^1$ regular curve, let $\mathbf{u}_0$ be a fixed unit vector, and let $\alpha_0$ be some positive angle. If for each $s \in [a,b]$ we have $\angle(\gamma'(s),\mathbf{u}_0) \leq \alpha_0$, then for each parameter pair $c,d$ with $a \leq c \leq d \leq b$, we have $$\angle(\gamma(d) - \gamma(c), \mathbf{u}_0) \leq \alpha_0,$$ for $\gamma(c) \neq \gamma(d)$. \[lem:chordvector\] Let $\gamma: [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be a $\C^1$ regular curve, and choose parameter values $c$ and $d$ with the property that $a \leq c \leq d \leq b$ and $\gamma(c) \neq \gamma(d)$. Further, let $s$ denote a parameter value in the domain. Refer to Figure \[fig:chordvector\] for a schematic diagram of the curve $\gamma$, an associated chord, and a tangent vector. Fix a unit vector $\mathbf{u}_0$, and let $\alpha_0$ be an acute angle with the property that $\angle(\gamma'(s), \mathbf{u}_0) \leq \alpha_0$ for each $s \in [a,b]$. Also, let $\theta(s) = \angle(\gamma'(s), \mathbf{u}_0) \leq \alpha_0$. Since $\mathbf{u}_0$ is unit, we have the following: $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{u}_0 \cdot (\gamma(d) - \gamma(c)) & = & \mathbf{u}_0 \cdot \int_c^d \gamma'(s)\ ds\\ & = & \int_c^d \mathbf{u}_0 \cdot \gamma'(s)\ ds\\ & = & \int_c^d ||\gamma'(s)||\cos\theta(s)\ ds\\ & \geq & \int_c^d ||\gamma'(s)||\cos\alpha_0\ ds\\ & = & \cos \alpha_0 \int_c^d ||\gamma'(s)||\ ds\\ & \geq & \cos\alpha_0\ ||\gamma(d) - \gamma(c)||\end{aligned}$$ But $$\mathbf{u}_0 \cdot (\gamma(d) - \gamma(c)) = ||\gamma(d) - \gamma(c)||\cos\left(\angle(\gamma(d) - \gamma(c), \mathbf{u}_0)\right)$$ Consequently, $$\cos(\angle(\gamma(d) - \gamma(c), \mathbf{u}_0)) \geq \cos\alpha_0 \Longrightarrow \angle(\gamma(d) - \gamma(c), \mathbf{u}_0) \leq \alpha_0$$ We now can show why unmatched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ cannot accumulate within one $B_\delta$. There exist $\delta_3 \leq \delta_2$ and $t_2 \leq t_1$ such that for all $\delta<\delta_3$, $t<t_2$, no two unmatched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in any one $B_\delta$. \[UNmatchedParameters\] With our current values $\delta_2$ and $t_1$, we know that all double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ are contained in the union of the $B_\delta$ intervals and that matched parameters are contained in matched intervals. Also, if we shrink $\delta$, we can shrink $t$ to preserve these properties. At each double point $p_i$ of $\uu$ there are two arcs of $\uu$ crossing at some positive angle $\alpha_i$. Let $\alpha_0 = \frac{1}{3}\mathop{min}\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_k\}$. Since $\zhat_t'$ are uniformly continuous and (Lemma \[lem:convergence\]) $\zhat_t' \longrightarrow \uu'$ uniformly, there exists $\delta_3>0$ such that for $\delta \leq \delta_3$ and $t$ less than some $t_2$, if $q$ is a point in $B_\delta(s_i)$ then the angle between $\zhat_t'(q)$ and $\uu'(s_i)$ is less than $\alpha_0$. We claim that with $\delta < \delta_3$ and $t< t_2$, no $B_\delta(s_i)$ can contain two unmatched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$. Suppose $q,r$ are double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ contained in $B_\delta(s_i)$. Their matching parameters $\bar{q}, \bar{r}$ are, by Lemma \[lem:MatchedParameters\], contained in $B_\delta(\bar{s}_i)$. The crossing angle of $\uu$ at $\uu(s_i) = \uu(\bar{s}_i)$ is $\alpha_i$. By our choice of $\delta_3$ and $t_2$, we have: - The angle between $\uu'(s_i)$ and $\zhat_t'(w)$ is less than $\alpha_0$ for each $w \in B_\delta(s_i)$. - The angle between $\uu'(\bar{s}_i)$ and $\zhat_t'(w)$ is less than $\alpha_0$ for each $w \in B_\delta(\bar{s}_i)$. Consequently, Lemma \[lem:chordvector\] ensures the following: - The angle between $\uu'(s_i)$ and the chord vector $(\zhat_t(r) - \zhat_t(q))$ is less than $\alpha_0$, and - the angle between $\uu'(\bar{s}_i)$ and the chord vector $(\zhat_t(\bar{r}) - \zhat_t(\bar{q}))$ is less than $\alpha_0$ But this says that the angle between the two chords is at least $\frac{1}{3}\alpha_i >0$. On the other hand, if both pairs of parameters are matched, then the chords are identical. Once we know that no two double point parameters of any $\zhat_t$ (whether matched or unmatched) lie in a single $B_\delta$, we can say the following: - With $\delta<\delta_3$ and $t < t_2$ as above, each interval $B_\delta$ contains [**at most one**]{} double point parameter value for a given $\zhat_t$. (Note we are not yet claiming that $\zhat_t$ [*has*]{} any double points, much less that the parameter values are close to those for $\uu$; simply that no $B_\delta$ contains two of them for a given $\zhat_t$.) Again, note that for any smaller choices of $\delta_3$ we can shrink $t_2$ to still satisfy all bulleted properties listed so far. Choose $\delta$ intervals to constrain how $\uu$ crosses itself and force $\zhat_t$ to have nearby double points {#FindDoublePointsOfZ} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is another step involving several steps of local analysis and “epsilonics". The arguments are similar to the previous section, so we will summarize here. For each double point $p_i$ of $\uu$, we find a choice of $\delta^i< \delta_3$ so that $\uu$ is especially well-behaved in $B_i = B_{\delta^i}(s_i) \cup B_{\delta^i}(\bar{s}_i)$; we choose $t$ small enough to have $\zhat_t$ follow $\uu$ closely enough to produce double point parameters for $\zhat_t$ in $B_i$. Then choose $\delta_4$ to be the [**maximum**]{} of these separate $\delta$, and choose $t_3$ the minimum of the respective $t$. This will yield double points parameters of $\zhat_t$ in each $B_{\delta_4}(s_i)$ \[resp. $\bar{s}_i$\] for all $t<t_3$. For each double point $p_i = \uu(s_i) = \uu(\bar{s}_i)$ of $\uu$, by referring to the tangent plane $T_{p_i}S^2$, we can find a neighborhood $N(p_i)$ in $S^2$ with the following properties (refer to Figure \[fig:DoublePointsOfZt\]): - $N(p_i)$ in $S^2$ is diffeomorphic to a rectangle with consecutive sides $A, B, C, D$. - The various neighborhoods $N(p_i)$ are pairwise disjoint. - There exists $0< \delta_4^i \leq \delta_3$ such that the images $\uu(B_{\delta_4^i}(s_i))$ and $\uu(B_{\delta_4^i}(\bar{s}_i))$ are arcs spanning $N(p_i)$ such that one arc connects the interior of side $A$ to the interior of side $C$ and the other arc runs similarly between $B$ and $D$. - Each arc $\uu(B_{\delta_4^i}(s_i))$ and $\uu(B_{\delta_4^i}(\bar{s}_i))$ meets the boundary edges of $N(p_i)$ transversally. - The derivative $\uu'$ is nearly constant on each interval $B_{\delta_4^i}(s_i)$ and $B_{\delta_4^i}(\bar{s}_i)$. For each $p_i$, we obtain the neighborhood $N(p_i)$ by radial projection of an appropriate neighborhood of $p_i$ in the tangent plane $T_{p_i}(S^2)$. For each $i$, we can choose $t_3^i$ so that when $t<t_3^i$, the maps $\zhat_t$ are close enough to $\uu$ that the images $\zhat_t(B_{\delta_4^i}(s_i))$ and $\zhat_t(B_{\delta_4^i}(\bar{s}_i))$ [**contain**]{} arcs (the arcs may extend further) in $N(p_i)$ that connect $A$ to $C$ and $B$ to $D$. The Jordan Curve theorem then implies that those arcs must intersect (see Figure \[fig:BoxNbd\]). Letting $\delta_4 = \max \{\delta_4^i \} \leq \delta_3$ and $t_3 = \min \{t_3^i\} \leq t_2$, we have - For $t<t_3$, $\zhat_t$ has [**at least one**]{} double point parameter in each $B_{\delta_4}$ interval about a double point parameter of $\uu$. - From Section \[IntervalsIsolateDoublePoints\], we then have that for $t<t_3$, $\zhat_t$ has [**exactly one**]{} double point parameter in each interval $B_{\delta_3}(s_i)$ \[resp $\bar{s}_i$\]. And the corresponding double point of $\zhat_t$ lies in the neighborhood $N(p_i)$. ![Box neighborhood of a double point of $\uu$.[]{data-label="fig:BoxNbd"}](BoxNeighborhood3.png){width="2.0in"} We now have intervals about the double point parameters of $\uu$ that isolate the double point parameters of $\uu$, isolate any double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ they happen to contain, AND that each contain exactly one double point parameter of $\zhat_t$, with matched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ contained in matched $B_\delta$ neighborhoods of the double point parameters of $\uu$. Thus, the double point parameter values of $\uu$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the double point parameter values of $\zhat_t$. Conclusion: The limiting knot type ---------------------------------- We now show that the limiting knot type of $\zz_t$ is one of finitely many choices, which are determined by $\uu$. Recall that $k$ denotes the number self-intersections of $\uu$. Under our generic assumptions of regularity with [*no goal posts*]{}, for all sufficiently small $t$, the knot type of $\zz_t$ is constant and is the same as one of the $2^k$ resolutions of $\uu$. \[thm:2kknottype\] For appropriate $\delta$ and sufficiently small $t$, the self-intersections of $\hat{\zz}_t$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the self-intersections of $\uu$ in the strong sense that matched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$ occur in the matched $B_{\delta}$ neighborhoods of double point parameters of $\uu$. Suppose $s_t, \bar{s}_t$ are matched double point parameters of $\zhat_t$. Relative to projection into $S^2$, one of the points $\zhat_t(s_t), \zhat_t(\bar{s}_t)$ lies over the other. Resolve the corresponding crossing of $\uu$ in the same way to obtain an embedded knot $\tilde{\uu}$ with the same Gauss code as $\zhat_t$. Because $\zhat' \approx \uu'$, when we resolve the crossings of $\uu$ to get the embedded oriented knot $\tilde{\uu}$, the handedness of each crossing of $\tilde{\uu}$ is the same as the handedness of the corresponding crossing of $\zhat_t$. So $\tilde{\uu}$ and $\zhat_t$ have the same extended Gauss code. Constructing Ribbons Between Any Two Knots {#sec:constructrib} ========================================== If one begins with a particular knot with parameterization $\mathbf{x}$ and unit vector field $\mathbf{u}$ satisfying our generic assumptions of regularity and no goal posts, Theorem \[thm:2kknottype\] shows that the outer ribbon edge eventually stabilizes to a resolution of $\mathbf{u}$. We now show that if we are given two knot types, then it is possible to construct a ribbon frame so that $\mathbf{x}$ is one of the given knot types and the limiting resolution of $\mathbf{u}$ is the other given knot type. Recall that $\{s_1, \bar{s}_1, s_2, \bar{s}_2, \ldots, s_k, \bar{s}_k\}$ are the parameter values for the self-intersection points of $\uu$, where $\uu(s_i) = \uu(\bar{s}_i)$. For $t$ small enough, since the self-intersections of $\uu$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $\zhat_t$, let $\{s_{t,1}, \bar{s}_{t,1}, s_{t,2}, \bar{s}_{t,2}, \ldots, s_{t,k}, \bar{s}_{t,k}\}$ denote the parameter values for the self-intersection points of $\zhat_t$, where $\zhat_t(s_{t,i}) = \zhat_t(\bar{s}_{t,i})$. Given knot types $K_1$ and $K_2$, there exists a ribbon frame $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ satisfying the conditions in Section \[sec:stability\], where $\mathbf{x}(t)$ defines a knot of type is $K_1$, and the limiting knot type of the outer ribbon edge is type $K_2$. \[thm:constructribbon\] We begin by considering a special case, which is illustrative of the general process.\ **Special Case**: $K_1$ is the unknot, and $K_2$ is any knot.\ By Theorem 3.6 of [@DE04], there exists a smoothly embedded knot $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}$ of type $K_2$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with a regular projection into the plane such that there is an arc in the projection which traverses all of the crossings once before traversing any of them a second time. (Note that such a projection need not be one of minimal crossing number.) Let $P$ denote the projection mapping into the plane, and let $A$ denote the Hamiltonian arc in $P(\tilde{\mathbf{u}})$. Fix an orientation and starting point for $A$, and let $\{p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k\}$ denote the double points of the projection $P(\tilde{\mathbf{u}})$ in the order that they lie along $A$. For each $j \in \{1,2, \ldots, k\}$, in addition to the $p_j$ label, we will assign a sign, denoted by $\omega(p_j)$, to indicate whether the arc is crossing over or under along $A$. Let $\omega(p_j) = +1$ denote that $p_j$ is an over-crossing double point, and let $\omega(p_j) = -1$ denote that $p_j$ is an under-crossing double point. Thus, the double points of $P(\tilde{\mathbf{u}})$ have associated pairs $$(p_1, \omega(p_1)), (p_2, \omega(p_2)), \ldots (p_k, \omega(p_k)).$$ See Figure \[fig:labelfigeight\] for an example of a projection of the figure eight knot as well as a figure of an appropriate labelling of the same projection where the arc $A$ runs between the two circular nodes with the indicated orientation. [0.48]{} ![A figure eight and its associated labelled diagram.[]{data-label="fig:labelfigeight"}](PlainFigEight "fig:") [0.48]{} ![A figure eight and its associated labelled diagram.[]{data-label="fig:labelfigeight"}](DecFigEight "fig:") Once we traverse through the double point labeled $p_k$ on the knot, we begin to traverse through each crossing a second time, but possibly in a different order. We will denote these double points (which lie outside of $A$) by the pairs $$\left(\bar{p}_{\uptau(1)}, \omega(\bar{p}_{\uptau(1)})\right), \left(\bar{p}_{\uptau(2)}, \omega(\bar{p}_{\uptau(2)})\right), \ldots, \left(\bar{p}_{\uptau(k)}, \omega(\bar{p}_{\uptau(k)})\right),$$ where $(\uptau(1), \uptau(2), \ldots, \uptau(k))$ is a permutation of $(1,2,\ldots,k)$. We will address these points when we specify parameterizations for the curves that we define to be $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{u}$. We wish to separate the over-crossing double points from the under-crossing double points. To do so, we first perform an ambient isotopy of the plane so that the set of double points $\{p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k\}$ along $A$ are collinear, i.e. straighten the arc $A$. We then separate the points by isotoping the over-crossing double points to one side of the line and the under-crossing double points to the other side of the line. When separating the points, we do so in such a way that we do not introduce any new crossings. (Note that this is possible since there are only finitely many double points, and an arbitrarily small perturbation is enough to isotope any given point off of the line.). See Figure \[fig:linefigeight\] for an example of the figure eight knot in Figure \[fig:labelfigeight\] with collinear double points before and after such an isotopy. [0.48]{} ![A figure eight with collinear double points before and after isotopy.[]{data-label="fig:linefigeight"}](StraightLineFigEight "fig:") [0.48]{} ![A figure eight with collinear double points before and after isotopy.[]{data-label="fig:linefigeight"}](IsoLineFigEight "fig:") Once the set of double points $\{p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k\}$ has been separated according to their sign within the plane, we enclose each of the two groups within disks. Then we smoothly isotope the plane to $S^2 \setminus \{(0, -1, 0)\}$ so that the disks map to small polar caps (e.g. with polar angle less than $\frac{\pi}{12}$) at the north and south pole of $S^2$. We choose the isotopy so that the over-crossing points lie within the disk at the north pole while the under-crossing points lie within the disk at the south pole. The straight line originally containing the double points is mapped to the equator. We define this isotopic version of $P(\tilde{\mathbf{u}})$ on $S^2$ to be $\mathbf{u}$. Now, we construct an appropriate curve to represent $\mathbf{x}$. After defining the geometric curve $\mathbf{x}$, we will adjust the parameterization for $\mathbf{x}$ appropriately to create the association $\mathbf{x}(s) \leftrightarrow \mathbf{u}(s)$. Since $K_1$ is the unknot, let $\mathbf{x}: D \rightarrow S^2$ be the smooth arclength parameterization of the great circle where $\mathbf{x}(0) = \mathbf{x}(2\pi) = (0,0,1)$, $\mathbf{x}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right) = (1,0,0)$, and $\mathbf{x}(\pi) = (0,0,-1)$. We now reparameterize $\mathbf{x}$ to control where $\mathbf{x}$ maps the double point parameters of $\mathbf{u}$: $$0 < s_1 < s_2 < \cdots < s_k < \bar{s}_{\uptau(1)} < \bar{s}_{\uptau(2)} < \cdots < \bar{s}_{\uptau(k)} < 2\pi$$ 1. Compress $\mathbf{x}\ | [0,s_k]$ so that the set $\mathbf{x}([0,s_k])$ is contained in the small cap at the north pole. 2. Stretch $\mathbf{x}\ | [s_k, \bar{s}_{\uptau(1)}]$ so that $\{\mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_{\uptau(1)})\}$ is contained in the small cap at the south pole. 3. Compress $\mathbf{x}\ | [\bar{s}_{\uptau(1)},\bar{s}_{\uptau(k)}]$ so that the set $\{\mathbf{x}([\bar{s}_{\uptau(1)},\bar{s}_{\uptau(k)}])\}$ is contained in the small cap at the south pole. 4. Stretch $\mathbf{x}\ | [\bar{s}_{\uptau(k)}, 2\pi]$ to complete the great circle. To emphasize the relation between the planar and spherical projections, we use the label $p_j$ to denote $\mathbf{u}(s_j)$ on $S^2$, and likewise let $\bar{p}_{\uptau(j)}$ denote $\mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_{\uptau(j)})$. Our choice of parameterizations for $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{u}$ allows us to control the over-crossing and under-crossing pattern of our outer ribbon edge $\mathbf{z}_t$ in order to achieve the desired knot type. Indeed, suppose that $\mathbf{u}(s_j) = \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_j)$ is near the north pole. This means that the double point $p_j$ along $A$ was on an over-crossing strand. Also recall that $\mathbf{x}(s_j)$ is near the north pole while $\mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_j)$ is near the south pole. Our choice of parameterization for $\mathbf{x}$, together with the fact that $\zz_t$ is uniformly close to $\uu$ implies that $\uu(s_{t,j}) \cdot \mathbf{x}(s_{t,j}) \approx 1$ while $\uu(\bar{s}_{t,j}) \cdot \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_{t,j}) \approx -1$. So $||\mathbf{z}_t(s_{t,j})|| = ||\mathbf{u}(s_{t,j}) + t\mathbf{x}(s_{t,j})|| > 1$ while $ ||\mathbf{z}_t(\bar{s}_{t,j})|| = ||\mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_{t,j}) + t\mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_{t,j})|| < 1$. That is, $$||\mathbf{z}_t(s_{t,j})|| > ||\mathbf{z}_t(\bar{s}_{t,j})||$$ Conversely, if $\mathbf{u}(s_j) = \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_j)$ is near the south pole, then $||\mathbf{z}_t(s_{t,j})|| < 1$ and $||\mathbf{z}_t(\bar{s}_{t,j})|| > 1$ so that $$||\mathbf{z}_t(s_{t,j})|| < ||\mathbf{z}_t(\bar{s}_{t,j})||$$ Thus, $\mathbf{z}_t$ has the same over-crossing and under-crossing configuration as $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}$ and, therefore, stabilizes to $K_2$. (It is also important to note that our choice of parameterizations and placements of double points ensures that $\mathbf{u}(s_i) \cdot \mathbf{x}(s_i) \approx - \mathbf{u}(\bar{s}_i) \cdot \mathbf{x}(\bar{s}_i) \approx \pm 1$. This guarantees that the ribbon frame $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{u})$ does not have the goal post property.)\ **General Case**: *$K_1$ and $K_2$ represent arbitrary knot types.*\ Let $\mathbf{x}$ be a smoothly embedded curve in $\mathbb{R}^3$ whose knot type is that of $K_1$. We can proceed as in the special case above by controlling the behavior of $\mathbf{x}$ near the self-intersections of $\mathbf{u}$, which lie near the polar caps. As such, we can isotope the curve so that $\mathbf{x}$ follows the great circle through $(0,0,\pm 1)$ and $(-1,0,0)$ except for a sufficiently small ball centered at $(1,0,0)$ containing the “interesting” part of the knot. For an example of a suitable $\mathbf{x}$ curve whose knot type is the trefoil, see Figure \[fig:partref\].\ Once the curve defined by $\mathbf{x}$ has been fixed, we may proceed by defining the parameter values $\{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_k\}$ and $\{\bar{s}_{\uptau(1)}, \bar{s}_{\uptau(2)}, \ldots, \bar{s}_{\uptau(k)}\}$ as explained in the previous case, which depend on $\mathbf{u}$ alone and not $\mathbf{x}$. The remainder of the arguments in the previous case apply to such a curve.

--- abstract: | We consider spherically-symmetric black holes in semiclassical gravity. For a collapsing radiating thin shell we derive a sufficient condition on the exterior geometry that ensures that a black hole is not formed. This is also a sufficient condition for an infalling test particle to avoid the apparent horizon of an existing black hole and approach it only within a certain minimal distance. Taking the presence of a trapped region and its outer boundary — the apparent horizon— as the defining feature of black holes, we explore the consequences of their finite time of formation according to a distant observer. Assuming regularity of the apparent horizon we obtain the limiting form of the metric and the energy-momentum tensor in its vicinity that violates the null energy condition (NEC). The metric does not satisfy the sufficient condition for horizon avoidance: a thin shell collapses to form a black hole and test particles (unless too slow) cross into it in finite time. However, there may be difficulty in maintaining the expected range of the NEC violation, and stability against perturbations is not assured. [Keywords: black holes; null energy condition; thin shells]{} address: - | School of Science, RMIT University,\ Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia - | Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo,\ Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada - | Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,\ Waterloo, ON, N2L 6B9, Canada - | Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie University,\ Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia\ E-mail: daniel.terno@mq.edu.au author: - Valentina Baccetti - 'Robert B. Mann' - 'Daniel R. Terno$^*$' title: 'Trapped surfaces, energy conditions, and horizon avoidance in spherically-symmetric collapse' --- Introduction ============ Event horizon — the null surface that bounds the spacetime region from which signals cannot escape — is the defining feature of black holes in general relativity [@he:book; @poisson; @bambi]. This classical concept plays an important role in their quantum [behaviour]{} [@bmps:95; @kiefer:07; @modern]. Emission of the Hawking radiation completes a thermodynamic picture of black holes, and its most straightforward derivation relies on the existence of an horizon [@bmps:95]. This radiation is also one of the ingredients of the black hole information loss paradox [@h:76], perhaps the longest-running controversy in theoretical physics [@kiefer:07; @modern; @h:76]. Event horizons are global teleological entities that are in principle unobservable [@visser:14; @cp:na17]. Theoretical, numerical and observational studies therefore focus on other characteristic features of black holes [@bambi; @faraoni:b]. A [local]{} expression of the idea of absence of communications with the outside world is provided by the notion of a trapped region. It is a domain where both outgoing and ingoing future-directed null geodesics emanating from a spacelike two-dimensional surface with spherical topology have negative expansion [@he:book; @bambi; @faraoni:b; @krishnam:14]. The apparent horizon is the outer boundary of the trapped region [@he:book; @faraoni:b]. According to classical general relativity the apparent horizon is located inside the event horizons if the matter satisfies energy conditions [@he:book; @econ]. Quantum states can violate energy conditions [@econ]. Black hole evaporation proceeds precisely because $T_{\mu\nu}=\6\hat T_{\mu\nu}\9$ violates the null energy condition (NEC): there is a null vector $k^\mu$ such that $T_{\mu\nu}k^\mu k^\nu<0$. In this case the apparent horizon is outside the event horizon. In fact, the very existence of the latter is uncertain [@ab:05; @nohorsin]. While existence of spacetime singularities is no longer prescribed, their appearance without the horizon cover (“naked”) is not excluded either. This situation motivated introduction of many models of the ultra-compact objects [@cp:na17]. According to a distant observer formation of a classical black holes takes an infinite amount of time $t$, even if effective blackening out happens very fast. Similarly, the plunge of a test particle into an existing black holes takes infinite amount of time $t$, but finite proper time of a comoving observer. On the other hand, if quantum effects responsible for finite-time black hole evaporation allow for the formation of an apparent horizon, it happens in finite $t$. The question is then if it is possible to fall into such a black hole. Working in the framework of semiclassical gravity with spherical symmetry [@bmt:18], we consider formation of a trapped region in the finite time of a distant observer as a definition of existence of a black hole. Assuming that it exists, we derive the condition that allows an infalling observer to avoid horizon crossing. We then show that if the apparent horizon is regular, the energy-momentum tensor and the metric in its neighbourhood are uniquely defined by the Schwarzschild radius $r_\sg$ and its rate of change. The resulting metric does not satisfy the sufficient condition for horizon avoidance. Finally, we discuss intriguing implications of these results. Spherical symmetry. Sufficient condition for horizon avoidance ============================================================== A general spherically symmetric metric in Schwarzschild coordinates is given by ds\^2=-e\^[2h(t,r)]{}f(t,r)dt\^2+f(t,r)\^[-1]{}dr\^2+r\^2d\[sgenm\] The function $f(t,r)=1-C(t,r)/r$ is coordinate-independent, where the function $C(t,r)$ is the Misner-Sharp mass [@bambi; @aphor]. In an asymptotically flat spacetime $t$ is the physical time of a distant observer. Trapped regions exist only if the equation $f(t,r)=0$ has a root [@krishnam:14]. This root (or, if there are several, the largest one) is the [Schwarzschild radius]{} $r_\sg(t)$. Apparent horizons are in general observer-dependent entities. However they are unambiguously defined in the spherically symmetric case for all spherical-symmetry preserving foliations[@aphor]. In this case the apparent horizon is located at $r_\sg$. In the Schwarzschild spacetime $C(t,r)=2M$ and $h= 0$, hence $r_\sg=2M$. In thin shell collapse models [@poisson] the geometry inside the shell is given by the flat Minkowski metric. The matter content of the shell is given by the surface energy-momentum tensor. The trajectory of a massive shell is parameterized by its proper time $\tau$ and expresses as $\big(T(\tau), R(\tau)\big)$ in the exterior Schwarzschild coordinates. Initially the shell is located outside its gravitational radius, $R(0)>r_\sg$. Its dynamics is obtained by using the so-called junction conditions [@poisson; @isr:66]. The first junction condition is the statement that the induced metric $h_{ab}$ on the shell $\Sigma$ is the same on both sides $\Sigma^\pm$, $ds^2_\Sigma=h_{ab}dy^ady^b=-d\tau^2+R^2d\Omega$. Since for massive particles the four-velocity $u^\mu$ satisfies $u_\mu u^\mu=-1$, the shell’s trajectory obeys T=, \[udot\] where $\dot A=dA/d\tau$, $H=h(T,R)$, $F=f(T,{R})$. This condition is used to identify the radial coordinate of the shell in interior and exterior coordinates, $R_-\equiv R$. Discontinuity of the extrinsic curvature $K_{ab}$ is described by the second junction condition [@poisson; @isr:66] that relates it to the surface energy-momentum tensor. Given the exterior metric the junction conditions result in the equations of motion for the shell. For a classical collapse in vacuum the exterior geometry is given by the Schwarzschild metric, and the resulting equation for $R(\tau)$ is simple enough to have an analytic solution $\tau(R)$, leading to the finite proper time $\tau(r_\sg)$ and infinite time $T(r_\sg)$. This equation of motion is modified for a general exterior metric and its solution has some remarkable features [@bacu:18; @mnt:18]. Here we focus on the possibility of crossing the Schwarzschild sphere of an evaporating black hole ($r_\sg'(t)<0$ ) in finite proper time. For a finite evaporation time $t_E$ the finite proper crossing time is equivalent to having a finite time $t_\sg$ of a distant observer. By monitoring the gap between the shell and the Schwarzschild radius [@bmt:18; @kmy:13], X():=R()-r\_(T()), we discover the sufficient condition for a thin shell to never cross its Schwarzschild radius. The same condition applies to the study of [an infalling test particle]{} into an existing black hole. The analysis is generalized to null shells and test particles. The rate of approach to the Schwarzschild radius behaves as X= R -r’\_(T)T. \[xeps\] Close to the Schwarzschild radius we have $\dot T\approx-\dot R e^{-H}/F$, and hence XR(1-|r\_’|e\^[-H]{}/F). If for a fixed $t$ the function $\exp(h)f$ goes to zero as $x:=r-r_\sg\to 0$, then there is a stopping scale $\epsilon_*(\tau)$. If the shell comes to the Schwarzschild radius closer than $\epsilon_*$ the gap has to increase, $\dot X>0$, [evidently indicating in this case that]{} the shell never collapses to a black hole. It is so if, e.g., $h(t,r)\leq 0$. In particular, this is the case when the exterior geometry is given by the outgoing Vaidya metric. Then $\epsilon_*=2C|dC/dU|$, where $U(\tau)$ is the retarded null coordinate of the shell [@bmt:18; @kmy:13]. However, it is not a priori clear that in a general evaporating case this criterion is satisfied. Metric outside an apparent horizon ================================== Using only one additional assumption it is possible to obtain the explicit form of the metric near $r_\sg$. In fact this metric satisfies the sufficient condition for the horizon avoidance. We consider an evaporating black hole that is formed [at some distant observer’s finite time]{}, i.e. its apparent horizon radius $r_\sg(t)$ is a decreasing function of time. In addition we assume that the horizon is regular (the standard “no drama at the horizon” postulate[@modern], where the established regularity of the classical results is assumed to hold in the quantum-dominated regime). The regularity is expressed by finite values of the curvature scalars that can be directly expressed in terms of the energy-momentum tensor[@bmmt:18], $\mathrm{T}:=T^{\mu}{}_{\mu}$ and $\mathfrak{T}:=T^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}$. The existence [of an apparent horizon]{} and regularity assumptions strongly constrain the energy-momentum tensor, and consistency with the known results on the background of an eternal black hole[@bmps:95; @leviori:16] specify its limiting form uniquely. The leading terms in the $(tr)$ block of the energy-momentum tensor turns out to be the functions of $a^2:=r_\sg'^2 r_\sg$, and [the functions $C(t)$ and $h(t)$ take the following form]{} [@bmmt:18], C= r\_(t)-a(t)+x…. \[c0sin\] and h=- ++…,\[ho\] where $x=r-r_\sg$. The function of time [$\xi_0(t)$]{} is determined by the choice of the time variable. In asymptotically flat spacetimes with $t$ being a physical time of a stationary Bob, [$\lim_{r\to \infty} h(t,r)=0$]{} and the exact solution of the Einstein equations allows to determine [$\xi_0$.]{} The constant in the function $h$ is set (using the freedom in re-defining the time variable) in such a way that $h\approx 0$ for a macroscopic BH when $x\to r_\sg$, i.e. far relative to the scale of quantum effects $\alpha^2$. The metric takes a particularly simple form in ingoing Vaidya coordinates[@bmmt:18]. The energy-momentum tensor that corresponds to this metric violates the null energy condition in the vicinity of the apparent horizon[@bmmt:18]. The comoving density and pressure at the apparent horizon of an evaporating black hole are negative, =p=-, where $r$ is the radial coordinate of the comoving observer[@t:19]. We focus on the question of horizon avoidance. Return first to a collapsing thin shell problem where the exterior metric is given now by Eq.  with the metric functions that are given above. Expanding Eqs.  and for $X\to 0$ the rate of approach X=-+…, which is independent of the function $\xi_0$. Hence if a test particle is in the vicinity of the apparent horizon, $X\ll a^2$, it will cross the horizon unless $|\dot R| <2\sqrt{\pi}r_\sg\Upsilon\sim \sqrt{\kappa}\sim 0.01$. For the evaporating case we match the $r_\sg'$ that is obtained as a consistency requirement on the functions of $C$ and $h$ from the Enstein equations [@bmmt:18], with the known results [@bmt:s18] for the quasi-static mass loss $r_\sg'=-\kappa/r_\sg^2$. In Planck units $\kappa\sim 10^{-3} - 10^{-4}$, and we obtain \_0 2= . We have seen that the violation of the NEC is necessary for existence of a black hole. Such violations, however, are bounded by quantum energy inequalities (QEI). Adapting the QEI of Ref.  we obtain that the region where the NEC is violated is bounded by x\_&lt;\~1, that is obtained by ignoring the sub-Planckian features of the bound[@bmt:18]. Even this estimate fails short of the conventional estimate $x_{\max}\sim r_\sg$. Our results indicate either that the required negative energy density for having a Schwarzschild sphere at finite time $t_\mathrm{S}$ cannot be maintained or the trapped regions forms at an much later stage of the collapse. Alternatively, the domain of validity of our metric (that has the form[@bmt:18] of the approximate metric that is obtained by taking the backreaction into account[@bmps:95] has a much narrower domain of validity. Both possibilities may indicate that the semiclassical approximation and its associated classical notions are modified already at the horizon or larger scales. A rigourous analysis of this situation is in order. Another question results from two properties we discussed above. On the one hand, existence of the apparent horizon requires violation of the NEC. Test particles cross it in finite time unless moving too slow. It is not clear how the apparent horizon that requires NEC violation for its existence reacts to a perturbation by infalling normal matter. Given that collapsing thin shells are known to cross the apparent horizon and form a black hole with nearly all their rest mass intact[@bmt:s18], it is possible that the answer will involve considerable adjustment of our concept of black holes. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The work of RBM was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Distinguished Visitor Program of the Faculty of Science and Engineering of the Macquarie University. We thank Sabine Hossenfelder, Jorma Luoko, Pady Padmanabhan, Amos Ori, Don Page, Bill Unruh, Matt Visser, and Mark Wardle for useful discussions and critical comments. [99]{} S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, *The Large Scale Structure of the Space-Time*, (Cambrdge University Press, 1973). E. Poisson, *A Relativist’s Toolkit*, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004). C. Bambi, *Black Holes: a Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity* (Springer, Singapore, 2017). R. Brout, S. Massar, R. Parentani, P. Spindel, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} **260**, 329 (1995). C. Kiefer, *Quantum Gravity*, (Oxford University Press, OXford, 2007). R. B. Mann, *Black Holes: Thermodynamics, Information, and Firewalls* (Springer, New York, 2015). S. W. Hawking, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **14**, 2460 (1976). M. Visser, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **90**, 127502 (2014). V. Cardoso and P. Pani, [*Nature Astr.*]{} **1**, 586 (2017). V. Faraoni, *Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Horizons*, (Springer, Heidelberg, 2015). B. Krishnam, *Quasi-local horizons*, in A. Ashtekar and V. Petkov, (eds.), *Springer Handbook of Spacetime*, (Springer, NY, 2014), p. 527. P. Martín-Moruno and M. Visser, *Classical and Semi-classical Energy Conditions*, in F. S. N. Lobo (ed), *Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions*, (Springer, 2017), p. 193; C. J. Fewster, *ibid.*, p. 215. A. Ashtekar and M. Bojowald, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} **22**, 3349 (2005); S. A. Hayward, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} **96,** 031103 (2006). V. P. Frolov and G. A. Vilkovisky, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} **106**, 307 (1981); T. A. Roman and P. G. Bergmann, [*Phys. Rev. D* ]{}**28**, 1265 (1983); S. W. Hawking, [ arXiv:1401.5761]{} (2014). V. Faraoni, G. F. R. Ellis, J. T. Firouzjaee, A. Helou, and I. Musco, [*Phys. Rev. D* ]{} **95**, 024008 (2017). V. Baccetti, R. B. Mann, and D. R. Terno, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} **35**, 185005 (2018). V. Baccetti, R. B. Mann, S. Murk, and D. R. Terno [arXiv:1811.04835]{} (2018). W. Israel, [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} **44B**, 1 (1966). B. Arderucio-Costa, W. G. Unruh, [*Phys. Rev. D* ]{} **97**, 024005 (2018). R. B. Mann, I. Nagle, and D. R. Terno, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} **936**, 19 (2018). H. Kawai, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Yokokura, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. A*]{} **28**, 1350050 (2013). A. Levi and A. Ori, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} **117**, 231101 (2016). D. R. Terno, [ arXiv:1903.04744]{} (2019). V. Baccetti, S. Murk, and D. R. Terno, [ arXiv:1812.07727]{} (2018). C. J. Fewster, and M. J. Pfenning J. Math. Phys. **47**, 082303 (2006).

--- abstract: 'We introduce a framework for quantifying semantic variation of common words in Communities of Practice and in sets of topic-related communities. We show that while some meaning shifts are shared across related communities, others are community-specific, and therefore independent from the discussed topic. We propose such findings as evidence in favour of sociolinguistic theories of socially-driven semantic variation. Results are evaluated using an independent language modelling task. Furthermore, we investigate extralinguistic features and show that factors such as prominence and dissemination of words are related to semantic variation.' author: - | Marco Del Tredici and Raquel Fernández\ Institute for Logic, Language and Computation\ University of Amsterdam\ `{m.deltredici|raquel.fernandez}@uva.nl` bibliography: - 'community\_lexicon\_experiment.bib' title: Semantic Variation in Online Communities of Practice --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Related Work {#sec:related} ============ Experimental Setup {#sec:exp} ================== Framework {#sec:framework} ========= Evaluation ========== Factors Influencing Semantic Variation {#sec:factors} ====================================== Conclusions {#sec:concl} ===========

--- abstract: | In this tutorial, we provide an overview of many of the established combinatorial and algebraic tools of Schubert calculus, the modern area of enumerative geometry that encapsulates a wide variety of topics involving intersections of linear spaces. It is intended as a guide for readers with a combinatorial bent to understand and appreciate the geometric and topological aspects of Schubert calculus, and conversely for geometric-minded readers to gain familiarity with the relevant combinatorial tools in this area. We lead the reader through a tour of three variations on a theme: Grassmannians, flag varieties, and orthogonal Grassmannians. The orthogonal Grassmannian, unlike the ordinary Grassmannian and the flag variety, has not yet been addressed very often in textbooks, so this presentation may be helpful as an introduction to type B Schubert calculus. This work is adapted from the author’s lecture notes for a graduate workshop during the Equivariant Combinatorics Workshop at the Center for Mathematics Research, Montreal, June 12-16, 2017. author: - | Maria Gillespie[^1]\ <mgillespie@math.ucdavis.edu> title: Variations on a Theme of Schubert Calculus --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Schubert calculus was invented as a general method for solving linear intersection problems in Euclidean space. One very simple example of a linear intersection problem is the following: How many lines pass through two given points in the plane? It is almost axiomatically true that the answer is $1$, as long as the points are distinct (otherwise it is $\infty$). Likewise, we can ask how many points are contained in two lines in the plane. The answer is also usually $1$, though it can be $0$ if the lines are parallel, or $\infty$ if the lines are equal. In higher dimensions the answers may change: in three-dimensional space, there are most often zero points of intersection of two given lines. One can also consider more complicated intersection problems involving subspaces of Euclidean space. For instance, how many planes in $4$-space contain a given line and a given point? Generically, the answer will be $1$, but in degenerate cases (when the point is on the line) may be $\infty$. It seems that the answers to such problems are often $1$, $0$, or $\infty$, but this is not always the case. Here is the classic example of Schubert calculus, where the answer is generically $2$: \[lines\] How many lines intersect four given lines in three-dimensional space? Hermann Schubert’s 19th century solution to this question[^2] would have invoked what he called the “Principle of Conservation of Number” as follows. Suppose the four lines $l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4$ were arranged so that $l_1$ and $l_2$ intersect at a point $P$, $l_2$ and $l_3$ intersect at $Q$, and none of the other pairs of lines intersect and the planes $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ determined by $l_1,l_2$ and $l_3,l_4$ respectively are not parallel. Then $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ intersect at another line $\alpha$, which necessarily intersects all four lines. The line $\beta$ through $P$ and $Q$ also intersects all four lines, and it is not hard to see that these are the only two in this case. Schubert would have said that since there are two solutions in this configuration, there are two for every configuration of lines for which the number of solutions is finite, since the solutions can be interpreted as solutions to polynomial equations over the complex numbers. The answer is indeed preserved in this case, but the lack of rigor in this method regarding multiplicities led to some errors in computations in harder questions of enumerative geometry. The following is an example of a more complicated enumerative geometry problem, which is less approachable with elementary methods. \[complicated\] How many $k$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ intersect each of $k\cdot (n-k)$ fixed subspaces of dimension $n-k$ nontrivially? Hilbert’s 15th problem asked to put Schubert’s enumerative methods on a rigorous foundation. This led to the modern-day theory known as Schubert calculus. The main idea, going back to Question \[lines\], is to let $X_i$ be the space of all lines $L$ intersecting $l_i$ for each $i=1,\ldots,4$. Then the intersection $X_1\cap X_2\cap X_3\cap X_4$ is the set of solutions to our problem. Each $X_i$ is an example of a *Schubert variety*, an algebraic and geometric object that is essential to solving these types of intersection problems. ‘Variations on a Theme’ ----------------------- This tutorial on Schubert calculus is organized as a theme and variations[^3]. In particular, after briefly recalling some of the necessary geometric background on projective spaces in Section \[sec:background\] (which may be skipped or skimmed over by readers already familiar with these basics), we begin in Section \[sec:theme\] (the ‘Theme’) with the foundational ideas of Schubert calculus going back to Schubert [@Schubert]. This includes a rigorous development of Schubert varieties in the *Grassmannian*, the set of all $k$-dimensional subspaces of a fixed $n$-dimensional space, and a more careful geometric analysis of the elementary intersection problems mentioned in the introduction. We also establish the basic properties of the Grassmannian. Much of this background material can also be found in expository sources such as [@Fulton], [@KleimanLaksov], and [@Manivel], and much of the material in the first few sections is drawn from these works. In Variation 1 (Section \[sec:variation1\]), we present the general formulas for intersecting complex Schubert varieties, and show how it relates to calculations in the cohomology of the Grassmannian as well as products of Schur functions. Variation 2 (Section \[sec:variation2\]) repeats this story for the complete flag variety (in place of the Grassmannian), with the role of Schur functions replaced by the Schubert polynomials. Finally, Variation 3 (Section \[sec:variation3\]) explores Schubert calculus in the “Lie type B” Grassmannian, known as the *orthogonal Grassmannian*. There are countless more known variations on the theme of classical Schubert calculus, including Grassmannians in the remaining Lie types, partial flag varieties, and Schubert varieties over the real numbers. There is also much that has yet to be explored. We conclude with an overview of some of these potential further directions of study in Section \[sec:conclusion\]. Acknowledgments --------------- The author thanks Jennifer Morse, François Bergeron, Franco Saliola, and Luc Lapointe for the invitation to teach a graduate workshop on Schubert calculus at the Center for Mathematics Research in Montreal, for which these extended notes were written. Thanks also to Sara Billey and the anonymous reviewer for their extensive feedback. Thanks to Helene Barcelo, Sean Griffin, Philippe Nadeau, Alex Woo, Jake Levinson, and Guanyu Li for further suggestions and comments. Finally, thanks to all of the participants at the graduate workshop for their comments, questions, and corrections that greatly improved this exposition. Background on Projective Space {#sec:background} ============================== The notion of *projective space* helps clean up many of the ambiguities in the question above. For instance, in the projective plane, parallel lines meet, at a “point at infinity”.[^4] It also is one of the simplest examples of a Schubert variety. {width="200pt"} One way to define projective space over a field $k$ is as the set of lines through the origin in one higher dimensional space as follows. The $n$-dimensional **projective space** $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n_k$ over a field $k$ is the set of equivalence classes in $k^{n+1}\setminus\{(0,0,\ldots,0)\}$ with respect to the relation $\sim$ given by scalar multiplication, that is, $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_n)\sim (y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_n)$$ if and only if there exists $a\in k\setminus \{0\}$ such that $ax_i=y_i$ for all $i$. We write $(x_0:x_1:\cdots:x_n)$ for the equivalence class in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^k$ containing $(x_0,\ldots,x_n)$, and we refer to $(x_0:x_1:\cdots:x_n)$ as a *point* in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^k$ in *homogeneous coordinates*. Note that *a point in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n_k$ is a line through the origin in $k^{n+1}$*. In particular, a line through the origin consists of all scalar multiples of a given nonzero vector. Unless we specify otherwise, we will always use $k=\mathbb{C}$ and simply write $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ for $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n_{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}}$ throughout these notes. In the “projective plane” $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2$, the symbols $(2:0:1)$ and $(4:0:2)$ both refer to the same point. It is useful to think of projective space as having its own geometric structure, rather than just as a quotient of a higher dimensional space. In particular, a **geometry** is often defined as a set along with a group of transformations. A **projective transformation** is a map $f:\mathbb{P}^n\to \mathbb{P}^n$ of the form $$f(x_0:x_1:\cdots:x_n)=(y_0:y_1:\cdots:y_n)$$ where for each $i$, $$y_i=a_{i0}x_0+a_{i1}x_1+\cdots a_{in}x_n$$ for some fixed constants $a_{ij}\in \mathbb{C}$ such that the $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ matrix $(a_{ij})$ is invertible. Notice that projective transformations are well-defined on $\mathbb{P}^n$ because scaling all the $x_i$ variables by a constant $c$ has the effect of scaling the $y$ variables by $c$ as well. This is due to the fact that the defining equations are **homogeneous**: every monomial on both sides of the equation has a fixed degree $d$ (in this case $d=1$). Affine patches and projective varieties --------------------------------------- There is another way of thinking of projective space: as ordinary Euclidean space with extra smaller spaces placed out at infinity. For instance, in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$, any point $(x:y)$ with $y\neq 0$ can be rescaled to the form $(t:1)$. All such points can be identified with the element $t\in \mathbb{C}$, and then there is only one more point in $\mathbb{P}^1$, namely $(1:0)$. We can think of $(1:0)$ as a point “at infinity” that closes up the *affine line* $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^1$ into the “circle” $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$. Thought of as a real surface, the complex $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$ is actually a sphere. Similarly, we can instead parameterize the points $(1:t)$ by $t\in \operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^1$ and have $(0:1)$ be the extra point. The subsets given by $\{(1:t)\}$ and $\{(t:1)\}$ are both called **affine patches** of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$, and form a cover of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$, from which we can inherit a natural topology on $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$ from the Euclidean topology on each $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^1$. In fact, the two affine patches form an open cover in this topology, so $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$ is compact. As another example, the projective plane $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2$ can be written as the disjoint union $$\{(x:y:1)\}\sqcup \{(x:1:0)\}\sqcup \{1:0:0\}=\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^2\sqcup \operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^1\sqcup \operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^0,$$ which we can think of as a certain closure of the affine patch $\{(x:y:1)\}$. The other affine patches are $\{(x:1:y)\}$ and $\{(1:x:y)\}$ in this case. We can naturally generalize this as follows. The **standard affine patches** of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ are the sets $$\{(t_0:t_1:\cdots:t_{i-1}:1:t_{i+1}:\cdots:t_n)\}\operatorname{\cong}\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$$ for $i=0,\ldots,n$. An **affine variety** is usually defined as the set of solutions to a set of polynomials in $k^n$ for some field $k$. For instance, the graph of $y=x^2$ is an affine variety in $\mathbb{R}^2$, since it is the set of all points $(x,y)$ for which $f(x,y)=y-x^2$ is zero.  In three-dimensional space, we might consider the plane defined by the *zero locus* of $f(x,y,z)=x+y+z$, that is, the set of solutions to $f(x,y,z)=0$. Another example is the line $x=y=z$ defined by the common zero locus of $f(x,y,z)=x-y$ and $g(x,y,z)=x-z$. Recall that a polynomial is **homogeneous** if all of its terms have the same total degree. For instance, $x^2+3yz$ is homogeneous because both terms have degree $2$, but $x^2-y+1$ is not homogeneous. A **projective variety** is the common zero locus in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ of a finite set of homogeneous polynomials $f_1(x_0,\ldots,x_n),\ldots, f_r(x_0,\ldots,x_n)$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$. We call this variety $V(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$. In other words, $$V(f_1,\ldots,f_r)=\{(a_0:\cdots :a_n)\mid f_i(a_0:\cdots:a_n)=0\text{ for all }i \}.$$ Note that we need the homogeneous condition in order for projective varieties to be well-defined. For instance, if $f(x,y)=y-x^2$ then $f(2,4)=0$ and $f(4,8)\neq 0$, but $(2:4)=(4:8)$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$. So the value of a nonhomogeneous polynomial on a point in projective space is not, in general, well-defined. The intersection of a projective variety with the $i$-th affine patch is the *affine* variety formed by setting $x_i=1$ in all of the defining equations. For instance, the projective variety in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2$ defined by $f(x:y:z)=yz-x^2$ restricts to the affine variety defined by $f(x,y)=y-x^2$ in the affine patch $z=1$. We can also reverse this process. The **homogenization** of a polynomial $f(x_0,\ldots, x_{n-1})$ in $n$ variables using another variable $x_n$ is the unique homogeneous polynomial $g(x_0:\cdots:x_{n-1}:x_n)$ with $\deg(g)=\deg(f)$ for which $$g(x_0:\cdots:x_{n-1}:1)=f(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1}).$$ For instance, the homogenization of $y-x^2$ is $yz-x^2$. If we homogenize the equations of an affine variety, we get a projective variety which we call its **projective closure**. The projective closure of the parabola defined by $y-x^2-1=0$ is the projective variety in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^3$ defined by the equation $yz-x^2-z^2=0$. If we intersect this with the $y=1$ affine patch, we obtain the affine variety $z-x^2-z^2=0$ in the $x,z$ variables. This is the circle $x^2+(z-\frac{1}{2})^2=\frac{1}{4}$, and so parabolas and circles are essentially the same object in projective space, cut different ways into affine patches. As explained in more detail in Problem \[prob:conics\] below, there is only one type of (nondegenerate) conic in projective space. The above example implies that if we draw a parabola on a large, flat plane and stand at its apex, looking out to the horizon we will see the two branches of the parabola meeting at a point on the horizon, closing up the curve into an ellipse.[^5] Points, lines, and $m$-planes in projective space ------------------------------------------------- Just as the points of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ are the images of lines in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$, a **line** in projective space can be defined as the image of a **plane** in $k^{n+1}$, and so on. We can define these in terms of homogeneous coordinates as follows. An **$(n-1)$-plane** or **hyperplane** in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ is the set of solutions $(x_0:\cdots: x_n)$ to a homogeneous linear equation $$a_0x_0+a_1x_1+\cdots +a_nx_n=0.$$ A **$k$-plane** is an intersection of $n-k$ hyperplanes, say $a_{i0}x_0+a_{i1}x_1+\cdots +a_{in}x_n=0$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-k$, such that the matrix of coefficients $(a_{ij})$ is full rank. In the projective plane $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$, the line $l_1$ given by $2x+3y+z=0$ restricts to the line $2x+3y+1=0$ in the affine patch $z=1$. Notice that the line $l_2$ given by $2x+3y+2z=0$ restricts to $2x+3y+2=0$ in this affine patch, and is parallel to the restriction of $l_1$ in this patch. However, the projective closures of these affine lines intersect at the point $(3:-2:0)$, on the $z=0$ line at infinity. In fact, any two distinct lines meet in a point in the projective plane. In general, intersection problems are much easier in projective space. See Problem \[V2\] below to apply this to our problems in Schubert Calculus. Problems -------- 1. **Transformations of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$:** Show that a projective transformation on $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^1$ is uniquely determined by where it sends $0=(0:1)$, $1=(1:1)$, and $\infty=(1:0)$. 2. **Choice of $n+2$ points stabilizes $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$:** Construct a set $S$ of $n+2$ distinct points in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ for which any projective transformation is uniquely determined by where it sends each point of $S$. What are necessary and sufficient conditions for a set of $n+2$ distinct points in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ to have this property? 3. \[prob:conics\] **All conics in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2$ are the same:** Show that, for any quadratic homogeneous polynomial $f(x,y,z)$ there is a projective transformation that sends it to one of $x^2$, $x^2+y^2$, or $x^2+y^2+z^2$. Conclude that any two “nondegenerate” conics are the same up to a projective transformation. (Hint: Any quadratic form can be written as $\mathbf{x}A\mathbf{x}^T$ where $\mathbf{x}=(x,y,z)$ is the row vector of variables and $\mathbf{x}^T$ is its transpose, and $A$ is a symmetric matrix, with $A=A^T$. It can be shown that a symmetric matrix $A$ can be diagonalized, i.e., written as $BDB^T$ for some diagonal matrix $D$. Use the matrix $B$ as a projective transformation to write the quadratic form as a sum of squares.) 4. \[V2\] **Schubert Calculus in Projective Space:** The question of how many points are contained in two distinct lines in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^2$ can be “projectivized” as follows: if we ask instead how many points are contained in two distinct lines in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2$, then the answer is always $1$ since parallel lines now intersect, a much nicer answer! Write out projective versions of Questions \[lines\] and \[complicated\]. What do they translate to in terms of intersections of subspaces of one-higher-dimensional affine space? Theme: The Grassmannian {#sec:theme} ======================= Not only does taking the projective closure of our problems in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$ make things easier, it is also useful to think of the intersection problems as involving subspaces of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$ rather than $k$-planes in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$. The definition of the Grassmannian below is analogous to our first definition of projective space. The **Grassmannian** $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ is the set of all $k$-dimensional subspaces of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$. As in projective spaces, we call the elements of $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ the “points” of $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$, even though they are defined as entire subspaces of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$. We will see soon that $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ has the structure of a projective variety, making this notation useful. Every point of the Grassmannian can be described as the span of some $k$ independent row vectors of length $n$, which we can arrange in a $k\times n$ matrix. For instance, the matrix $$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} 0 & -1 & -3 & -1 & 6 & -4 & 5 \\ 0 & 1 & 3 & 2 & -7 & 6 & -5 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & -2 & 4 & -2 \end{array}\right]$$ represents a point in $\operatorname{Gr}(7,3)$. Notice that we can perform elementary row operations on the matrix without changing the point of the Grassmannian it represents. We will use the convention that the pivots will be in order from left to right and bottom to top. Show that the matrix above has reduced row echelon form: $$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \ast & \ast & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & \ast & 0 & \ast & \ast & 0 \\ \end{array}\right],$$ where the $\ast$ entries are certain complex numbers. We can summarize our findings as follows. Each point of $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ is the row span of a unique full-rank $k\times n$ matrix in reduced row echelon form. The subset of the Grassmannian whose points have a particular reduced row echelon form constitutes a **Schubert cell.** Notice that $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ is a disjoint union of Schubert cells. Projective variety structure ---------------------------- The Grassmannian can be viewed as a projective variety by embedding $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^{\binom{n}{k}-1}$ via the *Plücker embedding*. To do so, choose an ordering on the $k$-element subsets $S$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ and use this ordering to label the homogeneous coordinates $x_S$ of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^{\binom{n}{k}-1}$. Now, given a point in the Grassmannian represented by a matrix $M$, let $x_S$ be the determinant of the $k\times k$ submatrix determined by the columns in the subset $S$. This determines a point in projective space since row operations can only change the determinants up to a constant factor, and the coordinates cannot all be zero since the matrix has rank $k$. For example, in $\operatorname{Gr}(4,2)$, the matrix $$\left[\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\ 1 & -3 & 0 & 3 \end{array} \right]$$ has Plücker coordinates given by the determinants of all the $2\times 2$ submatrices formed by choosing two of the columns above. We write $x_{ij}$ for the determinant formed columns $i$ and $j$, so for instance, $x_{24}=\det\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 2 \\ -3 & 3 \end{array}\right)=6$. If we order the coordinates $(x_{12}:x_{13}:x_{14}:x_{23}:x_{24}:x_{34})$ then the image of the above point under the Plücker embedding is is $(0:-1:-2:3:6:3)$. One can show that the image is a projective variety in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^{\binom{n}{k}-1}$, cut out by homogeneous quadratic relations in the variables $x_S$ known as the *Plücker relations*. See [@CoxLittleOShea], pg. 408 for details. Schubert cells and Schubert varieties ------------------------------------- To enumerate the Schubert cells in the Grassmannian, we assign to the matrices of the form $$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \ast & \ast & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & \ast & 0 & \ast & \ast & 0 \\ \end{array}\right]$$ a **partition**, that is, a nonincreasing sequence of nonnegative integers $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k)$, as follows. Cut out the $k\times k$ staircase from the upper left corner of the matrix, and let $\lambda_i$ be the distance from the edge of the staircase to the $1$ in row $i$. In the example shown, we get the partition $\lambda=(4,2,1)$. Notice that we always have $\lambda_1\ge \lambda_2\ge \cdots \ge \lambda_k$.  The **size** of a partition $\lambda$, denoted $|\lambda|$, is $\sum_i \lambda_i$, and its **length**, denoted $l(\lambda)$, is the number of nonzero parts. The entries $\lambda_i$ are called its **parts**. With this notation, Schubert cells in $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ are in bijection with the partitions $\lambda$ for which $l(\lambda)\le k$ and $\lambda_1\le n-k$. The **Young diagram** of a partition $\lambda$ is the left-aligned partial grid of boxes in which the $i$-th row from the top has $\lambda_i$ boxes. For example, the Young diagram of the partition $(4,2,1)$ that came up in the previous example is shown as the shaded boxes in the diagram below. By identifying the partition with its Young diagram, we can alternatively define $\lambda$ as the complement in a $k\times (n-k)$ rectangle of the diagram $\mu$ defined by the right-aligned shift of the $\ast$ entries in the matrix:  Since the $k\times (n-k)$ rectangle is the bounding shape of our allowable partitions, we will call it the **ambient rectangle**. For a partition $\lambda$ contained in the ambient rectangle, the **Schubert cell** $\Omega_{\lambda}^\circ$ is the set of points of $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ whose row echelon matrix has corresponding partition $\lambda$. Explicitly, $$\Omega^\circ_{\lambda}=\{V\in \operatorname{Gr}(n,k)\mid \dim(V\cap \langle e_1,\ldots, e_{r}\rangle) = i\text{ for }n-k+i-\lambda_i\le r \le n-k+i-\lambda_{i+1}\}.$$ Here $e_{n-i+1}$ is the $i$-th standard unit vector $(0,0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0)$ with the $1$ in the $i$-th position, so $e_1=(0,0,\ldots,1)$, $e_2=(0,0,\ldots,1,0)$, and so on. The notation $\langle e_1,\ldots,e_r\rangle$ denotes the span of the vectors $e_1,\ldots,e_r$. The numbers $n-k+i-\lambda_i$ are the positions of the $1$’s in the matrix counted from the right. Since each $\ast$ can be any complex number, we have $\Omega_{\lambda}^\circ= \operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^{k(n-k)-|\lambda|}$ as a set, and so $$\dim(\Omega_{\lambda}^\circ)=k(n-k)-|\lambda|.$$ In particular the dimension of the Grassmannian is $k(n-k)$. We are now in a position to define **Schubert varieties** as closed subvarieties of the Grassmannian. The **standard Schubert variety** corresponding to a partition $\lambda$, denoted $\Omega_\lambda$, is the set $$\Omega_{\lambda}=\{V\in \operatorname{Gr}(n,k)\mid \dim(V\cap \langle e_1,\ldots, e_{n-k+i-\lambda_i}\rangle) \ge i\}.$$ In the topology on the Grassmannian, as inherited from projective space via the Plücker embedding, the Schubert variety $\Omega_\lambda$ is the closure $\overline{{\Omega_\lambda}^\circ}$ of the corresponding Schubert cell. We will explore more of the topology of the Grassmannian in section \[sec:variation1\]. Note that we have $\dim(\Omega_\lambda)=\dim(\Omega_\lambda^{\circ}) = k(n-k)-|\lambda|$ as well. Consider the Schubert variety $\Omega_{\tiny\yng(2)}$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^5=\operatorname{Gr}(6,1)$. The ambient rectangle is a $1\times 5$ row of squares. There is one condition defining the points $V\in \Omega_{\tiny\yng(2)}$, namely $\dim(V\cap \langle e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4\rangle) \ge 1$, where $V$ is a one-dimensional subspace of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^6$. This means that $V$ is contained in $\langle e_1,\ldots,e_4\rangle $, and so, expressed in homogeneous coordinates, its first two entries (in positions $e_5$ and $e_6$) are $0$. Thus each point of $\Omega_{\tiny\yng(2)}$ can be written in one of the following forms: $(0:0:1:\ast:\ast:\ast)$\ $(0:0:0:1:\ast:\ast)$\ $(0:0:0:0:1:\ast)$\ $(0:0:0:0:0:1)$ It follows that $\Omega_{\tiny\yng(2)}$ can be written as a disjoint union of Schubert cells as follows: $$\Omega_{\tiny\yng(2)}=\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(3)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(4)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(5)}.$$ In fact, every Schubert variety is a disjoint union of Schubert cells. See the problems at the end of this section for details. We may generalize this construction to other bases than the standard basis $e_1,\ldots,e_n$, or more rigorously, using any *complete flag*. A **complete flag** is a chain of subspaces $$F_{\bullet}: 0=F_0\subset F_1\subset\cdots \subset F_n=\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$$ where each $F_i$ has dimension $i$. Then we define $$\Omega_{\lambda}(F_\bullet)=\{V\in \operatorname{Gr}(n,k)\mid \dim(V\cap F_{n-k+i-\lambda_i})\ge i\}$$ and similarly for $\Omega^\circ_\lambda$. The Schubert variety $\Omega_{\square}(F_\bullet)\subset \operatorname{Gr}(4,2)$ consists of the $2$-dimensional subspaces $V$ of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^4$ for which $\dim(V\cap F_{2})\ge 1$. Under the quotient map $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^4\to \operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^3$, this is equivalent to space of all lines in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^3$ that intersect a given line in at least a point, which is precisely the variety we need for Question \[lines\]. A note on flags --------------- Why are chains of subspaces called *flags*? Roughly speaking, a flag on a flagpole consists of: - A point (the top of the pole), - A line passing through that point (the pole), - A plane passing through that line (the plane containing the flag), and - Space to put it in. Mathematically, this is the data of a *complete flag* in three dimensions. However, higher-dimensional beings would require more complicated flags. So in general, it is natural to define a complete flag in $n$-dimensional space $\mathbb{C}^n$ to be a chain of vector spaces $F_i$ of each dimension from $0$ to $n$, each containing the previous, with $\dim(F_i)=i$ for all $i$. A **partial flag** is a chain of subspaces in which only some of the possible dimensions are included. Problems -------- 1. **Projective space is a Grassmannian:** Show that every projective space $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^m$ is a Grassmannian. What are $n$ and $k$? 2. **Schubert cells in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^m$:** What are the Schubert cells in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^m$? Express your answer in homogeneous coordinates. 3. **Schubert varieties in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^m$:** What are the Schubert varieties in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^m$, thought of as a Grassmannian? Why are they the closures of the Schubert cells in the topology on $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^m$? 4. **Schubert varieties vs. Schubert cells:** Show that every Schubert variety is a disjoint union of Schubert cells. Describe which Schubert cells are contained in $\Omega_\lambda$ in terms of partitions. 5. **Extreme cases:** Describe $\Omega_{\emptyset}$ and $\Omega_{B}$ where $B$ is the entire ambient rectangle. What are their dimensions? 6. \[previous\] **Intersecting Schubert Varieties:** Show that, by choosing four different flags $F^{(1)}_{\bullet}$, $F^{(2)}_{\bullet}$, $F^{(3)}_{\bullet}$, $F^{(4)}_{\bullet}$, Question \[lines\] becomes equivalent to finding the intersection of the Schubert varieties $$\Omega_{\square}(F^{(1)}_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\square}(F^{(2)}_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\square}(F^{(3)}_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\square}(F^{(4)}_\bullet).$$ 7. **A Variety of Varieties:** Translate the simple intersection problems of lines passing through two points, points contained in two lines, and so on into problems about intersections of Schubert varieties, as we did for Question \[lines\] in Problem \[previous\] above. What does Question \[complicated\] become? 8. \[2-planes\] **More complicated flag conditions:** In $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^4$, let $2$-planes $A$ and $B$ intersect in a point $X$, and let $P$ and $Q$ be distinct points different from $X$. Let $S$ be the set of all $2$-planes $C$ that contain both $P$ and $Q$ and intersect $A$ and $B$ each in a line. Express $S$ as an intersection of Schubert varieties in $\operatorname{Gr}(5,3)$, in each of the following cases: 1. When $P$ is contained in $A$ and $Q$ is contained in $B$; 2. When neither $P$ nor $Q$ lie on $A$ or $B$. Variation 1: Intersections of Schubert varieties in the Grassmannian {#sec:variation1} ==================================================================== In the previous section, we saw how to express certain linear intersection problems as intersections of Schubert varieties in a Grassmannian. We now will build up the machinery needed to obtain a combinatorial rule for computing these intersections, known as the **Littlewood-Richardson rule**. Both the geometric and combinatorial aspects of the Littlewood-Richardson rule are fairly complicated to prove, and we refer the reader to [@Fulton] for complete proofs. In this exposition we will focus more on the applications and intuition behind the rule. The Littlewood-Richardson rule is particularly nice in the case of zero-dimensional intersections. In particular, given a list of generic flags $F^{(i)}_\bullet$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$, let $\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}$ be partitions with $$\sum |\lambda^{i}|=k(n-k).$$ Then the intersection $$\bigcap \Omega_{\lambda^{i}}(F^{(i)}_\bullet)$$ is zero-dimensional, consisting of exactly $c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}}$ points of $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$, where $B$ is the ambient rectangle and $c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}}$ is a certain **Littlewood-Richardson coefficient**, defined in Section \[sec:LRrule\]. When we refer to a “generic” choice of flags, we mean that we are choosing from an open dense subset of the *flag variety*. This will be made more precise in Section \[sec:variation2\]. In general, the Littlewood Richardson rule computes products of Schubert classes in the cohomology ring of the Grassmannian, described in Section \[sec:cohomology\] below, which corresponds with (not necessarily zero-dimensional) intersections of Schubert varieties. To gain intuition for these intersections, we follow [@Fulton] and first simplify even further, to the case of two flags that intersect *transversely*. Opposite and transverse flags, genericity ----------------------------------------- Two subspaces of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ are said to be *transverse* if their intersection has the “expected dimension”. For instance, two $2$-dimensional subspaces of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^3$ are expected to have a $1$-dimensional intersection; only rarely is their intersection $2$-dimensional (when the two planes coincide). More rigorously: Two subspaces $V$ and $W$ of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ are **transverse** if $$\dim(V\cap W)=\max(0, \dim(V) +\dim(W) -n).$$ Equivalently, if $\mathrm{codim}(V)$ is defined to be $n-\dim(V)$, then $$\mathrm{codim}(V\cap W)=\min(n,\mathrm{codim}(V)+\mathrm{codim}(W)).$$ Verify that the two definitions above are equivalent. We say two flags $F^{(1)}_\bullet$ and $F^{(2)}_\bullet$ are **transverse** if every pair of subspaces $F^{(1)}_i$ and $F^{(2)}_j$ are transverse. In fact, a weaker condition suffices: \[lem:opposite\] Two complete flags $F_\bullet,E_\bullet\subset \operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ are transverse if and only if $F_{n-i}\cap E_i=\{0\}$ for all $i$. The forward direction is clear. For the reverse implication, we can take the quotient of both flags by the one-dimensional subspace $E_1$ and induct on $n$. Define the **standard flag** $F_\bullet$ to be the flag in which $F_i=\langle e_1,\ldots, e_i\rangle $, and similarly define the **opposite flag** $E_\bullet$ by $E_i=\langle e_n,\ldots, e_{n-i+1} \rangle$. It is easy to check that these flags $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ are transverse. Furthermore, we shall see that every pair of transverse flags can be mapped to this pair, as follows. Consider the action of $\operatorname{GL}_n(\operatorname{\mathbb{C}})$ on $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ by standard matrix multiplication, and note that this gives rise to an action on flags and subspaces, and subsequently on Schubert varieties as well. \[lem:transverse\] For any pair of transverse flags $F'_\bullet$ and $E'_\bullet$, there is an element $g\in \operatorname{GL}_n$ such that $gF'_\bullet=F_\bullet$ and $gE'_\bullet=E_\bullet$, where $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ are the standard and opposite flags. The proof of this lemma is left as an exercise to the reader (see the Problems section below). The important corollary is that to understand the intersection of the Schubert varieties $\Omega_{\lambda}(F'_\bullet)$ and $\Omega_{\mu}(E'_\bullet)$, it suffices to compute the intersection $\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\lambda}(E_\bullet)$ and multiply the results by the appropriate matrix $g$. So, when we consider the intersection of two Schubert varieties with respect to transverse flags, it suffices to consider the standard and opposite flags $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$. We use this principle in the **duality theorem** below, which tells us exactly when the intersection of $\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)$ and $\Omega_{\mu}(E_\bullet)$ is nonempty. Duality theorem --------------- Two partitions $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k)$ and $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k)$ are **complementary** in the $k\times (n-k)$ ambient rectangle if and only if $\lambda_i+\mu_{k+1-i}=n-k$ for all $i$. In this case we write $\mu^c=\lambda$. In other words, if we rotate the Young diagram of $\mu$ and place it in the lower right corner of the ambient rectangle, its complement is $\lambda$. Below, we see that $\mu=(3,2)$ is the complement of $\lambda=(4,2,1)$ in $\operatorname{Gr}(7,3)$.  Let $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ be transverse flags in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$, and let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be partitions with $|\lambda|+|\mu|=k(n-k)$. In $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$, the intersection $\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\mu}(E_\bullet)$ has $1$ element if $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are complementary partitions, and is empty otherwise. Furthermore, if $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are any partitions with $\mu_{k+1-i}+\lambda_i>n-k$ for some $i$ then $\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\mu}(E_\bullet)=\emptyset$. We can use a reversed form of row reduction to express the Schubert varieties with respect to the opposite flag, and then the Schubert cells for the complementary partitions will have their $1$’s in the same positions, as in the example below. Their unique intersection will be precisely this matrix of $1$’s with $0$’s elsewhere. $$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \ast & \ast & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & \ast & 0 & \ast & \ast & 0 \\ \end{array}\right] \hspace{2cm} \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc} \ast & 0 & \ast & 0 & \ast & \ast & 1 \\ \ast & 0 & \ast & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \ast & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array}\right]$$ We now give a more rigorous proof below, which follows that in [@Fulton] but with a few notational differences. We prove the second claim first: if for some $i$ we have $\mu_{k+1-i}+\lambda_i>n-k$ then $\Omega_{\lambda}(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_\mu(E_\bullet)$ is empty. Assume for contradiction that there is a subspace $V$ in the intersection. We know $\dim(V)=k$, and also $$\label{eqn1} \dim(V\cap \langle e_1,e_2,\ldots, e_{n-k+i-\lambda_i} \rangle)\ge i,$$ $$\dim(V\cap \langle e_{n},e_{n-1},\ldots, e_{n+1-(n-k+(k+1-i)-\mu_{k+1-i})} \rangle)\ge k+1-i.$$ Simplifying the last subscript above, and reversing the order of the generators, we get $$\label{eqn2} \dim(V\cap \langle e_{i+\mu_{k+1-i}},\ldots, e_{n-1},e_n\rangle)\ge k+1-i.$$ Notice that $i+\mu_{k+1-i}>n-k+i-\lambda_i$ by the condition $\mu_{k+1-i}+\lambda_i>n-k$, so the two subspaces we are intersecting with $V$ in equations (\[eqn1\]) and (\[eqn2\]) are disjoint. It follows that $V$ has dimension at least $k+1-i+i=k+1$, a contradiction. Thus $\Omega_{\lambda}(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_\mu(E_\bullet)$ is empty in this case. Thus, if $|\lambda|+|\mu|=k(n-k)$ and $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are not complementary, then the intersection is empty as well, since the inequality $\mu_{k+1-i}+\lambda_i>n-k$ must hold for some $i$. Finally, suppose $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are complementary. Then equations (\[eqn1\]) and (\[eqn2\]) still hold, but now $n-k+i-\lambda_i=i+\mu_{n+1-i}$ for all $i$. Thus $\dim(V\cap\langle e_{i+\mu_{n+1-i}}\rangle)=1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k$, and since $V$ is $k$-dimensional it must equal the span of these basis elements, namely $$V=\langle e_{1+\mu_n},e_{2+\mu_{n-1}},\ldots e_{k+\mu_{n+1-k}} \rangle.$$ This is the unique solution. We now can give a rather high-powered proof that there is a unique line passing through any two distinct points in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^n$. As before, we work in one higher dimensional affine space and consider $2$-planes in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$. Working in $\operatorname{Gr}(n+1,2)$, the two distinct points become two distinct one-dimensional subspaces $F_1$ and $E_1$ of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$, and the Schubert condition that demands the $2$-dimensional subspace $V$ contains them is $$\dim(V\cap F_1)\ge 1,\hspace{1cm} \dim(V\cap E_1)\ge 1.$$ These are the Schubert conditions for a single-part partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1)$ where $(n+1)-2+1-\lambda_1=1$. Thus $\lambda_1=n-1$, and we are intersecting the Schubert varieties $$\Omega_{(n-1)}(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{(n-1)}(E_\bullet)$$ where $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ are any two transverse flags extending $F_1$ and $E_1$. Notice that $(n-1)$ and $(n-1)$ are complementary partitions in the $2\times (n-1)$ ambient rectangle (see Figure \[fig:two-row\]), so by the Duality Theorem there is a unique point of $\operatorname{Gr}(n+1,2)$ in the intersection. The conclusion follows. ![\[fig:two-row\] Two complimentary partitions of size $n-1$ filling the $n-1\times 2$ rectangle.](2-row.pdf) Cell complex structure ---------------------- In order to prove the more general zero-dimensional Littlewood-Richardson rule and compute the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients, we need to develop more heavy machinery. In particular, we need to understand the Grassmannian as a geometric object and compute its **cohomology**, an associated ring in which multiplication of certain generators will correspond to intersection of Schubert varieties. (See [@Hatcher] for more details on all of the material in this section.) The term *Schubert cell* comes from the notion of a **cell complex** (also known as a CW complex) in algebraic topology. An **$n$-cell** is a topological space homeomorphic to the open ball $|v|<1$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^n$, and its associated **$n$-disk** is its closure $|v|\le 1$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^n$. To construct a cell complex, one starts with a set of points called the **$0$-skeleton** $X^0$, and then attaches $1$-disks $D$ via continuous boundary maps from the boundary $\partial D$ (which consists of two points) to $X^0$. The result is a **$1$-skeleton** $X^1$. This can then be extended to a $2$-skeleton by attaching $2$-disks $D$ via maps from the boundary $\partial D$ (which is a circle) to $X^1$. In general the $n$-skeleton $X^n$ is formed by attaching a set of $n$-disks to $X^{n-1}$ along their boundaries. More precisely, to form $X^n$ from $X^{n-1}$, we start with a collection of $n$-disks $D^n_\alpha$ and continuous attaching maps $\varphi_\alpha:\partial D_\alpha^n\to X^{n-1}$. Then $$X^n=\frac{X^{n-1}\sqcup \bigsqcup_\alpha D_\alpha^n}{\sim}$$ where $\sim$ is the identification $x\sim \varphi_\alpha(x)$ for $x\in \partial D^n_\alpha$. The cell complex is $X=\bigcup_n X^n$, which may be simply $X=X^n$ if the process stops at stage $n$. By the construction, the points of $X^0$ along with the open $i$-cells associated with the $i$-disks in $X^i$ for each $i$ are disjoint and cover the cell complex $X$. The topology is given by the rule that $A\subset X$ is open if and only if $A\cap X^n$ is open in $X^n$ for all $n$, where the topology on $X^n$ is given by the usual Euclidean topology on $\mathbb{R}^n$. \[realproj\] The real projective plane $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\mathbb{R}}$ has a cell complex structure in which $X^0=\{(0:0:1)\}$ is a single point, $X^1=X^0\sqcup \{(0:1:\ast)\}$ is topologically a circle formed by attaching a $1$-cell to the point at both ends, and then $X^2$ is formed by attaching a $2$-cell $\mathbb{R}^2$ to the circle such that the boundary wraps around the $1$-cell twice. This is because the points of the form $(1:xt:yt)$ as $t\to \infty$ and as $t\to -\infty$ both approach the same point in $X^1$, so the boundary map must be a $2$-to-$1$ mapping. The *complex* projective plane $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}}$ has a simpler cell complex structure, consisting of starting with a single point $X^0=\{(0:0:1)\}$, and then attaching a $2$-cell (a copy of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$) like a balloon to form $X^2$. A copy of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^2=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^4$ is then attached to form $X^4$. The Schubert cells give a cell complex structure on the Grassmannian. For a complete proof of this, see [@Tuomas], section 3.2. We sketch the construction below. Define the $0$-skeleton $X^0$ to be the $0$-dimensional Schubert variety $\Omega_{((n-k)^k)}$. Define $X^2$ to be $X^0$ along with the $2$-cell (since we are working over $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}$ and not $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$) given by $\Omega_{((n-k)^{k-1},n-k-1)}^\circ$, and the attaching map given by the closure in $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$. Note that the partition in this step is formed by removing a single corner square from the ambient rectangle. Then, $X^4$ is formed by attaching the two four-cells given by removing two outer corner squares in both possible ways, giving either $\Omega_{((n-k)^{k-2},n-k-1,n-k-1)}^\circ$ or $\Omega_{((n-k)^{k-1},n-k-2)}^\circ$. We can continue in this manner with each partition size to define the entire cell structure, $X^0\subset X^2\subset\cdots \subset X^{2k(n-k)}$. We have $$\operatorname{Gr}(4,2)=\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2,2)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2,1)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(1,1)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(1)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\emptyset},$$ forming a cell complex structure in which $X^0=\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2,2)}$, $X^2$ is formed by attaching $\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2,1)}$, $X^4$ is formed by attaching $\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(2)}\sqcup\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(1,1)}$, $X^6$ is formed by attaching $\Omega^\circ_{\tiny\yng(1)}$, and $X^8$ is formed by attaching $\Omega^\circ_{\emptyset}$. Cellular homology and cohomology {#sec:cohomology} -------------------------------- For a CW complex $X=X^0\subset \cdots \subset X^n$, define $$C_k=\mathbb{Z}^{\#k\text{-cells}},$$ the free abelian group generated by the $k$-cells $B_\alpha^{(k)}=(D_\alpha^{(k)})^\circ$. Define the **cellular boundary map** $d_{k+1}:C_{k+1}\to C_k$ by $$d_{k+1}(B_{\alpha}^{(k+1)})=\sum_{\beta} \mathrm{deg}_{\alpha\beta}\cdot B_{\beta}^{(k)},$$ where $\mathrm{deg}_{\alpha\beta}$ is the *degree* of the composite map $$\partial \overline{B_\alpha^{(k+1)}}\to X^k\to \overline{B_\beta^{(k)}}.$$ The first map above is the cellular attaching map from the boundary of the closure of the ball $B_\alpha^{(k+1)}$ to the $k$-skeleton, and the second map is the quotient map formed by collapsing $X^k\setminus B_\beta^{(k)}$ to a point. The composite is a map from a $k$-sphere to another $k$-sphere, which has a **degree**, whose precise definition we omit here and refer the reader to [@Hatcher], section 2.2, p. 134. As one example, the $2$-to-$1$ attaching map described in Example \[realproj\] for $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2_\mathbb{R}$ has degree $2$. It is known that the cellular boundary maps make the groups $C_k$ into a **chain complex**: a sequence of maps $$0\to C_n\xrightarrow{d_n}C_{n-1}\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}C_{n-2}\to \cdots \to C_1 \xrightarrow{d_1}C_0\to 0$$ for which $d_i\circ d_{i+1}=0$ for all $i$. This latter condition implies that the image of the map $d_{i+1}$ is contained in the kernel of $d_i$ for all $i$, and so we can consider the quotient groups $$H_i(X)=\ker(d_i)/\mathrm{im}(d_{i+1})$$ for all $i$. These quotients are abelian groups called the **cellular homology groups** of the space $X$. Recall that $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}}$ consists of a point, a $2$-cell, and a $4$-cell. So, its cellular chain complex is: $$\cdots \to 0\to 0 \to 0 \to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0 \to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0 \to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0$$ and the homology groups are $H_0=H_2=H_4=\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$, $H_1=H_3=0$. On the other hand, in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}}$, the chain complex looks like: $$0\to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0$$ where the first map $\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$ is multiplication by $2$ and the second is the $0$ map, due to the degrees of the attaching maps. It follows that $H_2=0$, $H_1=\mathbb{Z}/2\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$, and $H_0=\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$. We can now define the **cellular cohomology** by dualizing the chain complex above. In particular, define $$C^k=\mathrm{Hom}(C_k,\mathbb{Z})=\{\text{group homomorphisms } f:C_k\to \mathbb{Z}\}$$ for each $k$, and define the **coboundary maps** $d_k^\ast:C^{k-1}\to C^k$ by $$d_k^\ast f(c)=f(d_k(c))$$ for any $f\in C^k$ and $c\in C_k$. Then the coboundary maps form a **cochain complex**, and we can define the cohomology groups to be the abelian groups $$H^i(X)=\ker(d_{i+1}^\ast)/\mathrm{im}(d_i^\ast)$$ for all $i$. The cellular cochain complex for $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}}$ is $$0\to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0 \to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0 \to \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}\to 0 \to 0 \to 0 \to \cdots$$ and so the cohomology groups are $H^0=H^2=H^4=\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$, $H^1=H^3=0$. Finally, the direct sum of the cohomology groups $$H^\ast(X)=\bigoplus H^i(X)$$ has a ring structure given by the **cup product** ([@Hatcher], p. 249), which is the dual of the “cap product” ([@Hatcher], p. 239) on homology and roughly corresponds to taking intersection of cohomology classes in this setting. In particular, there is an equivalent definition of cohomology on the Grassmannian known as the *Chow ring*, in which cohomology classes in $H^\ast(X)$ are equivalence classes of algebraic subvarieties under **birational equivalence**. (See [@FultonIntersectionTheory], Sections 1.1 and 19.1.) In other words, deformations under rational families are still equivalent: in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^2$, for instance, the family of algebraic subvarieties of the form $xy-tz^2=0$ as $t\in \operatorname{\mathbb{C}}$ varies are all in one equivalence class, even as $t\to 0$ and the hyperbola degenerates into two lines. The main fact we will be using under this interpretation is the following, which we state without proof. (See [@Fulton], Section 9.4 for more details.) The cohomology ring $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$ has a $\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$-basis given by the classes $$\sigma_\lambda:=[\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)]\in H^{2|\lambda|}(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$$ for $\lambda$ a partition fitting inside the ambient rectangle. The cohomology $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$ is a graded ring, so $\sigma_\lambda\cdot \sigma_\mu\in H^{2|\lambda|+2|\mu|}(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$, and we have $$\sigma_\lambda\cdot \sigma_\mu=[\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_\mu(E_\bullet)]$$ where $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ are the standard and opposite flags. Note that $\sigma_\lambda$ is independent of the choice of flag $F_\bullet$, since any two Schubert varieties of the same partition shape are rationally equivalent via a change of basis. We can now restate the intersection problems in terms of multiplying Schubert classes. In particular, if $\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}$ are partitions with $\sum_i |\lambda^{(i)}|=k(n-k)$, then $$\sigma_{\lambda^{(1)}}\cdots \sigma_{\lambda^{(r)}}\in H^{k(n-k)}(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$$ and there is only one generator of the top cohomology group, namely $\sigma_B$ where $B$ is the ambient rectangle. This is the cohomology class of the single point $\Omega_B(F_\bullet)$ for some flag $F_\bullet$. Thus the intersection of the Schubert varieties $\Omega_{\lambda^{(1)}}(F^{(1)}_\bullet)\cap \cdots \cap \Omega_{\lambda^{(r)}}(F^{(r)}_\bullet)$ is rationally equivalent to a finite union of points, the number of which is the coefficient $c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}}$ in the expansion $$\sigma_{\lambda^{(1)}}\cdots \sigma_{\lambda^{(r)}}=c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}}\sigma_B.$$ For a sufficiently general choice of flags, the $c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(r)}}$ points in the intersection are distinct with no multiplicity. In general, we wish to understand the coefficients that we get upon multiplying Schubert classes and expressing the product back in the basis $\{\sigma_\lambda\}$ of Schubert classes. \[ExampleLines\] In Problem \[previous\], we saw that Question \[lines\] can be rephrased as computing the size of the intersection $$\Omega_{\square}(F^{(1)}_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\square}(F^{(2)}_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\square}(F^{(3)}_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\square}(F^{(4)}_\bullet)$$ for a given generic choice of flags $F^{(1)}_\bullet,\ldots, F^{(4)}_\bullet$. By the above analysis, we can further reduce this problem to computing the coefficient $c$ for which $$\sigma_{\square}\cdot \sigma_\square\cdot \sigma_\square\cdot \sigma_\square=c \cdot \sigma_{\scalebox{0.3}{\yng(2,2)}}$$ in $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(4,2))$. Connection with symmetric functions ----------------------------------- We can model the cohomology ring $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$ algebraically as a quotient of the ring of **symmetric functions**. We only cover the essentials of symmetric function theory for our purposes here, and refer the reader to Chapter 7 of [@Stanley], or the books [@Macdonald] or [@Sagan] for more details, or to [@Fulton] for the connection between $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$ and the ring of symmetric functions. The ring of *symmetric functions* $\Lambda_{\mathbb{C}}(x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ is the ring of bounded-degree formal power series $f\in \mathbb{C}[[x_1,x_2,\ldots]]$ which are symmetric under permuting the variables, that is, $$f(x_1,x_2,\ldots)=f(x_{\pi(1)},x_{\pi(1)},\ldots)$$ for any permutation $\pi:\mathbb{Z}_+\to\mathbb{Z}_+$ and $\mathrm{deg}(f)<\infty$. For instance, $x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+\cdots$ is a symmetric function of degree $2$. The most important symmetric functions for Schubert calculus are the *Schur functions*. They can be defined in many equivalent ways, from being characters of irreducible representations of $S_n$ to an expression as a ratio of determinants. We use the combinatorial definition here, and start by introducing some common terminology involving Young tableaux and partitions. A **skew shape** is the difference $\nu/\lambda$ formed by cutting out the Young diagram of a partition $\lambda$ from the strictly larger partition $\nu$. A skew shape is a **horizontal strip** if no column contains more than one box. A **semistandard Young tableau (SSYT)** of shape $\nu/\lambda$ is a way of filling the boxes of the Young diagram of $\nu/\lambda$ with positive integers so that the numbers are weakly increasing across rows and strictly increasing down columns. An SSYT has **content** $\mu$ if there are $\mu_i$ boxes labeled $i$ for each $i$. The **reading word** of the tableau is the word formed by concatenating the rows from bottom to top. The following is a semistandard Young tableau of shape $\nu/\lambda$ and content $\mu$ where $\nu=(6,5,3)$, $\lambda=(3,2)$, and $\mu=(4,2,2,1)$. Its reading word is $134223111$.  Let $\lambda$ be a partition. Given a semistandard Young tableau $T$ of shape $\lambda$, define $x^T=x_1^{m_1}x_2^{m_2}\cdots$ where $m_i$ is the number of $i$’s in $T$. The **Schur function** for a partition $\lambda$ is the symmetric function defined by $$s_\lambda=\sum_{T} x^T$$ where the sum ranges over all SSYT’s $T$ of shape $\lambda$. For $\lambda=(2,1)$, the tableaux $$\young(11,2)\hspace{0.5cm} \young(12,2) \hspace{0.5cm} \young(11,3)\hspace{0.5cm} \young(12,3)\hspace{0.5cm} \young(13,2)\hspace{0.2cm}\cdots$$ are a few of the infinitely many SSYT’s of shape $\lambda$. Thus we have $$s_{\lambda}=x_1^2x_2+x_1x_2^2+x_1^2x_3+2x_1x_2x_3+\cdots.$$ It is well-known that the Schur functions $s_\lambda$ are symmetric and form a vector space basis of $\Lambda(x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ as $\lambda$ ranges over all partitions. The key fact that we will need is that they allow us to understand the cohomology ring $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$, as follows. \[thm:isom\] There is a ring isomorphism $$H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))\operatorname{\cong}\Lambda(x_1,x_2,\ldots)/(s_\lambda| \lambda\not\subset B)$$ where $B$ is the ambient rectangle and $(s_\lambda|\lambda\not\subset B)$ is the ideal generated by the Schur functions. The isomorphism sends the Schubert class $\sigma_\lambda$ to the Schur function $s_\lambda$. This is a pivotal theorem in the study of the Grassmannian, since it allows us to compute in the cohomology ring simply by working with symmetric polynomials. In particular, multiplying Schur functions corresponds to multiplying cohomology classes, which in turn gives us information about intersections of Schubert varieties. As an approach to prove Theorem \[thm:isom\], note that sending $\sigma_\lambda$ to $s_\lambda$ is an isomorphism of the underlying vector spaces, since on the right hand side we have quotiented by the Schur functions whose partition does not fit inside the ambient rectangle. So, it remains to show that this isomorphism respects the multiplications in these rings, taking cup product to polynomial multiplication. An important first step is the **Pieri Rule**. For Schur functions, this tells us how to multiply a one-row shape by any other partition: $$s_{(r)}\cdot s_{\lambda}=\sum_{\nu/\lambda \text{ horz. strip of size }r} s_\nu.$$ We wish to show that the same relation holds for the $\sigma_\lambda$’s, that is, that $$\sigma_{(r)}\cdot \sigma_{\lambda}=\sum_{\nu/\lambda \text{ horz. strip of size }r} \sigma_\nu,$$ where the sum on the right is restricted to partitions $\nu$ fitting inside the ambient rectangle. Note that we do not need this restriction for general Schur functions, but in the cohomology ring we are considering the quotient by partitions not fitting inside the ambient rectangle, so the two expansions above are not exactly the same. Note that, by the Duality Theorem, we can multiply both sides of the above relation by $\sigma_{\mu^c}$ to extract the coefficient of $\sigma_{\mu}$ on the right hand side. So, the Pieri Rule is equivalent to the following restatement: Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be partitions with $|\lambda|+|\mu|=k(n-k)-r$. Then if $F_\bullet$, $E_\bullet$, and $H_\bullet$ are three sufficiently general flags then the intersection $$\Omega_\lambda(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{\mu}(E_\bullet) \cap \Omega_{(r)}(H_\bullet)$$ has $1$ element if $\mu^c/\lambda$ is a horizontal strip, and it is empty otherwise. We can set $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ to be the standard and opposite flags and $H_\bullet$ a generic flag distinct from $F_\bullet$ or $E_\bullet$. We can then perform a direct analysis similar to that in the Duality Theorem. See [@Fulton] for full details. Algebraically, the Pieri rule suffices to show the ring isomorphism, because the Schur functions $s_{(r)}$ and corresponding Schubert classes $\sigma_{(r)}$ form an algebraic set of generators for their respective rings. Therefore, to intersect Schubert classes we simply have to understand how to multiply Schur functions. The Littlewood-Richardson rule {#sec:LRrule} ------------------------------ The combinatorial rule for multiplying Schur functions, or Schubert classes, is called the **Littlewood-Richardson Rule**. To state it, we need to introduce a few new notions. A word $w_1w_2\cdots w_n$ (where each $w_i\in \{1,2,3,\ldots\}$) is **Yamanouchi** (or **lattice** or **ballot**) if every suffix $w_k w_{k+1}\cdots w_n$ contains at least as many letters equal to $i$ as $i+1$ for all $i$. For instance, the word $231211$ is Yamanouchi, because the suffixes $1$, $11$, $211$, $1211$, $31211$, and $231211$ each contain at least as many $1$’s as $2$’s, and at least as many $2$’s as $3$’s. A **Littlewood-Richardson tableau** is a semistandard Young tableau whose reading word is Yamanouchi. ![\[fig:LR\] An example of a skew Littlewood-Richardson tableau.](LRTableau.pdf) The example tableau in Figure \[fig:LR\] is **not** Littlewood-Richardson. Why? Can you find a tableau of that shape that is? A sequence of skew tableaux $T_1, T_2,\ldots$ form a **chain** if their shapes do not overlap and $$T_1\cup T_2\cup \cdots \cup T_i$$ is a partition shape for all $i$. We can now state the general Littlewood-Richardson rule. We will refer the reader to [@Fulton] for a proof, as the combinatorics is quite involved. \[thm:LRrule\] We have $$s_{\lambda^{(1)}}\cdot\cdots \cdot s_{\lambda^{(m)}}=\sum_{\nu} c^{\nu}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(m)}} s_\nu$$ where $c^{\nu}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(m)}}$ is the number of chains of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux of contents $\lambda^{(i)}$ with total shape $\nu$. It is worth noting that in many texts, the following corollary is the primary focus, since the above theorem can be easily derived from the $m=2$ case stated below. We have $$s_\lambda s_\mu = \sum_{\nu} c^{\nu}_{\lambda\mu}s_\nu$$ where $c^{\nu}_{\lambda\mu}$ is the number of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux of skew shape $\nu/\lambda$ and content $\mu$. By Theorem \[thm:LRrule\], $c^{\nu}_{\lambda\mu}$ is the number of chains of two Littlewood-Richardson tableaux of content $\lambda$ and $\mu$ with total shape $\nu$. The first tableau of content $\lambda$ is a straight shape tableau, so by the Yamanouchi reading word condition and the semistandard condition, the top row can only contain $1$’s. Continuing this reasoning inductively, it has only $i$’s in its $i$th row for each $i$. Therefore the first tableau in the chain is the unique tableau of shape $\lambda$ and content $\lambda$. Thus the second tableau is a Littlewood-Richardson tableau of shape $\nu/\lambda$ and content $\mu$, and the result follows. As a consequence of Theorem \[thm:LRrule\] and Theorem \[thm:isom\], in $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(n,k))$ we have $$\sigma_{\lambda^{(1)}}\cdot\cdots \cdot \sigma_{\lambda^{(m)}}=\sum_{\nu} c^{\nu}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(m)}} \sigma_\nu$$ where now the sum on the right is restricted to partitions $\nu$ fitting inside the ambient rectangle. Note that by the combinatorics of the Littlewood-Richardson rule, the coefficients on the right are nonzero only if $|\nu|=\sum |\lambda^{(i)}|$, and so in the case of a zero-dimensional intersection of Schubert varieties, the only possible $\nu$ on the right hand side is the ambient rectangle $B$ itself. Moreover, $\Omega_B(F_\bullet)$ is a single point of $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)$ for any flag $F_\bullet$. The zero-dimensional Littlewood-Richardson rule follows as a corollary. Let $B$ be the $k\times (n-k)$ ambient rectangle, and let $\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(m)}$ be partitions fitting inside $B$ such that $|B|=\sum_i |\lambda^{(i)}|$. Also let $F^{(1)}_\bullet,\ldots, F^{(m)}_\bullet$ be any $m$ generic flags. Then $$c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(m)}}:=|\Omega_{\lambda^{(1)}}(F^{(1)}_\bullet)\cap \cdots \cap \Omega_{\lambda^{(m)}}(F^{(m)}_\bullet)|$$ is equal to the number of chains of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux of contents $\lambda^{(1)},\ldots, \lambda^{(m)}$ with total shape equal to $B$. Suppose $k=3$ and $n-k=4$. Let $\lambda^{(1)}=(2,1)$, $\lambda^{(2)}=(2,1)$, $\lambda^{(3)}=(3,1)$, and $\lambda^{(4)}=2$. Then there are five different chains of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux of contents $\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(4)}$ that fill the $k\times (n-k)$ ambient rectangle, as shown in Figure \[fig:5\]. Thus $c^{B}_{\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(4)}}=5$. ![\[fig:5\] The five chains of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux of contents $\lambda^{(1)}=(2,1)$, $\lambda^{(2)}=(2,1)$, $\lambda^{(3)}=(3,1)$, and $\lambda^{(4)}=2$ filling an ambient $3\times 4$ rectangle.](LRExample.pdf) \[LinesSolved\] We can now solve Question \[lines\]. In Example \[ExampleLines\] we showed that it suffices to compute the coefficient $c$ in the expansion $$\sigma_{\square}\cdot \sigma_\square\cdot \sigma_\square\cdot \sigma_\square=c \cdot \sigma_{\scalebox{0.3}{\yng(2,2)}}$$ in $H^\ast(\operatorname{Gr}(4,2))$. This is the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient $c^{(2,2)}_{\square,\square,\square,\square}$. This is the number of ways to fill a $2\times 2$ ambient rectangle with a chain of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux having one box each. Since such a tableau can only have a single $1$ as its entry, we will label the entries with subscripts indicating the step in the chain to distinguish them. We have two possibilities, as shown in Figure \[fig:2\]. Therefore the coefficient is $2$, and so there are $2$ lines passing through four generic lines in $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^4$. ![\[fig:2\]The two tableaux chains used to enumerate the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient that answers Question \[lines\].](LRExample2.pdf) In Example \[LinesSolved\], we are in the special case in which each Littlewood-Richardson tableau in the chain has only one box, and so the only choice we have is the ordering of the boxes in a way that forms a chain. We can therefore simply represent such a tableau by its indices instead, and the two tableaux of Figure \[fig:2\] become $$\young(12,34)\hspace{0.5cm}\text{ and }\hspace{0.5cm}\young(13,24).$$ The two tableaux above are characterized by the property that the entries $1,2,3,4$ are used exactly once and the rows and columns are strictly increasing. Such a tableau is called a *standard Young tableaux*. A **standard Young tableau** of shape $\lambda$ with $|\lambda|=n$ is an SSYT of shape $\lambda$ in which the numbers $1,2,\ldots,n$ are each used exactly once. There is a well-known explicit formula, known as the **Hook length formula**, for the number of standard Young tableaux of a given shape, due to Frame, Robinson, and Thrall [@FrameRobinsonThrall]. To state it we need the following definition. For a square $s$ in a Young diagram, define the **hook length** $$\operatorname{hook}(s)=\mathrm{arm}(s)+\mathrm{leg}(s)+1$$ where $\mathrm{arm}(s)$ is the number of squares strictly to the right of $s$ in its row and $\mathrm{leg}(s)$ is the number of squares strictly below $s$ in its column. (Hook length formula.) The number of standard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ is $$\frac{|\lambda|!}{\prod_{s\in \lambda}\operatorname{hook}(s)}.$$ For example, if $\lambda=(2,2)$ then we have $\frac{4!}{3\cdot 2\cdot 2 \cdot 1}=2$ standard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$, which matches our answer in Example \[LinesSolved\]. Problems -------- 1. **Prove Lemma \[lem:transverse\]:** For any transverse flags $F'_\bullet$ and $E'_\bullet$, there is some $g\in \operatorname{GL}_n$ such that $gF'_\bullet=F_\bullet$ and $gE'_\bullet=E_\bullet$, where $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$ are the standard and opposite flags. 2. **It’s all Littlewood-Richardson:** Verify that the Duality Theorem and the Pieri Rule are both special cases of the Littlewood-Richardson rule. 3. **An empty intersection:** Show that $$\Omega_{(1,1)}(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{(2)}(E_\bullet)=\emptyset$$ in $\operatorname{Gr}(4,2)$ for transverse flags $F_\bullet$ and $E_\bullet$. What does this mean geometrically? 4. **A nonempty intersection:** Show that $$\Omega_{(1,1)}(F_\bullet)\cap \Omega_{(2)}(E_\bullet)$$ is nonempty in $\operatorname{Gr}(5,2)$. (Hint: intersecting it with a certain third Schubert variety will be nonempty by the Littlewood-Richardson rule.) What does this mean geometrically? 5. **Problem \[2-planes\] revisited:** In $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^4$, suppose the $2$-planes $A$ and $B$ intersect in a point $X$, and $P$ and $Q$ are distinct points different from $X$. Show that there is exactly one plane $C$ that contains both $P$ and $Q$ and intersect $A$ and $B$ each in a line as an intersection of Schubert varieties in $\operatorname{Gr}(5,3)$, in each of the following cases: 1. When $P$ is contained in $A$ and $Q$ is contained in $B$; 2. When neither $P$ nor $Q$ lie on $A$ or $B$. 6. **That’s a lot of $k$-planes:** Solve Question \[complicated\] for a generic choice of flags as follows. 1. Verify that the problem boils down to computing the coefficient of $s_{((n-k)^{k})}$ in the product of Schur functions $s_{(1)}^{k(n-k)}$. 2. Use the Hook Length Formula to finish the computation. Variation 2: The flag variety {#sec:variation2} ============================= For the content in this section, we refer to [@Manivel], unless otherwise noted below. The (complete) **flag variety** (in dimension $n$) is the set of all complete flags in $\mathbb{C}^n$, with a Schubert cell decomposition similar to that of the Grassmannian. In particular, given a flag $$V_{\bullet}: V_0\subset V_1\subset \cdots V_n=\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n,$$ we can choose $n$ vectors $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ such that the span of $v_1,\ldots,v_i$ is $V_i$ for each $i$, and list the vectors $v_i$ as row vectors of an $n\times n$ matrix. We can then perform certain row reduction operations to form a different ordered basis $v_1^\prime,\ldots,v_n^\prime$ that also span the subspaces of the flag, but whose matrix entries consist of a permutation matrix of $1$’s, all $0$’s to the left and below each $1$, and arbitrary complex numbers in all other entries. For instance, say we start with the flag in three dimensions generated by the vectors $(0,2,3)$, $(1, 1, 4)$, and $(1, 2, -3)$. The corresponding matrix is $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 1 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & -3\end{array}\right).$$ We start by finding the leftmost nonzero element in the first row and scale that row so that this element is $1$. Then subtract multiples of this row from the rows below it so that all the entries below that $1$ are $0$. Continue the process on all further rows: $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 1 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & -3\end{array}\right) \to \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1 & 1.5 \\ 1 & 0 & 2.5 \\ 1 & 0 & -6\end{array}\right)\to \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1 & 1.5 \\ 1 & 0 & 2.5 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)$$ It is easy to see that this process does not change the flag formed by the initial row spans, and that any two matrices in canonical form define different flags. So, the flag variety is a cell complex consisting of $n!$ **Schubert cells** indexed by permutations. For instance, one such open set in the $5$-dimensional flag variety is the open set given by all matrices of the form $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1 & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ 1 & 0 & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & \ast & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ We call this cell $X_{45132}^\circ$ because $4,5,1,3,2$ are the positions of the $1$’s from the right hand side of the matrix in order from top to bottom. More rigorously, we define a Schubert cell as follows. Let $w\in S_n$ be a permutation of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Then the **Schubert cell** of $w$ is defined by $$X_w^\circ=\{V_\bullet\in \operatorname{Fl}_n:\dim(V_p\cap F_q)=\#\{i\le p:w(i)\le q\} \text{ for all }p,q\}$$ where $F_\bullet$ is the standard flag generated by the unit vectors $e_{n+1-i}$. In the matrix form above, the columns are ordered from right to left as before. Note that, as in the case of the Grassmannian, we can choose a different flag $F_\bullet$ with respect to which we define our Schubert cell decomposition, and we define $X_w^\circ(F_\bullet)$ accordingly. The dimension of a Schubert cell $X_w$ is the number of $\ast$’s in its matrix, that is, the number of entries above and right of the pivot $1$ in its row and column. The maximum number of $\ast$’s occurs when the permutation is $w_0=n(n-1)\cdots 3 2 1$, in which case the dimension of the open set $X_{w_0}$ is $n(n-1)/2$ (or $n(n-1)$ over $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$). In general, it is not hard to see that the number of $\ast$’s in the set $X_w$ is the **inversion number** $\operatorname{inv}(w)$. This is defined to be the number of pairs of entries $(w(i),w(j))$ of $w$ which are out of order, that is, $i<j$ and $w(i)>w(j)$. Thus we have $$\dim(X_w^\circ)=\operatorname{inv}(w).$$ The permutation $w=45132$ has seven inversions. (Can you find them all?) We also see that $\dim(X_w^\circ)=7$, since there are seven $\ast$ entries in the matrix. Another useful way to think of $\operatorname{inv}(w)$ is in terms of its **length**. Define $s_1,\ldots,s_{n-1}\in S_n$ to be the *adjacent transpositions* in the symmetric group, that is, $s_i$ is the permutation interchanging $i$ and $i+1$. Then the **length** of $w$, written $\ell(w)$, is the smallest number $k$ for which there exists a decomposition $$w=s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_k}.$$ We have $\ell(w)=\operatorname{inv}(w)$ for any $w\in S_n$. We will leave the proof of this lemma as an exercise to the reader in the Problems Section. Schubert varieties and the Bruhat order --------------------------------------- By using the Plücker embeddings $\operatorname{Gr}(n,k)\hookrightarrow \operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^{\binom{n}{k}-1}$ for each $k$, we can embed $\operatorname{Fl}_n$ into the larger projective space $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^{2^n-1}$ whose entries correspond to the Plücker coordinates of each of the initial $k\times n$ submatrices of a given element of the flag variety. This makes $\operatorname{Fl}_n$ a projective subvariety of $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}^{2^n-1}$ (see [@Fulton] for more details), which in turn gives rise to a topology on $\operatorname{Fl}_n$, known as the Zariski topology. Now, consider the closures of the sets $X_w^\circ$ in this topology. The **Schubert variety** corresponding to a permutation $w\in S_n$ is $$X_w=\overline{X_w^\circ}.$$ As in the Grassmannian, these Schubert varieties turn out to be disjoint unions of Schubert cells. The partial ordering in which $X_w=\sqcup_{v\le w} X_v^\circ$ is called the **Bruhat order**, a well-known partial order on permutations. We will briefly review it here, but we refer to [@BjornerBrenti] for an excellent introduction to Bruhat order. The **Bruhat order** $\le$ on $S_n$ is defined by $v\le w$ if and only if, for every representation of $w$ as a product of $l(w)$ transpositions $s_i$, one can remove $l(w)-l(v)$ of the transpositions to obtain a representation of $v$ as a subword in the same relative order. The permutation $w=45132$ can be written as $s_2s_3s_2s_1s_4s_3s_2$. This contains $s_3s_2s_3=14325$ as a (non-consecutive) subword, and so $14325\le 45132$. Intersections and Duality ------------------------- Now suppose we wish to answer incidence questions about our flags: which flags satisfy certain linear constraints? As in the case of the Grassmannian, this boils down to understanding how the Schubert varieties $X_w$ intersect. We start with the Duality Theorem for $\operatorname{Fl}_n$. Following [@Fulton], it will be convenient to define dual Schubert varieties as follows. Let $E_\bullet$ be the standard and opposite flags, and for shorthand we let $X_w=X_w(F_\bullet)$ and $$Y_w=X_{w_0\cdot w}(E_\bullet)$$ where $w_0=n(n-1)\cdots 1$ is the longest word. The set $Y_w$ is often called a **dual Schubert variety**. Notice that $$\dim(Y_w)=\operatorname{inv}(w_0\cdot w)=n(n-1)/2-\operatorname{inv}(w)$$ since if $w'=w_0\cdot w$ then $w'(i)=n+1-w(i)$ for all $i$. If $l(w)= l(v)$, we have $X_w\cap Y_v=\emptyset$ if $w\neq v$ and $|X_w\cap Y_v|=1$ if $w=v$. Furthermore, if $l(w)<l(v)$ then $X_w\cap Y_v=\emptyset$. The proof works similarly to the Duality Theorem in the Grassmannian. In particular, with respect to the standard basis, the dual Schubert variety $Y_w$ is formed by the same permutation matrix of $1$’s as in $X_w$, but with the $0$ entries below and to the *right* of the $1$’s (and $\ast$ entries elsewhere). For instance, we have $$X_{45132}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1 & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ 1 & 0 & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & \ast & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right), \hspace{2cm} Y_{45132}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} \ast & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \ast & \ast & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ and their intersection contains only the permutation matrix determined by $w=45132$. Schubert polynomials and the cohomology ring -------------------------------------------- In order to continue our variation on the theme, it would be natural at this point to look for a Pieri rule or a Littlewood-Richardson rule. But just as the cohomology ring of the Grassmannian and the Schur functions made those rules more natural, we now turn to **Schubert polynomials** and the cohomology ring $H^\ast(\operatorname{Fl}_n)$ over $\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$. This ring has a natural interpretation as a quotient of a polynomial ring. In particular, letting $\sigma_w$ be the cohomology class of $Y_w$, we have $\sigma_w\in H^{2i}(\operatorname{Fl}_n)$ where $i=\operatorname{inv}(w)$. For the transpositions $s_i$, we have $\sigma_{s_i}\in H^2(\operatorname{Fl}_n)$. The elements $x_i=\sigma_{s_i}-\sigma_{s_{i+1}}$ for $i\le n-1$ and $x_n=-\sigma_{s_{n-1}}$ gives a set of generators for the cohomology ring, and in fact $$H^\ast(\operatorname{Fl}_n)=\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/(e_1,\ldots,e_n)=:R_n$$ where $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ are the elementary symmetric polynomials in $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. (See [@Fulton] or [@BGG].) The ring $R_n$ is known as the **coinvariant ring** and arises in many geometric and combinatorial contexts. Often defined over a field $k$ rather than $\mathbb{Z}$, its dimension as a $k$-vector space (or rank as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module) is $n!$. There are many natural bases for $R_n$ of size $n!$, such as the monomial basis given by $$\{x_1^{a_1}\cdots x_n^{a_n}: a_i\le n-i\text{ for all }i\}$$ (see, for instance [@GarsiaProcesi]), the harmonic polynomial basis (see [@Bergeron], Section 8.4) and the Schubert basis described below. There are also many famous generalizations of the coinvariant ring, such as the Garsia-Procesi modules [@GarsiaProcesi] and the diagonal coinvariants (see [@Bergeron], Chapter 10), which are closely tied to the study of Macdonald polynomials in symmetric function theory [@Macdonald]. The Schubert polynomials form a basis of $R_n$ whose product corresponds to the intersection of Schubert varieties. To define them, we require a divided difference operator. For any polynomial $P(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, we define $$\partial_i(P)=\frac{P-s_i(P)}{x_i-x_{i+1}}$$ where $s_i(P)=P(x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},x_i,x_{i+2},\ldots,x_n)$ is the polynomial formed by switching $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ in $P$. We can use these operators to recursively define the Schubert polynomials. \[def:Schubert\] We define the Schubert polynomials $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_w$ for $w\in S_n$ by: - $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_{w_0}=x_1^{n-1}x_2^{n-2}\cdots x_{n-2}^2 x_{n-1}$ where $w_0=n(n-1)\cdots 21$ is the longest permutation, - If $w\neq w_0$, find a minimal factoriation of the form $w=w_0\cdot s_{i_1}\cdot \cdots s_{i_r}$ is a minimal factorization of its form, that is, a factorization for which $\ell(w_0\cdot s_{i_1}\cdot \cdots s_{i_p})=n-p$ for all $1\le p\le r$. Then $$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_w=\partial_{i_r}\circ \partial_{i_{r-1}}\circ \cdots \circ \partial_{i_1}(\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_{w_0})$$ \[rem:braid\] One can show that the operators $\partial_i$ satisfy the two relations below. - **Commutation Relation:** $\partial_i\partial_j=\partial_j\partial_i$ for any $i,j$ with $|i-j|>1$, - **Braid Relation:** $\partial_i\partial_{i+1}\partial_i=\partial_{i+1}\partial_i\partial_{i+1}$ for any $i$. Since these (along with $s_i^2=1$) generate all relations satisfied by the reflections $s_i$ (see chapter 3 of [@BjornerBrenti]), the construction in Definition \[def:Schubert\] is independent of the choice of minimal factorization. Note also that $\partial_i^2=0$, so the requirement of minimal factorizations is necessary in the definition. The Schubert polynomials’ image in $R_n$ not only form a basis of these cohomology rings, but the polynomials themselves form a basis of all polynomials in the following sense. The Schubert polynomials $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_w$ are well-defined for permutations $w\in S_\infty=\bigcup S_m$ for which $w(i)>w(i+1)$ for all $i\ge k$ for some $k$. For a fixed such $k$, these Schubert polynomials form a basis for $\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,\ldots,x_k]$. One special case of the analog of the Pieri rule for Schubert polynomials is known as **Monk’s rule**. We have $$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_{s_i}\cdot \operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_{w}=\sum \operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_v$$ where the sum ranges over all permutations $v$ obtained from $w$ by: - Choosing a pair $p,q$ of indices with $p\le i<q$ for which $w(p)<w(q)$ and for any $k$ between $p$ and $q$, $w(k)$ is not between $w(p)$ and $w(q)$, - Defining $v(p)=w(q)$, $v(q)=w(p)$ and for all other $k$, $v(k)=w(k)$. Equivalently, the sum is over all $v=w\cdot t$ where $t$ is a transposition $(pq)$ with $p\le i<q$ for which $l(v)=l(w)+1$. Interestingly, there is not a known “Littlewood-Richardson rule” that generalizes Monk’s rule, and this is an important open problem in Schubert calculus. Find a combinatorial interpretation analogous to the Littlewood-Richardson rule for the positive integer coefficients $c^{w}_{u,v}$ in the expansion $$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_u\cdot \operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_v=\sum c^{w}_{u,v}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_w,$$ and therefore for computing the intersection of Schubert varieties in $\operatorname{Fl}_n$. Similar open problems exist for other *partial flag varieties*, defined in the next sections. Two Alternative Definitions --------------------------- There are two other ways of defining the flag manifold that are somewhat less explicit but more generalizable. The group $\operatorname{GL}_n=\operatorname{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ acts on the set of flags by left multiplication on its ordered basis. Under this action, the stabilizer of the standard flag $F_\bullet$ is the subgroup $B$ consisting of all invertible upper-triangular matrices. Notice that $\operatorname{GL}_n$ acts transitively on flags via change-of-basis matrices, and so the stabilizer of any arbitrary flag is simply a conjugation $gBg^{-1}$ of $B$. We can therefore define the flag variety as the set of cosets in the quotient $\operatorname{GL}_n/B$, and define its variety structure accordingly. Alternatively, we can associate to each coset $gB$ in $\operatorname{GL}_n/B$ the subgroup $gBg^{-1}$. Since $B$ is its own *normalizer* in $G$ ($gBg^{-1}=B$ iff $g\in B$), the cosets in $\operatorname{GL}_n/B$ are in one-to-one correspondence with subgroups conjugate to $B$. We can therefore define the flag variety as the set $\mathcal{B}$ of all subgroups conjugate to $B$. Generalized flag varieties -------------------------- The notion of a “flag variety” can be extended in an algebraic way starting from the definition as $\operatorname{GL}_n/B$, to quotients of other matrix groups $G$ by certain subgroups $B$ called **Borel subgroups**. The subgroup $B$ of invertible upper-triangular matrices is an example of a Borel subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_n$, that is, a **maximal connected solvable subgroup**. It is *connected* because it is the product of the torus $(\mathbb{C}^\ast)^n$ and $\binom{n}{2}$ copies of $\mathbb{C}$. We can also show that it is *solvable*, meaning that its derived series of commutators $$\begin{aligned} B_0 & := & B, \\ B_1 & := & [B_0,B_0], \\ B_2 & := &[B_1,B_1], \\ & \vdots & \end{aligned}$$ terminates. Indeed, $[B,B]$ is the set of all matrices of the form $bcb^{-1}c^{-1}$ for $b$ and $c$ in $B$. Writing $b=(d_1+n_1)$ and $c=(d_1+n_2)$ where $d_1$ and $d_2$ are diagonal matrices and $n_1$ and $n_2$ strictly upper-triangular, it is not hard to show that $bcb^{-1}c^{-1}$ has all $1$’s on the diagonal. By a similar argument, one can show that the elements of $B_2$ have $1$’s on the diagonal and $0$’s on the off-diagonal, and $B_3$ has two off-diagonal rows of $0$’s, and so on. Thus the derived series is eventually the trivial group. In fact, a well-known theorem of Lie and Kolchin [@Kolchin] states that *all* solvable subgroups of $\operatorname{GL}_n$ consist of upper triangular matrices in some basis. This implies that $B$ is maximal as well among solvable subgroups. Therefore $B$ is a Borel subgroup. The Lie-Kolchin theorem also implies that all the Borel subgroups in $\operatorname{GL}_n$ are of the form $gBg^{-1}$ (and all such groups are Borel subgroups). That is, all Borel subgroups are conjugate. It turns out that this is true for any **semisimple linear algebraic group** $G$, that is, a matrix group defined by polynomial equations in the matrix entries, such that $G$ has no nontrivial smooth connected solvable normal subgroups. Additionally, any Borel subgroup in a semisimple linear algebraic group $G$ is its own normalizer. By an argument identical to that in the previous section, it follows that the groups $G/B$ are independent of the choice of Borel subgroup $B$ (up to isomorphism) and are also isomorphic to the set $\mathcal{B}$ of all Borel subgroups of $G$ as well. Therefore we can think of $\mathcal{B}$ as an algebraic variety by inheriting the structure from $G/B$ for any Borel subgroup $B$. Finally, we can define a generalized flag variety as follows. The **flag variety** of a semisimple linear algebraic group $G$ to be $G/B$ where $B$ is a Borel subgroup. Some classical examples of such linear algebraic groups are the special linear group $SL_n$, the special orthogonal group $SO_n$ of orthogonal $n\times n$ matrices, and the symplectic group $SP_{2n}$ of symplectic matrices. We will explore a related quotient of the special orthogonal group $SO_{2n+1}$ in Section \[sec:variation3\]. We now define partial flag varieties, another generalization of the complete flag variety. Recall that a **partial flag** is a sequence $F_{i_1}\subset \cdots \subset F_{i_r}$ of subspaces of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ with $\dim(F_{i_j})=i_j$ for all $j$. Notice that a $k$-dimensional subspace of $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^n$ can be thought of as a partial flag consisting of a single subspace $F_k$. It is not hard to show that all **partial flag varieties**, the varieties of partial flags of certain degrees, can be defined as a quotient $G/P$ for a **parabolic subgroup** $P$, namely a closed intermediate subgroup $B\subset P\subset G$. The Grassmannian $\mathrm{Gr}(n,k)$, then, can be thought of as the quotient of $\mathrm{GL}_n$ by the parabolic subgroup $S=\mathrm{Stab}(V)$ where $V$ is any fixed $k$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{C}^n$. Similarly, we can start with a different algebraic group, say the special orthogonal group $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}$, and quotient by parabolic subgroups to get partial flag varieties of other types. Problems -------- 1. **Reflection length equals inversion number:** Show that $l(w)=\operatorname{inv}(w)$ for any $w\in S_n$. 2. **Practice makes perfect:** Write out all the Schubert polynomials for permutations in $S_3$ and $S_4$. 3. **Braid relations:** Verify that the operators $\partial_i$ satisfy the braid relations as stated in Remark \[rem:braid\]. 4. **The product rule for Schubert calculus:** Prove that $\partial_i(P\cdot Q)=\partial_i(P)\cdot Q+s_i(P)\cdot \partial_i(Q)$ for any two polynomials $P$ and $Q$. 5. **Divided difference acts on $R_n$:** Use the previous problem to show that the operator $\partial_i$ maps the ideal generated by elementary symmetric polynomials to itself, and hence the operator descends to a map on the quotient $R_n$. 6. **Schubert polynomials as a basis:** Prove that if $w\in S_\infty$ satisfies $w(i)>w(i+1)$ for all $i\ge k$ then $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}_w\in \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,\ldots,x_k]$. Show that they form a basis of the polynomial ring as well. Variation 3: The orthogonal Grassmannian {#sec:variation3} ======================================== In the previous section, we saw that we can interpret the Grassmannian as a partial flag variety. We can generalize this construction to other matrix groups $G$, hence defining Grassmannians in other Lie types. We will explore one of these Grassmannians as our final variation. The **orthogonal Grassmannian** $\mathrm{OG}(2n+1,k)$ is the quotient $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}/P$ where $P$ is the stabilizer of a fixed **isotropic** $k$-dimensional subspace $V$. The term *isotropic* means that $V$ satisfies $\langle v,w\rangle=0$ for all $v,w\in V$ with respect to a chosen symmetric bilinear form $\langle,\rangle$. The isotropic condition, at first glance, seems very unnatural. After all, how could a nonzero subspace possibly be orthogonal to itself? Well, it is first important to note that we are working over $\mathbb{C}$, not $\mathbb{R}$, and the bilinear form is symmetric, not conjugate-symmetric. In particular, suppose we define the bilinear form to be the usual dot product $$\langle (a_1,\ldots,a_{2n+1}),(b_1,\ldots,b_{2n+1})\rangle=a_1b_1+a_2b_2+\cdots+a_{2n+1}b_{2n+1}$$ in $\mathbb{C}^{2n+1}$. Then in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^3$, the vector $(3,5i,4)$ is orthogonal to itself: $3\cdot 3+5i\cdot 5i+4\cdot 4=0$. While the choice of symmetric bilinear form does not change the fundamental geometry of the orthogonal Grassmannian, one choice in particular makes things easier to work with in practice: the “reverse dot product” given by $$\langle (a_1,\ldots,a_{2n+1}),(b_1,\ldots,b_{2n+1})\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{2n+1} a_ib_{2n+1-i}.$$ In particular, with respect to this symmetric form, the standard complete flag $F_\bullet$ is an **orthogonal flag**, with $F_i^\perp=F_{2n+1-i}$ for all $i$. Orthogonal flags are precisely the type of flags that are used to define Schubert varieties in the orthogonal Grassmannian. Note that isotropic subspaces are sent to other isotropic subspaces under the action of the orthorgonal group: if $\langle v,w\rangle=0$ then $\langle Av,Aw\rangle=\langle v,w\rangle=0$ for any $A\in \mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}$. Thus the orthogonal Grassmannian $\mathrm{OG}(2n+1,k)$, which is the quotient $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}/\mathrm{Stab}(V)$, can be interpreted as the variety of all $k$-dimensional isotropic subspaces of $\mathbb{C}^{2n+1}$. Schubert varieties and row reduction in $\mathrm{OG}(2n+1,n)$ ------------------------------------------------------------- Just as in the ordinary Grassmannian, there is a Schubert cell decomposition for the orthogonal Grassmannian. The combinatorics of Schubert varieties is particularly nice in the case of $\mathrm{OG}(2n+1,n)$ in which the orthogonal subspaces are “half dimension” $n$. (See the introduction of [@ThomasYong] or the book [@Green] for more details.) In $\operatorname{Gr}(2n+1,n)$, the Schubert varieties are indexed by partitions $\lambda$ whose Young diagram fit inside the $n\times (n+1)$ ambient rectangle. Suppose we divide this rectangle into two staircases as shown below using the blue cut, and only consider the partitions $\lambda$ that are symmetric with respect to the reflective map taking the upper staircase to the lower.  We claim that the Schubert varieties of the orthogonal Grassmannian are indexed by the **shifted partitions** formed by ignoring the lower half of these symmetric partition diagrams. We define the **ambient triangle** to be the half of the ambient rectangle above the staircase cut. A **shifted partition** is a strictly-decreasing sequence of positive integers, $\lambda=(\lambda_1 > \ldots > \lambda_k)$. We write $|\lambda|=\sum \lambda_i$. The **shifted Young diagram** of $\lambda$ is the partial grid in which the $i$-th row contains $\lambda_i$ boxes and is shifted to the right $i$ steps. Below is the shifted Young diagram of the shifted partition $(3,1)$, drawn inside the ambient triangle from the example above.  Let $F_\bullet$ be an orthogonal flag in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^{2n+1}$, and let $\lambda$ be a shifted partition. Then the **Schubert variety** $X_\lambda(F_\bullet)$ is defined by $$X_\lambda(F_\bullet)=\{W \in \mathrm{OG}(2n+1,n): \mathrm{dim}(W\cap F_{n+1+i-\overline{\lambda}_i})\ge i\text{ for } i=1,\ldots,n\}$$ where $\overline{\lambda}$ is the “doubled partition” formed by reflecting the shifted partition about the staircase. In other words, the Schubert varieties consist of the isotropic elements of the ordinary Schubert varieties, giving a natural embedding $\mathrm{OG}(2n+1,n)\to \mathrm{Gr}(2n+1,n)$ that respects the Schubert decompositions: $$X_{\lambda}(F_\bullet) =\Omega_{\overline{\lambda}}(F_\bullet)\cap \mathrm{OG}(2n+1,n).$$ To get a sense of how this works, consider the example of $\lambda=(3,1)$ and $\overline{\lambda}=(4,3,1)$ shown above, in the case $n=4$. The Schubert cell $\Omega_{\overline{\lambda}}^{\circ}$ in $\operatorname{Gr}(9,4)$ looks like  Now, which of these spaces are isotropic? Suppose we label the starred entries as shown, omitting the $0$ entries:  We will show that the entries $l,j,k,h,i,e$ are all uniquely determined by the values of the remaining variables $a,b,c,d,f,g$. Thus there is one isotropic subspace in this cell for each choice of values $a,b,c,d,f,g$, corresponding to the “lower half” of the partition diagram we started with, namely . To see this, let the rows of the matrix be labeled $\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2},\mathbf{3},\mathbf{4}$ from top to bottom as shown, and suppose its row span is isotropic. Since row $\mathbf{1}$ and $\mathbf{4}$ are orthogonal with respect to the reverse dot product, we get the relation $$l+a=0,$$ which expresses $l=-a$ in terms of $a$. Rows $\mathbf{2}$ and $\mathbf{4}$ are also orthogonal, which means that $$b+k=0,$$ so we can similarly eliminate $k$. From rows $\mathbf{2}$ and $\mathbf{3}$, we obtain $f+j=0$, which expresses $j$ in terms of the lower variables. We then pair row $\mathbf{3}$ with itself to see that $h+g^2=0$, eliminating $h$, and finally pairing $\mathbf{3}$ with $\mathbf{4}$ we have $i+gc+d=0$, so $i$ is now expressed in terms of lower variables as well. Moreover, these are the only relations we get from the isotropic condition - any other pairings of rows give the trivial relation $0=0$. So in this case the Schubert variety restricted to the orthogonal Grassmannian has half the dimension of the original, generated by the possible values for $a,b,c,d,f,g$. General elimination argument ---------------------------- Why does the elimination process work for any symmetric shape $\lambda$? Label the steps of the boundary path of $\lambda$ by $1,2,3,\ldots$ from SW to NE in the lower left half, and label them from NE to SW in the upper right half, as shown:  Then the labels on the vertical steps in the lower left half give the column indices of the $1$’s in the corresponding rows of the matrix. The labels on the horizontal steps in the upper half, which match these labels by symmetry, give the column indices *from the right* of the corresponding starred columns from right to left.  This means that the $1$’s in the lower left of the matrix correspond to the opposite columns of those containing letters in the upper right half. It follows that we can use the orthogonality relations to pair a $1$ (which is leftmost in its row) with a column entry in a higher or equal row so as to express that entry in terms of other letters to its lower left. The $1$ is in a lower or equal row in these pairings precisely for the entries whose corresponding square lies above the staircase cut. Thus we can always express the upper right variables in terms of the lower left, as in our example above. Shifted tableaux and a Littlewood-Richardson rule ------------------------------------------------- The beauty of shifted partitions is that so much of the original tableaux combinatorics that goes into ordinary Schubert calculus works almost the same way for shifted tableaux and the orthogonal Grassmannian. We define these notions rigorously below. A **shifted semistandard Young tableau** is a filling of the boxes of a shifted skew shape with entries from the alphabet $\{1'<1<2'<2<3'<3<\cdots \}$ such that the entries are weakly increasing down columns and across rows, and such that primed entries can only repeat in columns, and unprimed only in rows. The **reading word** of such a tableau is the word formed by concatenating the rows from bottom to top. The **content** of $T$ is the vector $\mathrm{content}(T) = (n_1, n_2, \ldots)$, where $n_i$ is the total number of $(i)$s and $(i')$s in $T$. See Figure \[fig:shifted\] for an example. ![\[fig:shifted\]The tableau above is a shifted semistandard tableau of shape $\lambda/\mu$ where $\lambda=(6,4,2,1)$ and $\mu=(3,2)$, and content $(5,2,1)$. Its reading word is $3111'21'12'$. ](shifted-semistandard.pdf) In this setting, there are actually two analogs of “Schur functions” that arise from these semistandard tableaux. They are known as the Schur $P$-functions and Schur $Q$-functions. Let $\lambda/\mu$ be a shifted skew shape. Define $\mathrm{ShST}_Q(\lambda/\mu)$ to be the set of all shifted semistandard tableaux of shape $\lambda/\mu$. Define $\mathrm{ShST}_P(\lambda/\mu)$ to be the set of those tableaux in which primes are not allowed on the staircase diagonal. \[def:SchurQ\] The **Schur $Q$-function** $Q_{\lambda/\mu}$ is defined as $$Q_{\lambda/\mu}(x_1,x_2,\ldots)=\sum_{T\in \mathrm{ShST}_Q(\lambda/\mu)} x^{\mathrm{wt}(T)}$$ and the **Schur $P$-function** $P_{\lambda/\mu}$ is defined as $$P_{\lambda/\mu}(x_1,x_2,\ldots)=\sum_{T\in \mathrm{ShST}_P(\lambda/\mu)} x^{\mathrm{wt}(T)}.$$ The Schur $Q$-functions, like ordinary Schur functions, are symmetric functions with unique leading terms, spanning a proper subspace of $\Lambda$. In addition, they have positive product expansions $$Q_\mu Q_\nu=\sum 2^{\ell(\mu)+\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)}f^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}Q_\lambda$$ for certain positive integers $f^\lambda_{\mu\nu}$. It is easy to see that this is equivalent to the rule $$P_\mu P_\nu=\sum f^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}P_\lambda.$$ Here the coefficients $f^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$ are precisely the structure coefficients for the cohomology ring of the orthogonal Grassmannian. In particular, if we extend them to generalized coefficients by $$P_{\mu^{(1)}}\cdot \cdots \cdot P_{\mu^{(r)}}=\sum f^{\lambda}_{\mu^{(1)}\cdots \mu^{(r)}} P_\lambda,$$ we have the following theorem due to Pragacz [@Pragacz]. A zero-dimensional intersection $X_{\mu^{(1)}}\cap \cdots \cap X_{\mu^{(r)}}$ has exactly $f^{T}_{\mu^{(1)}\cdots \mu^{(r)}}$ points, where $T$ is the ambient triangle. Stembridge [@Stembridge] first found a Littlewood-Richardson-type rule to enumerate these coefficients. The rule is as follows. Let $T$ be a semistandard shifted skew tableau with the first $i$ or $i'$ in reading order unprimed, and with reading word $w=w_1\cdots w_n$. Let $m_i(j)$ be the multiplicity of $i$ among $w_{n-j+1},\ldots,w_n$ (the last $j$ entries) for any $i$ and for any $j\le n$. Also let $p_{i}(j)$ be the multiplicity of $i'$ among $w_{1},\ldots,w_j$. Then $T$ is **Littlewood-Richardson** if and only if - Whenever $m_i(j)=m_{i+1}(j)$ we have $w_{n-j}\neq i+1,(i+1)'$, and - Whenever $m_i(n)+p_{i}(j)=m_{i+1}(n)+p_{i}(j)$ we have $w_{j+1}\neq i,(i+1)'$. Notice that this definition implies that $m_i(j)\ge m_{i+1}(j)$ for all $i$ and $j$, which is similar to the usual Littlewood-Richardson definition for ordinary tableaux. An alternative rule that only requires reading through the word once (rather than once in each direction, as in the definition of $m_i$ above) is given in [@GLP]. Problems -------- 1. \[converse\] Show that, if $\lambda$ is a partition that is *not* symmetric about the staircase cut, the intersection $\Omega_{\lambda}^\circ(F_\bullet)\cap \mathrm{OG}(2n+1,n)$ is empty. 2. How many isotropic $3$-planes in $\operatorname{\mathbb{C}}^7$ intersect six given $3$-planes each in at least dimension $1$? Conclusion and further variations {#sec:conclusion} ================================= In this exposition, we have only explored the basics of the cohomology of the Grassmannian, the complete flag variety, and the orthogonal Grassmannian. There are many other natural directions one might explore from here. First and foremost, we recommend that interested readers next turn to Fulton’s book entitled Young Tableaux [@Fulton] for more details on the combinatorial aspects of Schubert calculus and symmetric functions, including connections with representation theory. Other books that are a natural next step from this exposition are those of Manivel [@Manivel], Kumar on Kac-Moody groups and their flag varieties [@Kumar], and Billey-Lakshmibai on smoothness and singular loci of Schubert varieties [@BilleyLakshmibai]. In some more specialized directions, the flag varieties and Grassmannians in other Lie types (as briefly defined in Section \[sec:variation3\]) have been studied extensively. The combinatorics of general Schubert polynomials for other Lie types was developed by Billey and Haiman in [@BilleyHaiman] and also by Fomin and Kirillov in type B [@FominKirillov]. Combinatorial methods for minuscule and cominuscule types is presented in [@ThomasYong]. It is also natural to investigate partial flag varieties between the Grassmannian and $\operatorname{Fl}_n$. Buch, Kresch, Purbhoo, and Tamvakis established a Littlewood-Richardson rule in the special case of *two-step* flag varieties (consisting of the partial flags having just two subspaces) in [@BuchOthers], and the three-step case was very recently solved by Knutson and Zinn-Justin [@KnutsonZinnJustin]. Coskun provided a potential alternative approach in terms of *Mondrian tableaux*, with a full preliminary answer for partial flag varieties in [@Coskun2], and for the two-row case in [@Coskun]. Other variants of cohomology, such as *equivariant cohomology* and *$K$-theory*, have been extensively explored for the Grassmannian and the flag variety as well. An excellent introduction to equivariant cohomology can be found in [@Anderson], and [@Buch] is a foundational paper on the $K$-theory of Grassmannians. The $K$-theoritic analog of Schubert polynomials are called *Grothendieck polynomials*, first defined by Lascoux and Schutzenberger [@LascouxSchutzenberger]. Another cohomological variant is *quantum cohomology*, originally arising in string theory and put on mathematical foundations in the 1990’s (see [@RuanTian], [@KontsevichManin]). Fomin, Gelfand, and Postnikov [@FominGelfandPostnikov] studied a quantum analog of Schubert polynomials and their combinatorics. Chen studied quantum cohomology on flag manifolds in [@Chen], and the case of equivariant quantum cohomology has been more recently explored by Anderson and Chen in [@AndersonChen] and Bertiger, Milićević, and Taipale in [@BMT]. In [@PechenikYong1] and [@PechenikYong2], Pechenik and Yong prove a conjecture of Knutson and Vakil that gives a rule for equivariant $K$-theory of Grassmannians. The list goes on; there are many cohomology theories (in fact, infinitely many, in some sense) all of which give slightly different insight into the workings of Grassmannians and flag varieties. It is worth noting that Young tableaux are not the only combinatorial objects that can be used to describe these cohomology theories. Knutson, Tao, and Woodward developed the theory of *puzzles* in [@KnutsonTaoWoodward], another such combinatorial object which often arises in the generalizations listed above. On the geometric side, Vakil [@Vakil] discovered a “geometric Littlewood-Richardson Rule” that describes an explicit way to degenerate an intersection of Schubert varieties into a union of other Schubert varieties (not just at the level of cohomology). This, in some sense, more explicitly answers the intersection problems described in Section \[sec:intro\]. Another natural geometric question is the smoothness and singularities of Schubert varieties. Besides the book by Billey and Lakshmibai mentioned above [@BilleyLakshmibai], this has been studied for the full flag variety by Lakshmibai and Sandya [@LakshmibaiSandhya], in which they found a pattern avoidance criterion on permutations $w$ for which the Schubert variety $X_w$ is smooth. Related results on smoothness in partial flag varieties and other variants have been studied by Gasharov and Reiner [@GasharovReiner], Ryan [@Ryan], and Wolper [@Wolper]. Abe and Billey [@BilleyAbe] summarized much of this work with a number of results on pattern avoidance in Schubert varieties. Real Schubert calculus (involving intersection problems in real $n$-dimensional space $\mathbb{R}^n$) is somewhat more complicated than the complex setting, but there are still many nice results in this area. For instance, a theorem of Mukhin, Tarasov, and Varchenko in [@MTV] states that for a choice of flags that are each maximally tangent at some real point on the rational normal curve, the intersections of the corresponding *complex* Schubert varieties have all real solutions. An excellent recent overview of this area was written by Sottile in [@Sottile]. Relatedly, one can study the *positive* real points of the Grassmannian, that is, the subset of the Grassmannian whose Plücker coordinates have all positive (or nonnegative) real values. Perhaps one of the most exciting recent developments is the connection with scattering amplitudes in quantum physics, leading to the notion of an *amplituhedron* coming from a positive Grassmannian. An accessible introduction to the main ideas can be found in [@BourjailyThomas], and for more in-depth study, the book [@Amplituhedron] by Arkani-Hamed et. al. In [@PostnikovSpeyerWilliams], Postnikov, Speyer, and Williams explore much of the rich combinatorial foundations of the positive Grassmannian. Finally, there are also many geometric spaces that have some similarities with the theory of Grassmannians and flag varieties. *Hessenberg varieties* are a family of subvarieties of the full flag variety determined by stability conditions under a chosen linear transformations (see Tymoczko’s thesis [@Tymoczko], for instance). Lee studied the combinatorics of the affine flag variety in detail in [@SeungJin]. The book *$k$-Schur functions and affine Schubert calculus* by Lam, Lapointe, Morse, Schilling, Shimozono, and Zabrocki [@k-Schur] gives an excellent overview of this area, its connections to $k$-Schur functions, and the unresolved conjectures on their combinatorics. [99]{} H. Abe, S. Billey, Consequences of the Lakshmibai-Sandhya Theorem: The ubiquity of permutation patterns in Schubert calculus and related geometry, preprint ([arxiv:1403.4345](https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4345)). D. Anderson, Introduction to equivariant cohomology in algebraic geometry, Notes on lectures by W. Fulton at IMPAGNA summer school, 2010, <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1421.pdf>. D. Anderson, L. Chen, Equivariant quantum Schubert polynomials, *Adv. Math.*, Vol. 254 (2014), pp. 300–330. N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov, and J. Trnka, *Grassmannian Geometry of Scattering Amplitudes*, Cambridge University Press, 2016. F. Bergeron, *Algebraic Combinatorics and Coinvariant Spaces*, CRC Press, 2009. I. N. Bernstein, I. M. Gelfand, S. I. Gelfand, Schubert cells and cohomology of the spaces $G/P$, *Russian Math. Surveys* **28** (1973), No. 3, pp. 1–26. A. Bertiger, E. Milićević, K. Taipale, Equivariant quantum cohomology of the Grassmannian via the rim hook rule, preprint ([arxiv:1403.6218](https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6218)). S. Billey, M. Haiman, Schubert polynomials for the classical groups, *J. Amer. Math. Society*, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1995). S. Billey, V. Lakshmibai, *Singular Loci of Schubert Varieties*, Springer, 2000. A. Bjorner, F. Brenti, *Combinatorics of Coxeter Groups*, Springer, 2005. J. Bourjaily, H. Thomas, What is... the Amplituhedron?, *Notices of the AMS*, Feb. 2018. A. Buch, A Littlewood-Richardson rule for the $K$-theory of Grassmannians, *Acta Math.*, Vol. 189, No. 1 (2002), 37–78. A. Buch, A. Kresch, K. Purbhoo, H. Tamvakis, The puzzle conjecture for the cohomology of two-step flag manifolds, *J. Alg. Comb.*, 2016, Vol. 44, Issue 4, pp. 973–1007. L. Chen, Quantum cohomology of flag manifolds, *Adv. Math.*, Vol. 174, Issue 1, Mar 2003, pp. 1–34. I. Coskun, A Littlewood-Richardson rule for partial flag varieties, *preprint (under revision)*, [http://homepages.math.uic.edu/$\sim$coskun/newpartial.pdf](http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~coskun/newpartial.pdf) I. Coskun, A Littlewood-Richardson rule for two-step flag varieties, *Inventiones Mathematicae*, May 2009. D. Cox, J. Little, D. O’Shea, *Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms*, 2nd ed., Springer, 1991. J. S. Frame, G. de B. Robinson, R. M. Thrall, The hook graphs of the symmetric group, *Can. J. Math.* 6, pp. 316–325 (1954). S. Fomin, S. Gelfand, A. Postnikov, Quantum Schubert polynomials, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* S. Fomin, A. Kirillov, Combinatorial $B_n$-analogues of Schubert polynomials, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, Vol. 348, No. 9, September 1996. W. Fulton, *Intersection Theory*, 2nd ed., Springer, 1998. W. Fulton, *Young tableaux, with Applications to Representation Theory and Geometry*, Cambridge University Press, 1997. A. M. Garsia, C. Procesi, On certain graded $S_n$-modules and the $q$-Kostka polynomials, *Adv. Math.*, Vol. 94, Issue 1 (Jul 1992) pp. 82–138. V. Gasharov, V. Reiner, Cohomology of smooth Schubert varieties in partial flag manifolds, *J. London Math. Soc.*, Vol. 66, Issue 3 (2002), pp. 550–562. M. Gillespie, J. Levinson, K. Purbhoo, A crystal-like structure on shifted tableaux, preprint ([arxiv:1706.09969](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09969.pdf)). R. Green, *Combinatorics of Minuscule Representations*, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics **199**, Cambridge University Press, 2013. A. Hatcher, *Algebraic Topology*, Cambridge University Press, 2001. S. Kleiman, D. Laskov, Schubert Calculus, *Amer. Math. Monthly*, Vol. 79, No. 10 (Dec. 1972), pp. 1061–1082. A. Knutson, T. Tao, C. Woodward, The honeycomb model of $GL_n({\mathbb C})$ tensor products II: Puzzles determine facets of the Littlewood-Richardson cone, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **17** (2004), 19–48. A. Knutson, P. Zinn-Justin, Schubert puzzles and integrability I: invariant trilinear forms, preprint, [arxiv:1706.10019v4](https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.10019v4), 2017. E. R. Kolchin, Algebraic matric groups and the Picard-Vessiot theory of homogeneous linear ordinary differential equations, *Annals of Mathematics, Second Series*, 49: 1–42. M. Kontsevich, Yu. Manin, Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry, *Comm. Math. Phys.* **164** (1994), pp. 525–562. S. Kumar, *Kac-Moody Groups, their Flag Varieties and Representation Theory*, Progress in Mathematics Vol. 204, Birkhäuser, 2002. T. Lam, L. Lapointe, J. Morse, A. Schilling, M. Shimozono, M. Zabrocki, *$k$-Schur functions and affine Schubert calculus*, Springer, 2014. V. Lakshmibai, B. Sandhya, Criterion for smoothness of Schubert varieties in $SL(n)/B$, *Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. - Math. Sci.*, April 1990. A. Lascoux and M.-P. Schützenberger, Polynômes de Schubert, *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math.* 294 (1982), no. 13, 447–450. S. J. Lee, Combinatorial description of the cohomology of the affine flag variety, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, to appear ([arXiv:1506.02390](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02390)). I. Macdonald, *Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials*, Oxford University Press, 1979. L. Manivel, *Symmetric Functions, Schubert polynomials, and Degeneracy Loci*, Amer. Math. Soc. (2001). E. Mukhin, V. Tarasov, and A. Varchenko, Schubert calculus and representations of the general linear group, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 22(4):909–940, 2009. O. Pechenik, A. Yong, Equivariant K-theory of Grassmannians, *Forum of Mathematics, Pi* **5**, 2017, pp. 1–128. O. Pechenik, A. Yong, Equivariant K-theory of Grassmannians II: The Knutson-Vakil conjecture, *Compositio Mathematica* **153**, 2017, pp. 667–677. A. Postnikov, D. Speyer, L. Williams, Matching polytopes, toric geometry, and the totally non-negative Grassmannian, *J. Alg. Comb.* **30** (2009), pp. 173–191. P. Pragacz, Algebro-Geometric applications of Schur $S$- and $Q$-polynomials. *Topics in Invariant Theory, M.–P. Malliavin, ed.*, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1478 (1991) pp. 130–191. F. Ronga, Schubert calculus according to Schubert, preprint ([arxiv:0608784](https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0608784)), 2006. Y. Ruan, G. Tian, Mathematical theory of quantum cohomology, *J. Diff. Geom.* **42** (1995), No. 2, pp. 259–367. K. Ryan, On Schubert varieties in the flag manifold of $SL(n,\mathbb{C})$, *Math. Ann.* 276 (1987), pp. 205–224. B. Sagan, *The Symmetric Group, 2nd ed.*, Springer, New York, 2001. H. Schubert, *Kalkül der abzählende Geometrie*, Teubner Verlag, Leipzig, 1789. F. Sottile, Frontiers of Reality in Schubert Calculus, *Bulletin of the AMS*, 47, No 1. (2010), pp. 31–71. R. Stanley, *Enumerative Combinatorics, Vol. 2*, Cambridge University Press, 1999. J. Stembridge, Shifted tableaux and the projective representations of the symmetric group, *Advances in Mathematics*, Vol. 74, Issue 1, pp. 87–134. T. Tajakka, *Cohomology of the Grassmannian*, Master’s Thesis, Aalto University, 2015. H. Thomas, A. Yong, A combinatorial rule for (co)minuscule Schubert calculus, *Advances in Mathematics*, Vol. 222, Issue 2, 2009, pp. 596–620. J. Tymoczko, *Decomposing Hessenberg varieties over classical groups*, Ph.D. Thesis, [arxiv:0211226](https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211226). R. Vakil, A geometric Littlewood-Richardson rule, *Annals of Math.*, Vol. 164, Issue 2 (2006), pp. 371–422. J. S. Wolper, A combinatorial approach to the singularities of Schubert varieties, *Adv. Math.* 76 (1989), pp. 184–193. [^1]: Supported by NSF MSPRF grant PDRF 1604262. [^2]: See [@Schubert] for Schubert’s original work, or [@Ronga] for a modern exposition on Schubert’s methods. [^3]: A play on words that references the shared surname with musical composer Franz Schubert, who also lived in Germany in the 19th century. [^4]: Photo of the train tracks downloaded from edupic.net. [^5]: Unfortunately, we could not find any photographs of parabolic train tracks.

3.0cm [\ .2cm [*Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Mohali,\ Sector 81, SAS Nagar, Manauli - 140306 (Punjab), India*]{}\ ]{} [**Abstract:**]{} We discuss a set of novel discrete symmetry transformations of the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ supersymmetric quantum mechanical model of a charged particle moving on a sphere in the background of Dirac magnetic monopole. The usual [*five*]{} continuous symmetries (and their conserved Noether charges) and [*two*]{} discrete symmetries [*together*]{} provide the physical realizations of the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry. We have also exploited the supervariable approach to derive the nilpotent $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations and provided the geometrical interpretation in the language of translational generators along the Grassmannian directions $ \theta^\alpha$ and $\bar\theta^\alpha$ onto (1, 4)-dimensional supermanifold. 0.8cm PACS numbers: 11.30.Pb, 03.65.-w, 02.40.-k 0.5cm [*Keywords*]{}: $\mathcal{N }= 4$ SUSY QM algebra; continuous and discrete symmetries; de Rham cohomological operators; Hodge theory; supervariable approach; nilpotency property Introduction ============ It is a well-known fact that [*three*]{} out of [*four*]{} fundamental interactions of nature are theoretically described by the gauge theories. These theories are characterized by the [*local*]{} gauge symmetries at the [*classical*]{} level which are generated by the first-class constraints in the language of Dirac’s prescription for the classification scheme \[1,2\]. Some of the gauge theories provide the physical examples of the Hodge theory within the framework of Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) formalism where the local gauge symmetries of the [*classical*]{} theory are traded with the nilpotent (anti-) BRST and (anti-)co-BRST symmetries at the [*quantum*]{} level. In a recent paper (see, e.g. \[3\] for more details), we have shown that any Abelian $p$-form ($p = 1, 2, 3,...$) gauge theory is a tractable model for the Hodge theory in $D = 2p$ dimensions of spacetime within the framework of BRST formalism. In an earlier work \[4\], the 2D [*free*]{} (non-)Abelian 1-form gauge theories (without any interaction with matter fields) have been studied and they have been shown to be a new class of topological field theories TFTs which capture some salient feature of Witten type and a few key feature of Schwarz-type TFTs (see, e.g. \[4-7\] for more details). Furthermore, it has been shown that the 2D Abelian $U(1)$ gauge theory, interacting with Dirac fields \[8,9\], is a perfect model for the [*Hodge theory*]{} within framework of BRST formalism. In such kind of studies, we have shown that the 2D modified version of Proca theory and 6D Abelian 3-form gauge theory \[10,11\] are also the perfect examples of the Hodge theory. In a very recent set of papers (see, e.g. \[12-14\] for more details), a collection of $\mathcal{N} = 2$ supersymmetric quantum mechanical models have [*also*]{} been shown to represent the models for the Hodge theory. In our earlier works \[15-17\], we have applied supervariable approach for the derivation of supersymmetric (SUSY) transformations for the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY quantum mechanical models (QMMs) which is a [*novel*]{} approach in the context of SUSY theories. We have established that the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY QMMs also provide a set of tractable physical examples of the Hodge theory because their continuous symmetries (and conserved Noether charges) provide the physical realizations of the de Rham cohomological operators[^1] of differential geometry \[18-22\] and the discrete symmetry of the theory turns out to be the analogue of Hodge duality operation. It has been demonstrated that the algebra of the continuous symmetries (and their conserved Noether charges) for the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY QMMs is exactly similar to the Hodge algebra obeyed by the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry. In a very recent set of our works \[23,24\], we have shown that the free version as well as interacting $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY QM model of a charged particle moving on a sphere (in the background Dirac magnetic monoploe) provide a set of physical examples of the Hodge theory. This model has also been studied by others \[25,26\] in a different context. We have also shown in our works \[23,24\] that one can provide the geometrical meaning to $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY transformations in the language of translational generators ($\partial_{\theta}, \partial_{\bar\theta}$) along the Grassmannian directions ($\theta$, $\bar\theta$) of the (1, 2)-dimensional super-submanifolds on which the ordinary $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY quantum theory \[25\] is generalized. We have also shown that our $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SUSY QMMs are the physical examples of the Hodge theory. The main motivations of our present investigation are as follows. First, we shall prove that the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical model of a charged particle on a sphere, in the background of Dirac magnetic monopole is a [*perfect* ]{} model for the the Hodge theory. Second, we shall provide the physical realizations of the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry in the language continuous symmetries (and their conserved Noether charges) and a set of [*novel*]{} discrete symmetries of our present theory. Finally, we shall apply supervariable approach for the derivation of SUSY transformations by exploiting chiral and anti-chiral SUSY invariant restrictions and show the invariance of the Lagrangian (and its geometrical interpretation in the language translational generators ($\partial_{\theta^\alpha}, \partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}$) along the Grassmannian directions ($\theta^\alpha$, $\bar\theta^\alpha$) of the (anti-)chiral super-submanifolds, in our present SUSY theory). The contents of our present endeavor are as follows. In section 2, we discuss the continuous symmetries (and their conserved Noether charges) of the Lagrangian for the $\mathcal{N} =4$ SUSY QM model of a charged particle moving on a sphere in the background Dirac magnetic monoploe. Our section 3 is devoted to the discussion of a set of novel discrete symmetry transformations. In section 4, we lay emphasis on the algebraic structure of the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY symmetries and corresponding conserved charges. Our section 5 is devoted to the derivation for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations ($s_\alpha$, $\bar s_\alpha$) by exploiting SUSY invariant restrictions within the framework of supervariable approach. Finally, we make some concluding remarks in our section 6. In our Appendix A, we discuss the explicit computations of $\mathcal{N} = 4 $ SUSY QM algebra for the generators ($Q_\alpha, \bar Q_\alpha$) and corresponding Hamiltonian $H$ by exploiting the symmetry transformations in our present SUSY theory. We provide the key difference between the (anti-)BRST symmetries and the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations in our Appendix B. [*Notations and Convention:*]{} We adopt the following notations and convention of the Grassmanian variables $\theta^\alpha$ and $\bar\theta^\alpha$ such as: $\{\theta^\alpha, \theta^\beta \} = 0 = ({\theta^\alpha})^2 \Rightarrow (\theta^1)^2 = (\theta^2)^2 = 0 $, $\{\bar\theta^\alpha, \bar\theta^\beta \} =0 =({\bar\theta^\alpha})^2 \Rightarrow ({\bar\theta}^1)^2 = ({\bar\theta}^2)^2 = 0, \{\theta^\alpha,\, \bar\theta^\beta \} = 0$. Similarly, $\{\partial_{\theta^\alpha}, \partial_{\theta^\beta} \} = 0 = ({\partial_{\theta^\alpha}})^2 \Rightarrow ({\partial_{\theta^1}})^2 = (\partial_{\theta^2})^2 = 0 $, $\{\partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}, \partial_{\bar\theta^\beta} \} =0 =({\partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}})^2 \Rightarrow (\partial_{{\bar\theta}^1})^2 = (\partial_{{\bar\theta}^2})^2 = 0, \{\partial_{\theta^\alpha},\, \partial_{\bar\theta^\beta} \} = 0$ where $\partial_{\theta^\alpha} = \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^\alpha}, \, \partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha} = \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bar\theta}^\alpha}$. Preliminaries: $\mathcal{N} =4$ SUSY Symmetries ================================================ Let us begin with the Lagrangian for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical model of the motion of an electron on a sphere in the background of Dirac magnetic monopole based on the $CP^{(1)}$-model approach (see, e.g. \[26\] for more details) $$\begin{aligned} L &=& 2\, (D_t {\bar z}) \cdot (D_t z) + \frac{i}{2}\, \left[ \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot (D_t\psi_\alpha) - (D_t {\bar\psi}_\alpha)\cdot \psi_\alpha \right] \nonumber\\ &-& \frac{1}{4}\, \left[(\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot\psi_\beta)^2 + (\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot\psi_\alpha)^2 \right] - 2\, g\, a, \end{aligned}$$ where the covariant derivatives are defined as: $\ D_t \bar z= (\partial_t + i\,a )\,\bar z, \, D_t z = (\partial_t - i\,a )\,z,\,D_t \bar\psi_\alpha = (\partial_t + i\,a ) \,\bar\psi_\alpha, \, D_t\psi_\alpha= (\partial_t - i\,a )\,\psi_\alpha$. Here $a$ is the “gauge" variable and $t$ is the evolution parameter (with $\partial_t = {\partial}/{\partial t}$) of our present SUSY theory. The dynamical variables $z$ and $\bar z$ are bosonic in nature and the variables $\psi_\alpha$ and $\bar \psi_\alpha$ are the fermionic in nature (i.e. $\psi^2_\alpha = \bar\psi^2_\alpha = 0, \psi_\alpha\cdot\bar\psi_\beta + \bar\psi_\beta\cdot\psi_\alpha = 0$) at the classical level (with $\alpha, \beta,... = 1, 2$). The parameter $g$ stands for the charge on the magnetic monopole (with mass $m =1$) and charge of the electron is taken to be $e = -1$. We adopt the following conventions of the dot product between two bosonic variables ($\bar z_i$, $z_j$) and two fermionic variables ($\bar\psi_{\alpha i}$, $\psi_{\alpha j}$) ($i,j = 1, 2; \alpha, \beta,... = 1, 2 $) are as follows: $$\begin{aligned} && z_i = \begin{pmatrix} z_1 \\ z_2 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad \bar z_j = \begin{pmatrix} \bar z_1 & \bar z_2 \end{pmatrix} \Longrightarrow \bar z\cdot z = {\bar z}_1 z_1 + {\bar z}_2 z_2, \nonumber\\ &&\bar\psi_{\alpha i} \psi_{\alpha j}\quad\;\, \Longrightarrow\;\; \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\alpha = \bar\psi_1 \cdot\psi_1 + \bar\psi_2 \cdot \psi_2.\end{aligned}$$ Here the fermionic variables $\bar\psi_{\alpha i}$ and $\psi_{\alpha j}$ satisfy the following properties: $(\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\alpha)^2 = (\bar\psi_1\cdot \psi_1 + \bar\psi_2\cdot\psi_2)^2 \equiv 2(\bar\psi_1 \cdot\psi_1)(\bar\psi_2 \cdot\psi_2)$ and $(\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\beta)^2 = (\bar\psi_1 \cdot\psi_2 - \bar\psi_2 \cdot \psi_1)^2 \equiv - 2(\bar\psi_1 \cdot \psi_2)(\bar\psi_2 \cdot\psi_1)$ (with $(\bar\psi_1 \cdot\psi_1)^2 = (\bar\psi_2 \cdot\psi_2)^2 = 0, (\bar\psi_1\cdot\psi_2)^2 = (\bar\psi_2 \cdot\psi_1)^2 =0$) at the classical level. The infinitesimal, continuous and nilpotent ($s_\alpha^2 = {\bar s}_\alpha^2 = 0$) $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations ($s_\alpha\,, \, {\bar s}_\alpha$) of the Lagrangian (1) are $$\begin{aligned} && s_\alpha\, z = \frac{\psi_\alpha}{\sqrt{2}}, \qquad s_\alpha\, \psi_\beta =0, \qquad s_\alpha\, \bar\psi_\beta = \frac{2\,i\, \nabla_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar z} {\sqrt{2}}, \qquad s_\alpha\,\bar z = 0, \nonumber\\ && s_\alpha\,(D_t\,z) = \frac{D_t\, \psi_\alpha}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad \qquad s_\alpha\,(D_t\,\bar z) = 0, \qquad\qquad s_\alpha \,a = 0,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} && {\bar s}_\alpha\, \bar z = \frac{\bar\psi_\alpha}{\sqrt{2}}, \qquad {\bar s}_\alpha\, \bar\psi_\beta = 0, \qquad {\bar s}_\alpha\, \psi_\beta = \frac{2 \,i\, \nabla_{\alpha\beta}\, z}{\sqrt{2}}, \qquad {\bar s}_\alpha \, z = 0, \nonumber\\ && {\bar s}_\alpha\,(D_t\, \bar z) = \frac{ D_t\, \bar\psi_\alpha}{\sqrt{2}}, \qquad\qquad {\bar s}_\alpha\,(D_t\, z) = 0,\qquad \qquad {\bar s}_\alpha \,a = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned} \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \bar z = \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t \bar z - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\beta\cdot \psi_\alpha - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot\psi_\gamma)\,\bar z, \nonumber\\ \nabla_{\alpha\beta} z = \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t z + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\beta - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot\psi_\gamma)\, z.\end{aligned}$$ The gauge variable $a$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} a = - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar z \cdot\,\dot z - \dot{\bar z} \cdot z) - \frac{1}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot\psi_\alpha),\end{aligned}$$ which is invariant under the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations $s_\alpha$ and ${\bar s}_\alpha$ (i.e. $s_\alpha\, a = {\bar s}_\alpha\, a = 0$) due to the following constraints (see, e.g. \[26\] for more details), namely; $$\begin{aligned} \bar z \cdot z - 1 = 0, \qquad \qquad \bar z \cdot \psi_\alpha = 0, \qquad\qquad \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot z = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The Lagrangian (1) transforms to the total time derivatives as $$\begin{aligned} s_\alpha\, L = \frac{d}{dt}\,\left[\frac{(D_t\,\bar z)\cdot\psi_\alpha}{\sqrt{2}} \right], \qquad\qquad {\bar s}_\alpha\, L = \frac{d}{dt}\,\,\left[\frac{ \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot (D_t\, z)}{\sqrt{2}}\right], \end{aligned}$$ which demonstrates the invariance of the action integral $S = \int dt\, L$. We obtain the bosonic symmetry ($s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}$) for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations $s_\alpha$ and $\bar s_\alpha$ which is nothing but the anticommutator of $s_\alpha$ and ${\bar s}_\alpha$ (i.e. $s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} = \{s_\alpha, \, {\bar s}_\beta\}$). The bosonic symmetry of the dynamical variables $z, \bar z,\psi_\alpha$ and $\bar\psi_\alpha$ are $$\begin{aligned} && s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} \, z = \nabla_{\alpha\beta} z \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t z + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\beta - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot\psi_\gamma)\, z, \nonumber\\ && s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} \, \bar z = \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \bar z \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t \bar z - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\beta\cdot \psi_\alpha - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot\psi_\gamma)\, \bar z, \nonumber\\ && s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} \, \psi_\gamma = \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \psi_\gamma \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t \psi_\gamma + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\beta - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\rho \cdot\psi_\rho)\,\psi_\gamma, \nonumber\\ && s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} \, \bar\psi_\gamma = \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \bar\psi_\gamma \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t \bar\psi_\gamma - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\beta\cdot \psi_\alpha - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\rho \cdot\psi_\rho)\,\bar\psi_\gamma,\end{aligned}$$ modulo a factor of ($i$). Under the above $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations (8), the starting Lagrangian $L$ transforms to a total “time” derivative as: $$\begin{aligned} s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} L &=& \frac{d}{dt} \left[ \delta_{\alpha\beta} (L + 2 g a)\right] \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta} \,\frac{d}{dt} \, \Big[2 (D_t {\bar z}) \cdot (D_t z) + \frac{i}{2}\, \{ \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot (D_t\psi_\gamma) \nonumber\\ & -& (D_t {\bar\psi}_\gamma)\cdot \psi_\gamma \} - \frac{1}{4}\, \left\{(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\,\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\rho)^2 + (\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\gamma)^2 \right\} \Big].\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, the corresponding action ($S = \int dt \, L$) remains invariant under the above bosonic symmetry transformations ($s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}$) of the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM model. According to Noether’s theorem, the above continuous symmetry transformations ($s_\alpha$, ${\bar s}_\alpha$, $s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}$) lead to the derivation of the following conserved charges $$\begin{aligned} Q_\alpha &=& \frac{\Pi_z \cdot \psi_\alpha}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,\left[2\, D_t\, \bar z + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot \psi_\gamma + 2\, g)\, \bar z + 2\,i\,a\,\bar{z}\,(1 - \bar{z}\cdot z)\right]\cdot \psi_\alpha \nonumber\\ &\equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,\left[ 2\, D_t\, \bar z + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot \psi_\gamma + 2\, g)\, \bar z \right]\cdot \psi_\alpha, \nonumber\\ {\bar Q}_\alpha &=& \frac{\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \,\Pi_{\bar z}}{\sqrt{2}} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \left[2\, D_t \, z - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot\psi_\gamma + 2\, g)\, z - 2\,i\,a\,z\,(1 - \bar{z}\cdot z)\right] \nonumber\\ & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\; \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \left[ 2\, D_t \, z - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot\psi_\gamma + 2\, g)\, z \right], \nonumber\\ Q^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} &=& \delta_{\alpha\beta} \, \Big[2 (D_t {\bar z}) \cdot (D_t z) - g\,(\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma) + \frac{1}{4}\, \left\{(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\,\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\rho)^2 - (\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\gamma)^2 \right\} \Big] \nonumber\\ &\equiv & \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H,\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM model. The above Hamiltonian can be derived from the Legendre transformations as: $$\begin{aligned} H &=& \Pi_z \cdot \dot z + \dot {\bar z} \cdot \Pi_{\bar z} - \Pi_{\psi_\alpha} \cdot \dot \psi_\alpha + \dot {\bar \psi}_\alpha \cdot \Pi_{\bar\psi_\alpha} - L \nonumber\\ & \equiv & 2 (D_t {\bar z}) \cdot (D_t z) -g\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\alpha) + \frac{1}{4}\, \left[(\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot\psi_\beta)^2 - (\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot\psi_\alpha)^2 \right].\end{aligned}$$ It is elementary to check that the above canonical momenta $\Pi_z$, $\Pi_{\bar z}, \Pi_{\psi_\alpha}$ and $\Pi_{\bar\psi_\alpha}$ w.r.t. the dynamical variables $z, \bar z, \psi_\alpha$ and $\bar\psi_\alpha$ of the Lagrangian (1) turn out to be $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_z &=& \frac{\partial L}{\partial \,\dot z} = 2\, D_t\, \bar z + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\alpha + 2\, g)\, \bar z + 2\,i\,a\,\bar{z}\,(1 - \bar{z}\cdot z), \nonumber\\ &\equiv & 2\, D_t\, \bar z + \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\alpha + 2\, g)\, \bar z, \nonumber\\ \Pi_{\bar z} &=& \frac{\partial L}{\partial \,\dot{\bar z}} = 2\, D_t \, z - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot\psi_\alpha + 2\, g)\, z - 2\,i\,a\,z\,(1 - \bar{z}\cdot z), \nonumber\\ & \equiv & 2\, D_t \, z - \frac{i}{2}\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot\psi_\alpha + 2\, g)\, z, \nonumber\\ \Pi_{\psi_\alpha} & =& \frac{\partial L}{\partial \, \dot{\psi_\alpha }} \equiv - \frac{i}{2}\, \bar\psi_\alpha, \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \Pi_{\bar\psi_\alpha} = \frac{\partial L} {\partial \,\dot{\bar\psi}_\alpha} \equiv - \frac{i}{2}\, \psi_\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where we have adopted the convention of left derivative w.r.t. the fermionic variables $\psi_\alpha$ and $\bar\psi_\alpha$ in the computation of $\Pi_\psi$ and $\Pi_{\bar\psi}$, respectively. The conservation law (i.e. $\dot{Q} = \dot{\bar{Q}} = \dot{Q}^\omega_{\alpha\beta} = 0$) can be proven by exploiting the following equations of motion (with the constraints $\bar z\cdot z = 1, \bar z \cdot \psi_\alpha=0, \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot z= 0$) that emerge from the Lagrangian (1) of our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY theory, namely; $$\begin{aligned} && \frac{d\Pi_{\bar{z}}}{dt} - i\,\left[2\,a\, D_t\, z + \frac{\dot{z}}{2}\,(\bar{\psi}_\alpha\cdot \psi_\alpha+ 2g) \right] = 0,\nonumber\\ && \frac{d\Pi_z}{dt}\, + i\, \left[2\,a\, D_t\, \bar{z} + \frac{\dot{\bar{z}}}{2}\,(\bar{\psi}_\alpha\cdot \psi_\alpha+ 2g) \right] = 0, \nonumber\\ && D_t\,\psi_\alpha + \frac{i}{2}\,(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\bar{\psi}_\gamma\cdot \psi_\rho)\, (\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,\psi_\beta)-i\,g\, \psi_\alpha = 0, \nonumber\\ && D_t\, \bar{\psi}_\alpha + \frac{i}{2}\,(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\bar{\psi}_\gamma\cdot \psi_\rho)\, (\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar\psi_\beta)+ i g\, \bar\psi_\alpha= 0,\end{aligned}$$ where canonical conjugate momenta $\Pi_{\bar{z}}$ and $\Pi_{{z}}$ in the above equation are from (12) of the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical system. Novel Discrete Symmetry Transformations ======================================= It is straightforward to check that under the following discrete symmetry transformations $$\begin{aligned} && z \rightarrow \mp \,\bar z, \qquad \bar z \rightarrow \mp\, z, \qquad \psi_\alpha \rightarrow \mp\, \bar \psi_\alpha, \qquad \bar\psi_\alpha \rightarrow \pm \, \psi_\alpha, \nonumber\\ && t \rightarrow -\, t,\qquad a \rightarrow + a, \qquad g \to g, \end{aligned}$$ the Lagrangian (1) remains invariant. The time-reversal (i.e. $t \rightarrow -\,t$) symmetry implies: $z \rightarrow \mp\,\bar z \Rightarrow z(t) \rightarrow z(-t) = \mp\,{\bar z}^T(t),\, \bar z \rightarrow \mp\, z \Rightarrow \bar z(t) \rightarrow \bar z(-t) = \mp\,{ z}^T(t)$, $\psi_\alpha \rightarrow \mp\,\bar{\psi}_\alpha \Rightarrow \psi_\alpha(t) \rightarrow \psi_\alpha (-\,t) = \mp\,{\bar\psi_\alpha}^T (t),\, \bar\psi_\alpha \rightarrow \,{\psi_\alpha} \Rightarrow \bar\psi_\alpha(t) \rightarrow \bar\psi_\alpha (-\,t) = \pm {\psi_\alpha}^T (t),\, a (t) \rightarrow a(-t) = a (t)$, where the superscript $T$ denotes the transpose operations on the dynamical variables. The above set of discrete symmetry transformations are the [*novel*]{} useful symmetries because they establish a set of connections between the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY symmetry transformations $s_\alpha$ and $\bar s_\alpha$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\bar s}_\alpha = \pm\; * s_\alpha\; *,\end{aligned}$$ where $*$ is the discrete symmetry transformations. The ($\pm$) signs in the above equation are governed by two successive operations on the generic variable $\Phi = z, \bar z, \psi_\alpha, \bar\psi_\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned} && *\; (\; *\; \Phi) = \; \pm\; \Phi.\end{aligned}$$ It can be explicitly checked that $$\begin{aligned} && *\; (\; *\; \Phi_1) = \; +\; \Phi_1, \qquad \qquad \Phi_1 = z, \, \bar z, \nonumber\\ && *\; (\; *\; \Phi_2) = \; -\; \Phi_2, \qquad \qquad \Phi_2 = \; \psi_\alpha , \; \bar \psi_\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we obtain the following relationships among the continuous symmetry transformations ($s_\alpha, {\bar s}_\alpha$) and the discrete symmetry ($*$) for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical system are $$\begin{aligned} && {\bar s}_\alpha\, \Phi_1 = +\; * s_\alpha\; *\; \Phi_1 \;\;\Rightarrow\;\; {\bar s}_\alpha = + \;*\; s_\alpha\; *, \qquad\qquad \Phi_1 = z, \,\bar z, \nonumber\\ && {\bar s}_\alpha \, \Phi_2 = -\; * s_\alpha\; *\; \Phi_2 \;\;\Rightarrow\;\; {\bar s}_\alpha = - \;*\; s_\alpha\; *, \qquad\qquad \Phi_2 = \psi_\alpha, \bar\psi_\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ and it can be easily checked that their reciprocal relationships are also true, namely; $$\begin{aligned} && s_\alpha \,\Phi_1 = - \; * {\bar s}_\alpha\; *\; \Phi_1 \;\;\Rightarrow\;\; s_\alpha = - \;*\; {\bar s}_\alpha\; *, \qquad\qquad \Phi_1 = z, \,\bar z, \nonumber\\ && s_\alpha \, \Phi_2 = + \; * {\bar s}_\alpha\; *\; \Phi_2 \;\;\Rightarrow\;\; s_\alpha = + \;*\; {\bar s}_\alpha\; *. \qquad\qquad \Phi_2 = \psi_\alpha, \bar\psi_\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ The above relationships (15), (18) and (19) are the analogues of the relationship $\delta = \pm * d * $ of differential geometry where $d = dt\, \partial_t$ ($d^2 = 0$) is the exterior derivative, $\delta$ (with $\delta^2 = 0$) is the co-exterior derivative and ($* $) is the Hodge duality operation on a given compact manifold. In our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM model, the discrete symmetry ($*$) transformation is the analogue of the the Hodge duality operation ($*$). In addition to the discrete symmetry transformations (14), the Lagrangian (1) remains invariant under the following discrete symmetry transformations $$\begin{aligned} && z \rightarrow \pm i \,\bar z, \,\qquad \bar z \rightarrow \mp\, i\, z, \,\qquad \psi_\alpha \rightarrow \pm \, i\, \bar \psi_\alpha, \qquad \bar\psi_\alpha \rightarrow \pm\, i \, \psi_\alpha, \nonumber\\ && t \rightarrow -\, t, \qquad a \rightarrow + \,a, \qquad g \to g,\end{aligned}$$ which obey all the conditions that have been satisfied by (14). Thus, these discrete symmetries are also [*useful*]{}, in our present theory. Furthermore, under another discrete symmetry transformations $$\begin{aligned} && z \rightarrow \pm \,\bar z, \,\qquad \bar z \rightarrow \pm\, \, z, \,\qquad \psi_\alpha \rightarrow \pm \, \, \bar \psi_\alpha, \qquad \bar\psi_\alpha \rightarrow \pm\, \, \psi_\alpha, \nonumber\\ && t \rightarrow +\, t, \qquad a \rightarrow - \,a, \qquad g \to - g, \end{aligned}$$ the Lagrangian (1) remains unchanged. But, these symmetries are [*not*]{} acceptable to us because they do not comply with the strictures laid down by the duality invariant theories \[27\]. In the above discrete symmetry (21), it can be checked that $$\begin{aligned} * \,(*\, z) = z, \qquad * \,(*\, \bar z) = \bar z, \qquad * \,(*\, \psi_\alpha) = \psi_\alpha, \qquad * \,(*\, \bar \psi_\alpha) = \bar \psi_\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ In view of the above equation (22), we can verify that the following is true: $$\begin{aligned} s_2 \; \Phi = + \, *\,s_1\, *\, \Phi, \qquad \qquad \Phi = z, \bar z, \psi_\alpha, \bar\psi_\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ However, we note that the reciprocal relation $$\begin{aligned} s_1 \; \Phi = - \, *\,s_2\, *\, \Phi, \qquad \qquad \Phi = z, \bar z, \psi_\alpha, \bar\psi_\alpha .\end{aligned}$$ is [*not*]{} satisfied at all by the above discrete symmetries. Thus, the discrete symmetry transformations (21) of the Lagrangian (1) are [*not*]{} acceptable because they do not satisfy all the conditions (e.g. reciprocal relationship (24)) laid down by the duality invariant theories \[27\]. The conserved charges ($Q_\alpha,\, \bar Q_\alpha,\, Q^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta} H$) under the discrete symmetry transformations transform as: $$\begin{aligned} && * \, Q_\alpha = -\, \bar Q_\alpha,\; \quad\qquad\qquad *\, \bar Q_\alpha = Q_\alpha,\qquad\qquad \qquad * \, H = H,\nonumber\\ && *(* \, Q_\alpha) = -\, \bar Q_\alpha, \qquad\qquad *(*\, \bar Q_\alpha) = Q_\alpha,\qquad \qquad *(* \, H) = H,\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, under the discrete symmetries the conserved charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\bar Q_\alpha$ transform as: $Q_\alpha\rightarrow - \bar Q_\alpha, \bar Q_\alpha \rightarrow + Q_\alpha$ which is like the dulaity transformations in the electrodynmics where we have: $B\rightarrow -E, E\rightarrow +B$ for the electric and magnetic fields present in source free Maxwell’s equations. Furthermore, these charges ($Q_\alpha, \bar Q_\alpha$) and the corresponding Hamiltonian ($H$) remain invariant under two successive ($*$) operations corresponding to the discrete symmetry transformations (14) and (20). The above charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\bar Q_\alpha$ are the fermionic in nature and they obey the following $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM algebra: $$\begin{aligned} && \{Q_\alpha, \, Q_\beta\} \equiv Q^2_\alpha = 0 \;\,\quad \Longrightarrow Q_1^2 =0, \quad Q_2^2 =0, \nonumber\\ && \{\bar Q_\alpha, \, \bar Q_\beta\} \equiv {\bar Q}^2_\alpha =0 \;\,\quad \Longrightarrow {\bar Q}_1^2 =0, \quad {\bar Q}_2^2 =0, \nonumber\\ && \{ Q_\alpha,\, \bar Q_\beta\} = \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H, \qquad [H, \, Q_\alpha] = [H, \,\bar Q_\alpha] = 0.$$ It is the well-known algebra for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ supersymmetric quantum mechanical models. The above equation (26) shows that the Hamiltonian ($H$) commutes with the charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\bar Q_\alpha$ (i.e. $[H, \, Q_\alpha] = [H, \,\bar Q_\alpha] = 0$). The anticommutator of these charges also give rise to the Hamiltonian (i.e. $\{ Q_\alpha,\, \bar Q_\beta\} = \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H$) and they are fermionic in nature (i.e. $Q_\alpha^2 =0, {\bar Q_\alpha^2 =0}$) which show the nilpotency property of our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM system. Algebraic structure: Towards Cohomological Aspects for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY Symmetries ============================================================================================= The continuous symmetry transformations ($s_\alpha,\,{\bar s}_\alpha,\,s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}$) satisfy the following algebraic structure: $$\begin{aligned} && \{s_\alpha, \, s_\beta\} \equiv s_\alpha^2 = 0 \qquad \Longrightarrow s^2_1 =0,\quad s_2^2=0, \nonumber\\ && \{\bar s_\alpha,\, \bar s_\beta\} \equiv {\bar s}_\alpha^2 = 0 \qquad \Longrightarrow {\bar s}_1^2 = 0,\quad {\bar s}_2^2 = 0, \nonumber\\ && \{ s_\alpha, \,{\bar s}_\beta \}= s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}, \qquad \left[s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}, s_\gamma \right] = 0, \quad [s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}, {\bar s}_\gamma ] = 0, \quad \{ s_\alpha, \,{\bar s}_\beta \} \neq 0 $$ Here the bosonic symmetry transformations ($s^\omega_{\alpha\beta}$) is just like as a Casimir operator of our present theory (because it commutes with all other SUSY transformations $s_\alpha$ and $\bar s_\alpha$). We note that the conserved charges ($Q_\alpha,\, \bar Q_\alpha,\, Q^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}$) can also be expressed in language [*five*]{} continuous symmetries $\left((s_1,s_2)\Rightarrow s_\alpha,\,({\bar s}_1, {\bar s}_2) \Rightarrow {\bar s}_\alpha, s^\omega_{\alpha\beta} \right)$ as: $$\begin{aligned} && s_\alpha\,Q_\beta = \,i\,\{ Q_\beta,\, Q_\alpha \} = 0, \qquad \qquad \qquad {\bar s}_\alpha\, \bar{Q}_\beta = \,i\,\{ \bar{Q}_\beta,\, \bar{Q}_\alpha \} = 0,\nonumber\\ && s_\alpha\,{\bar Q}_\beta = i\,\{ \bar{Q}_\beta,\, Q_\alpha \} = i\delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H, \qquad\qquad {\bar s}_\alpha\, Q_\beta = i\,\{ Q_\beta, \,\bar{Q}_\alpha \} = i \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H, \nonumber\\ && s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta}\, Q_{\gamma} = -\,i\, \left[Q_{\gamma}, \,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,H \right] = 0, \qquad\qquad s^{\omega}_{\alpha\beta} \,\bar{Q}_\gamma = -\,i\, \left[\bar{Q}_\gamma,\,\delta_{\alpha\beta} \,H \right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$ At the algebraic level, the equations (26), (27) and (28) are reminiscent of the algebra obeyed by the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry, namely; $$\begin{aligned} d^2 = 0, \qquad \delta^2 = 0, \qquad \Delta = \{d, \, \delta \}, \qquad [\Delta, \, d]= 0,\qquad [\Delta, \, \delta] = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $(\delta)d$ are the (co-)exterior derivatives and $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator. We note that the Laplacian operator $\Delta$ is the Casimir operator, because it commutes with all rest of the de Rham cohomological operators. Thus, ultimately, we observe that our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical model provides the physical realizations of the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry in the language of symmetries and their conserved Noether charges. Hence, our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical model is the perfect model for the Hodge theory. Derivation of $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY Transformations: Supervariable Approach ============================================================================ We derive the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations $s_\alpha$ and $\bar s_\alpha$ within the framework of the supervariable approach. First, we focus on the derivation of the SUSY transformations $s_\alpha$ by exploiting the chiral supervariable approach which is defined on the (1, 2)-dimensional super submanifold[^2]. Thus, the chiral supervariables[^3] expansions in terms of the ordinary variables $\left( z(t), \bar{z}(t), \psi_\alpha(t), {\bar\psi}_\alpha(t) \right)$ are $$\begin{aligned} && z(t) \longrightarrow Z(t, \theta) = z (t) + \theta^\alpha\, f^1_\alpha(t),\nonumber\\ && \bar{z}(t) \longrightarrow \bar{Z}(t, \theta) = \bar{z}(t) + \theta^\alpha\, f^2_\alpha(t),\nonumber\\ && \psi_\alpha(t) \longrightarrow \Psi_\alpha (t, \theta) = \psi_\alpha (t) + i\,\theta^\beta\,b^1_{\alpha\beta}(t), \nonumber\\ && \bar{\psi}_\alpha (t) \longrightarrow \bar{\Psi}_\alpha (t, \theta) = \bar{\psi}_\alpha (t) + i\, \theta^\beta\, b^2_{\alpha\beta}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the secondary variables ($ b^1_{\alpha\beta} (t), b^2_{\alpha\beta} (t)$) and ($f^1_\alpha (t), f^2_\alpha(t)$) are bosonic and fermionic in nature, respectively. For the derivation of these secondary variables ($ b^1_{\alpha\beta} (t), b^2_{\alpha\beta} (t)$) and ($f^1_\alpha(t), f^2_\alpha(t)$) in terms of the basic variables, we have to impose the SUSY invariant restrictions (SUSYIRs). The following quantities are invariant under $s_\alpha$ such that $$s_\alpha\,(\psi_\beta) = 0,\quad s_\alpha\,(\bar{z}) = 0, \quad s_\alpha\, (z^T \cdot \psi_\beta) = 0, \quad s_\alpha\, \left[2\,D_t\,{\bar{z}}\cdot z + i\,{\bar\psi}_\beta \cdot \psi_\beta \right] = 0,$$ where $z^T(t) \cdot \psi_\alpha(t) = z_1\,\psi_1 + z_2\,\psi_2$. The above SUSYIRs can be generalized onto (1, 2)-dimensional chiral super-submanifold. In this context, we obtain the following relationships: $$\begin{aligned} && \Psi_\alpha (t, \theta) = \psi_\alpha (t) \;\Longrightarrow \; b^1_{\alpha\beta} (t) = 0,\qquad \qquad \bar{Z}(t, \theta) = \bar{z}(t) \; \;\Longrightarrow \; f^2_\alpha (t) = 0,\nonumber\\ && Z^T (t, \theta) \cdot \Psi_\alpha (t, \theta) = z^T (t) \cdot \psi_\alpha (t), \nonumber\\ && 2\,D_t \bar{Z}(t, \theta)\cdot Z (t, \theta) + i\,\bar{\Psi}_\alpha (t, \theta) \cdot \Psi_\alpha (t, \theta) = 2\, D_t\,\bar{z}(t) \cdot z(t) + i\, \bar{\psi}_\alpha(t) \cdot \psi_\alpha (t). \;\;\;\end{aligned}$$ The non-trivial solution of the above restrictions is $f^1_\alpha (t) \propto \psi_\alpha (t) $. For the algebraic convenience, however, we choose $f^1_\alpha (t) = {\psi_\alpha (t)}/{\sqrt{2}}$. For instance, we obtain $b^2_{\alpha\beta} (t) = {2\,\nabla_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar z (t)}/ {\sqrt {2}}$ from last entity of equation (32). Plugging in the value $ b^1_{\alpha\beta} (t) = 0,\, f^2_\alpha (t) = 0,\, f^1_\alpha (t) = {\psi_\alpha (t)}/{\sqrt{2}}$ and $ b^2_{\alpha\beta} (t) = {2\,\nabla_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar z (t)}/ {\sqrt {2}}$ into the chiral supervariable expansions (30), we obtain the following $$\begin{aligned} && Z^{(1)}(t, \theta) = z (t) + \theta^\alpha\, \left(\frac{\psi_\alpha (t)}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \equiv z (t) + \theta^\alpha\, \left(s_\alpha\,z (t) \right), \nonumber\\ && \bar{Z}^{(1)}(t, \theta) = \bar{z} (t) + \theta^\alpha\, (0) \equiv \bar{z}(t) + \theta^\alpha\, \left(s_\alpha\,\bar{z} (t) \right), \nonumber\\ && \Psi^{(1)}_\alpha(t, \theta) = \psi_\alpha(t) + \theta^\beta\,(0) \equiv \psi_\alpha (t) + \theta^\beta\, \left(s_\alpha\,\psi_\beta (t) \right), \nonumber\\ && \bar{\Psi}^{(1)}_\alpha(t, \theta) = \bar{\psi}_\alpha (t) + \theta^\beta\, \left( \frac{2\,i\,\nabla_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar{z}(t)}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \equiv \bar{\psi}_\alpha (t) + \theta^\beta\, \left(s_\alpha\,\bar{\psi}_\beta (t) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here the superscript $(1)$ denotes the expansions of the supervariables obtained after the application of the SUSYIRs. Geometrically, the above chiral expansions of the supervariables obey the following mapping in terms of $s_\alpha$ and Grassmanian derivative $\partial/\partial\theta^\alpha$ such as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^\alpha}\,\Omega^{(1)} (t, \theta) = s_\alpha\, \omega (t) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad s_\alpha\, \Longleftrightarrow \, \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega^{(1)} (t, \theta)$ is the generic chiral supervariable which stands for $ Z^{(1)}(t, \theta),\, \bar{Z}^{(1)}(t, \theta),$ $\bar{\Psi}^{(1)}_\alpha(t, \theta),\, \bar{\Psi}^{(1)}_\alpha(t, \theta) $ and $ \omega (t) = z(t),\bar z(t), \psi_\alpha(t), \bar\psi_\alpha (t)$ is the generic ordinary variable of our present theory. To derive the SUSY transformations ${\bar s}_\alpha$ by exploiting SUSY invariant restrictions (SUSYIRs) on the anti-chiral supervriables of the basic variables $(z(t), \bar{z}(t)$, $\psi_\alpha(t), \bar{\psi}_\alpha(t))$ onto (1, 2)-dimensional anti-chiral super submanifold. The anti-chiral supervariable expansions of these basic variables are $$\begin{aligned} && z(t) \; \longrightarrow \; Z(t, {\bar\theta}) = z(t) + {\bar\theta}^\alpha\, f^3_\alpha(t),\nonumber\\ && \bar z(t) \; \longrightarrow \; \bar Z(t, {\bar\theta}) = \bar z(t) + {\bar\theta}^\alpha\, f^4_\alpha(t),\nonumber\\ && \psi_\alpha(t) \;\longrightarrow \; \Psi_\alpha (t, \bar\theta) = \psi_\alpha (t) + i\,\bar \theta^\beta\, b^3_{\alpha\beta} (t), \nonumber\\ && \bar\psi_\alpha (t)\; \longrightarrow \; \bar\Psi_\alpha (t, \bar\theta) = \bar\psi_\alpha (t) + i\, \bar\theta^\beta\, b^4_{\alpha\beta} (t),\end{aligned}$$ where ($f^3_\alpha (t), f^4_\alpha (t) $) and ($b^3_{\alpha\beta} (t), b^4_{\alpha\beta} (t)$) are the pair of fermionic and bosonic secondary variables, respectively, on the r.h.s. of anti-chiral supervariable expansions (35). Here the anti-chiral super-submanifold is parametrized by the superspace variables ($t, \bar\theta^\alpha$) (where ${\bar\theta}^\alpha = {\bar\theta}^1, {\bar\theta}^2$). We obtain the following SUSYIRs under ${\bar s}_\alpha$ $${\bar s}_\alpha\,(\bar\psi_\beta) = 0,\quad {\bar s}_\alpha\,({z}) = 0, \quad {\bar s}_\alpha\, (\bar z \cdot {\bar\psi}_\beta^T) = 0, \quad {\bar s}_\alpha\, \left[2\,{\bar{z}}\cdot D_t\, z - i\,\bar{\psi}_\beta\cdot \psi_\beta\right] = 0.$$ We demand the SUSY invariant quantities would be independent of the Grassmannian variable $\bar \theta^\alpha$ on the (1, 2)-dimensional anti-chiral super submanifold. The above secondary variables ($f^3_\alpha, f^4_\alpha$, $b^3_{\alpha\beta}, b^4_{\alpha\beta}$) can be obtained in terms of the basic variables if we impose SUSYIRs on the anti-chiral supervariables. Thus, we impose the following SUSYIRs $$\begin{aligned} && Z (t, \bar\theta) = z (t), \qquad \bar\Psi_\alpha (t, \bar\theta) = \bar\psi_\alpha(t), \qquad \bar Z (t, \bar\theta)\cdot {\bar\Psi}_\alpha^T (t, \bar\theta) = \bar z (t)\cdot {\bar\psi}_\alpha^T (t), \nonumber\\ && 2\,{\bar Z} (t, \bar\theta) \cdot D_t\,Z (t, \bar\theta) - i \, {\bar\Psi}_\alpha (t, \bar\theta) \cdot \Psi_\alpha (t, \bar\theta) = 2\,{\bar z}(t)\cdot D_t\,z(t) - i\,{\bar\psi}_\alpha(t)\cdot\psi_\alpha(t),\quad\end{aligned}$$ which imply the following results after the substitution of the proper supervariable expansions (35), namely; $$\begin{aligned} \quad f^3_\alpha (t) = 0, \qquad b^4_{\alpha\beta} (t) = 0, \qquad f^4_\alpha (t) = \frac{\bar\psi_\alpha (t)}{\sqrt 2}, \qquad b^3_{\alpha\beta} (t) = \frac{2\, \nabla_{\alpha\beta}\,z (t)}{\sqrt 2}.\end{aligned}$$ The substitution of the above secondary variables (38) into the supervariable expansions (35) after SUSYIRs lead to the following anti-chiral supervariable expansions $$\begin{aligned} && Z^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta) = z(t) + \bar \theta^\alpha\,(0) \equiv z(t) + \bar\theta^\alpha \,({\bar s}_\alpha\, z),\nonumber\\ && {\bar Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta) = \bar z(t) + \bar\theta^\alpha\, \left(\frac{{\bar\psi}_\alpha}{\sqrt 2} \right) \equiv \bar z(t) + \bar\theta^\alpha \,({\bar s}_\alpha\, \bar z),\nonumber\\ && \Psi_\alpha^{(2)} (t, \bar\theta) = \psi_\alpha (t) + \bar\theta^\beta\,\left(\frac{2\,i\,\nabla_{\alpha\beta}\,{ z}}{\sqrt 2} \right) \equiv \psi_\alpha (t) + \bar\theta^\beta\, (\bar s_\alpha\, \psi_\beta), \nonumber\\ && \bar\Psi_\alpha^{(2)} (t, \bar\theta) = \bar\psi_\alpha (t) + \, \bar\theta^\beta\,(0) \equiv \bar\psi_\alpha (t) + \, \bar\theta^\beta\, ({\bar s}_\alpha\, \bar\psi_\beta),\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $(2)$ denotes the expansions of the supervariables after the application of SUSYIRs in (38). The conserved charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\bar Q_\alpha$ can be expressed in terms of the (anti-)chiral supervariable expansions after the application of SUSYIRs and can be expressed in [*two*]{} different ways: $$\begin{aligned} Q_\alpha &=&\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^\alpha}\, \Big[2\,D_t {\bar Z}^{(1)}(t, \theta) \cdot Z^{(1)}(t, \theta)\Big] \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^\alpha}\, \Big[2\,D_t {\bar z}(t) \cdot Z^{(1)}(t, \theta)\Big], \nonumber\\ &=& \int d\theta^\alpha\, \Big[2\, D_t{\bar Z}^{(1)}(t, \theta) \cdot Z^{(1)}(t, \theta)\Big] \equiv \int d\theta^\alpha\, \Big[2\,D_t {\bar z}(t) \cdot Z^{(1)}(t, \theta)\Big], \nonumber\\ Q_\alpha &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^\alpha}\, \Big[- i\,{\bar \Psi}_\beta^{(1)}(t, \theta) \cdot \Psi_\beta^{(1)}(t, \theta)\Big] \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^\alpha}\, \Big[- i\,{\bar \Psi}_\beta^{(1)}(t, \theta) \cdot \psi_\beta(t)\Big], \nonumber\\ &=& \int d\theta^\alpha\, \Big[- i\,{\bar \Psi}_\beta^{(1)}(t, \theta) \cdot \Psi^{(1)}_\beta(t, \theta)\Big] \equiv \int d\theta^\alpha\, \Big[- i\,{\bar \Psi}^{(1)}_\beta(t, \theta) \cdot \psi_\beta(t)\Big], \nonumber\\ \bar Q_\alpha &=&\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar\theta^\alpha}\, \Big[2\,{\bar Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta) \cdot D_t { Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta)\Big] \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar\theta^\alpha}\, \Big[2\,{\bar Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta) \cdot D_t { z}(t)\Big], \nonumber\\ &=& \int d \bar\theta^\alpha\, \Big[2\,{\bar Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta) \cdot D_t { Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta)\Big] \equiv \int d \bar\theta^\alpha\, \Big[2\,{\bar Z}^{(2)}(t, \bar\theta) \cdot D_t { z}(t)\Big], \nonumber\\ \bar Q_\alpha &=&\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar\theta^\alpha}\, \Big[+ i\,{\bar \Psi}^{(2)}_\beta(t, \bar\theta) \cdot \Psi^{(2)}_\beta(t, \bar\theta)\Big] \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar\theta^\alpha}\, \Big[+ i\,{\bar \psi}_\beta(t) \cdot \Psi^{(2)}_\beta (t, \bar\theta)\Big], \nonumber\\ &=& \int d \bar\theta^\alpha\, \Big[+ i\,{\bar \Psi}^{(2)}_\beta(t, \bar\theta) \cdot \Psi^{(2)}_\beta(t, \bar\theta)\Big] \equiv \int d \bar\theta^\alpha\, \Big[+ i\,{\bar \psi}_\beta(t) \cdot \Psi^{(2)}_\beta(t, \bar\theta)\Big].\end{aligned}$$ The nilpotency of ${\partial}/\partial\theta^\alpha$ and ${\partial}/{\partial{\bar\theta}^\alpha}$ (i.e. $\{\partial_{\theta^\alpha}, \partial_{\theta^\alpha}\} \Rightarrow \partial_{\theta^\alpha}^2 = 0, \, \{\partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}, \partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}\} \Rightarrow \partial_{\bar\theta^2}^2 = 0$) implies that $\partial_{\theta^\alpha}\, Q_\alpha = 0, \partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}\, \bar Q_\alpha = 0$). The above charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\bar Q_\alpha$ can be written in terms of the symmetry transformations ($s_\alpha, {\bar s}_\alpha$) and basic variables ($z, \bar z, \psi_\alpha, \bar\psi_\alpha$) in the following manner, namely; $$\begin{aligned} Q_\alpha = s_\alpha \Big(2\, D_t {\bar z}\cdot z\Big) \equiv s_\alpha\, \Big( - i\, \bar\psi_\beta \cdot\psi_\beta\Big), \nonumber\\ \bar Q_\alpha = {\bar s}_\alpha \Big(2\, {\bar z}\cdot D_t z\Big) \equiv {\bar s}_\alpha\, \Big( + i\, \bar\psi_\beta \cdot\psi_\beta \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the above charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\bar Q_\alpha$ are nilpotent of order [*two*]{}, i.e. $Q_\alpha^2 = \frac{1}{2}\,\{Q_\alpha,\, Q_\alpha\} =0, {\bar Q}_\alpha^2 = \frac{1}{2}\,\{\bar Q_\alpha, \, \bar Q_\alpha\} =0 $ (because $s_\alpha^2 =0, {\bar s}_\alpha^2=0$ when we use the constraints $\bar z \cdot z - 1= 0, \, \bar z\cdot\psi_\alpha = 0,\, \bar\psi_\alpha \cdot z = 0$). It is straightforward to check that the invariance of the Lagrangian (1) in terms of the (anti-)chiral supervariables obtained after the application of SUSYIRs as given below $$\begin{aligned} L \; \Longrightarrow \; {\tilde L}^{(ac)} &= &2\, D_t {\bar Z}^{(2)} \cdot D_t { Z}^{(2)} + \frac{i}{2}\, \left[\bar\Psi^{(2)}_\alpha \cdot D_t {\Psi}^{(2)}_\alpha - D_t {\bar\Psi}^{(2)}_\alpha \cdot {\Psi}^{(2)}_\alpha \right] - 2\,g\, a \nonumber\\ & \equiv & L + {\bar\theta}^{\alpha}\, \left[\frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{D_t {\bar z} \cdot \psi_\alpha}{\sqrt 2} \Big)\right], \nonumber\\ L \; \Longrightarrow \; {\tilde L}^{(c)} &=& 2\,D_t {\bar Z}^{(1)} \cdot D_t { Z}^{(1)} + \frac{i}{2}\, \left[\bar\Psi^{(1)}_\alpha \cdot D_ t {\Psi}^{(1)}_\alpha - D_t {\bar\Psi}^{(1)}_\alpha \cdot {\Psi}^{(1)}_\alpha \right]- 2\,g\, a \nonumber\\ &\equiv & L + {\theta^\alpha}\,\left[\frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot {D_t z}}{\sqrt 2} \Big) \right], \end{aligned}$$ where the superscripts $(c)$ and $(ac)$ denote the chiral and anti-chiral nature of the Lagrangians ${\tilde L}^{(c)}_0$ and ${\tilde L}^{(ac)}_0$, respectively. For instance, we observe that $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^\alpha}\; \Big[{\tilde L}^{(c)} \Big] = \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{D_t {\bar z} \cdot \psi_\alpha}{\sqrt 2} \Big) \, \equiv\, s_\alpha\, L, \nonumber\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial\bar\theta^\alpha}\; \Big[{\tilde L}^{(ac)} \Big] = \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot {D_t z}}{\sqrt 2} \Big) \,\equiv \,{\bar s}_\alpha\, L.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the above relationships provide the geometrical meaning for the SUSY invariances of the Lagrangian (1) in the language of the translational generators $\partial_{\theta^\alpha}$ and $\partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}$ along the Grassmannian discretions $\theta^\alpha$ and $\bar\theta^\alpha$ onto (1, 4)-dimensional (anti-)chiral super-submanifolds, respectively, to produce the ordinary time derivatives \[cf. (43)\] in ordinary 1D space thereby leading the symmetry invariance of our $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY theory. Conclusions =========== In our present endeavor, we have demonstrated that the $\mathcal{N} =4$ SUSY QMM of the motion of a charged particle on a sphere in the background of Dirac magnetic monoploe is a [*perfect*]{} model for the Hodge theory. In this paper, we have shown that the physical realizations of the de Rham cohomological operators ($d, \delta, \Delta$) of differential geometry in the language of continuous symmetries (and their conserved Noether charges) and a set of novel discrete symmetries. In addition, the discrete symmetries (14) and (20) play the key role in establishing the relationships ($\bar s_\alpha = \pm * s_\alpha *, \, s_\alpha = \mp * \bar s_\alpha$) between the continuous symmetry transformations ($s_\alpha, \bar s_\alpha$). These relations are exactly same as the relation ($\delta = \pm * d *$) between the differential operators $d$ and $\delta$ where $*$ is the Hodge duality operation. Here the discrete symmetry is the analogue of Hodge duality operation. Thus, we have shown that the perfect analogy between the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry and the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations (and their conserved Noether charges and Hamiltonian of the system) exists at the algebraic level, in our present investigation. In our present endeavor, we have applied supervariable approach (we have already applied this approach for different $\mathcal{N} =2$ SUSY QMMs in \[15-17,23,24\]) for the derivation of the SUSY transformations for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QMM of a charged particle (i.e. an electron) moving on a sphere in the background of Dirac magnetic monoploe \[26\] within the framework of (anti-)chiral super-submanifolds. Similarly, we have established SUSY invariance of the Lagrangian in the language translational of generators ($\partial_{\theta^\alpha}$, $\partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}$) along the directions of the Grassmannian variables ($\theta^\alpha$, $\bar\theta^\alpha$) within the framework of chiral and anti-chiral supervariable expansions (33) and (39), respectively, after imposing the SUSYIRs. Our future endeavor is to find out the physical realizations of the de Rham cohomological operators of differential geometry for different $\mathcal{N} = 4 $ and $\mathcal{N} = 8$ SUSY quantum mechanical models in the language of symmetries and conserved Noether charges. Furthermore, we shall apply this idea in our future investigations of the nonlinear superconformal symmetry of a fermion in the field of a Dirac monopole \[28,29\]. Our main goal is to apply the supervariable/superfield approach to BRST formalism \[30-34\] for the study of $\mathcal{N} = 2, 4, 8$ SUSY gauge theories (because of their relevance to the recent developments in the superstring theories), in our future publications \[35\].\ [**Acknowledgements:**]{} We would like to gratefully acknowledge financial support from DST, Government of India, New Delhi, under grant No. DST-15-0081. We would like to thank BHU for the local hospitality during the visit. Fruitful suggestions by Prof. C. S. Aulakh and Mr. T. Bhanja on the preparation of this present paper are also thankfully acknowledged. Enlightening comments by our esteemed Reviewer are thankfully acknowledged, too.\ .5cm [****]{}\ .5cm In this Appendix A, we shall be showing explicitly the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical algebra (26) amongst the conserved charges $(Q_\alpha, \bar {Q}_\alpha, Q^\omega_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta} H)$ from the symmetry principle. It can be explicitly checked that $$s_\alpha\,Q_\beta = i\,\{Q_\beta, \, {Q}_\alpha \} = 0, \qquad \bar s_\alpha\,\bar{Q}_\beta = i\,\{\bar{Q}_\beta, \,\bar{Q}_\alpha \} = 0, \eqno (A.1)$$ the l.h.s. of above equation (A.1) by using the expression for the generators ($Q_\alpha, \bar Q_\alpha$) from (10) and the symmetry transformations from (3), we obtain the following: $$s_\alpha\, Q_\beta = -\, \frac{1}{2}\, (\nabla_{\alpha\gamma} \bar z \cdot \psi_\gamma) (\bar z \cdot \psi_\beta), \qquad \qquad \bar s_\alpha\,\bar{Q}_\beta = \, \frac{1}{2}\, (\bar \psi_\gamma \cdot \nabla_{\alpha\gamma} z) (\bar \psi_\beta \cdot z),\eqno (A.2)$$ which turn out to be [*zero*]{} on the constrained surface defined by the constraint conditions $\bar{z}\cdot \psi_\beta = 0$ and $\bar{\psi}_\beta\cdot z = 0$, respectively. Similarly, we compute the l.h.s. of the following relationships: $$s_\alpha\,\bar{Q}_\beta = i\,\{ \bar{Q}_\beta, Q_\alpha \} = i\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,H, \qquad \bar s_\alpha\,Q_\beta = i\,\{ Q_\beta, \bar{Q}_\alpha \} = i\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,H, \eqno (A.3)$$ by using the equations (10) and (3) in the above equation (A.3), we obtain the following: $$\bar s_\alpha\,Q_\beta = i\,\left[2 D_t \bar z + \frac{i}{2}\,(\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2g) \bar z \right]\cdot \nabla_{\alpha\beta} z + D_t \bar \psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\beta$$ $$~~~~~~~~~ +\;\, \frac{i}{4}\, (\bar \psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2g)\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\beta) + \frac{1}{2}(\bar \psi_\gamma \cdot \nabla_{\alpha\gamma} z)\,(\bar z \cdot \psi_\beta),$$ $$s_\alpha\,\bar{Q}_\beta = i\, \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \bar z\cdot\left[2\, i\, D_t z - \frac{i}{2}\,(\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2g) z \right ] - \,( \bar \psi_\beta \cdot D_t \psi_\alpha)$$ $$~~~~ + \;\, \frac{i}{4}\, (\bar \psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2g)\, (\bar\psi_\beta\cdot \psi_\alpha) - \frac{1}{2}\,(\bar\psi_\beta \cdot z)(\nabla_{\alpha\gamma} \bar z \cdot \psi_\gamma). \eqno (A.4)$$ Substituting the constraints $\bar{\psi}_\beta \cdot z = 0, \bar z\cdot \psi_\beta = 0$ and using the definitions of $\nabla_{\alpha\beta} z, \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \bar z$, $ D_t z, D_t \bar z$ plus the equations of motion w.r.t. $\psi_\alpha$ and $\bar{\psi}_\alpha$ from (10) in the above equation, we obtain the following: $$s_\alpha\,\bar{Q}_\beta = 2\, i\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t \bar z \cdot D_t z + (\bar\psi_\beta \cdot \psi_\alpha - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot \psi_\gamma)(\bar z \cdot \dot z- i\, a\, \bar z\cdot z)$$ $$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~+\; \frac{1}{2}\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,(\dot{ \bar z} \cdot z + i\, a \, \bar z \cdot z)\, (\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2\, g) + \frac{i}{4}\, (\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2g)\, (\bar\psi_\beta \cdot \psi_\alpha),$$ $$- \;\,\frac{i}{4} \, (\bar\psi_\beta\cdot \psi_\alpha- \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma) (\bar\psi_\lambda \cdot \psi_\lambda + 2g) (\bar z\cdot z) ~~~~~~~~$$ $$+\;\, \frac{i}{2} \, (\epsilon_{\lambda\rho} \bar\psi_\lambda \cdot \psi_\rho)(\epsilon_{\alpha\gamma} \bar\psi_\beta \cdot \psi_\gamma) - i\,g\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\beta), ~~~~~~~~~~~$$ $${\bar s}_\alpha\,{Q}_\beta = 2\, i\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\, D_t \bar z \cdot D_t z - (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\beta - \delta_{\alpha\beta}\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot \psi_\gamma) (\dot{\bar z} \cdot z + i\, a\, \bar z\cdot z)$$ $$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ -\; \frac{1}{2}\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,({ \bar z} \cdot \dot z - i\, a \, \bar z \cdot z)\, (\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2\, g) + \frac{i}{4}\, (\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma + 2g)\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\beta),$$ $$- \;\,\frac{i}{4} \, (\bar\psi_\alpha\cdot \psi_\beta- \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma) (\bar\psi_\lambda \cdot \psi_\lambda + 2g) (\bar z\cdot z) ~~~~~~~~$$ $$+\;\, \frac{i}{2} \, (\epsilon_{\lambda\rho} \bar\psi_\lambda \cdot \psi_\rho)(\epsilon_{\gamma\alpha} \bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\beta) - i \,g\, (\bar\psi_\alpha \cdot \psi_\beta). ~~~~~~~~~~~~\eqno (A.5)$$ Furthermore, we use the definition of $a$ and constraint $\bar z \cdot z = 1$ and $\frac{d}{dt}\,(\bar{z}\cdot z - 1) = 0$ in the above equation. We obtain the following results $$s_\alpha\,\bar{Q}_\beta = i\, \delta_{\alpha\beta} \, \Big[2 (D_t {\bar z}) \cdot (D_t z) - g\,(\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma) + \frac{1}{4}\, \left\{(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\,\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\rho)^2 - (\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\gamma)^2 \right\} \Big] \equiv i\, \delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H,~~~~~~~~$$ $$\bar s_\alpha\,Q_\beta = i\,\delta_{\alpha\beta} \, \Big[2 (D_t {\bar z}) \cdot (D_t z) - g\,(\bar\psi_\gamma \cdot \psi_\gamma) + \frac{1}{4}\, \left\{(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\,\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\rho)^2 - (\bar\psi_\gamma\cdot\psi_\gamma)^2 \right\} \Big] \nonumber\\ \equiv i\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\, H. \eqno (A.6)$$ We note that, in the computation of $s_\alpha\, \bar Q_\beta = i \,\{\bar Q_\beta, \, Q_\alpha\} = i \delta_{\alpha\beta} \,H \Rightarrow \{\bar Q_\alpha, \, Q_\beta\} = \delta_{\alpha\beta} \,H $, we have used the constraint conditions $\bar \psi_\beta \cdot z = 0, \bar z\cdot z = 1, \frac{d}{dt}\, (\bar z\cdot z - 1) = 0$ and the definitions of $a, \nabla_{\alpha\beta} \bar z$, $D_t z, D_t \bar z$ plus equation of motion for $\psi_\alpha$ (i.e. $D_t\,\psi_\alpha + \frac{i}{2}\,(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\bar{\psi}_\gamma\cdot \psi_\rho)\, (\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,\psi_\beta)-i\,g\, \psi_\alpha = 0$). On the other hand, in the explicit composition of $\bar s_\alpha\, Q_\beta = i\, \{ Q_\beta, \, \bar Q_\alpha\} = i \delta_{\alpha\beta} \,H \Rightarrow \{ Q_\alpha, \, \bar Q_\beta\} = \delta_{\alpha\beta} \,H $, we have exploited the constraint conditions $\bar z \cdot \psi_\beta = 0, \bar z\cdot z = 1, \frac{d}{dt}\, (\bar z\cdot z - 1) = 0$ and the definitions of $a, \nabla_{\alpha\beta} z, D_t z, D_t \bar z$ with using equation of motion for $\bar\psi$ (i.e. $D_t\, \bar{\psi}_\alpha + \frac{i}{2}\,(\epsilon_{\gamma\rho}\bar{\psi}_\gamma\cdot \psi_\rho)\, (\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,\bar\psi_\beta)+ i g\, \bar\psi_\alpha= 0$), respectively.\ .5cm [****]{} .5cm In this Appendix B, we would like to emphasize the key difference between the (anti-)chiral supervariables in the context of the derivation of nilpotent SUSY transformations for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY quantum mechanical model and the (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations for a gauge theory. In the literature, it is well-known that the (anti-)BRST symmetries ($s_{(a)b}$) for a given gauge theory are nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting in nature whereas the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY symmetries are nilpotent but [*not*]{} absolutely anticommuting in nature. Within the framework of BT-superfield approach \[30-33\] to BRST symmetries, a bosonic field $\sigma(x)$ for D-dimensional gauge theory, one has to generalize it onto a (D, 2)-dimensional supermanifold along the Grassmannian directions ($\theta$ and $\bar\theta$) (with $\theta^2=\bar\theta^2=0,\; \theta\bar\theta+\bar\theta\theta =0$) in the following manner: $$\Sigma(x,\theta, \bar\theta) = \sigma(x) + \theta\,\bar R(x)+ \bar\theta\, R(x) + i \theta\bar\theta \, S(x), \eqno (B.1)$$ where $R(x), \bar R(x)$ are the fermionic secondary fields and $S(x)$ is a bosonic secondary field and $\Sigma(x,\theta, \bar\theta)$ is the corresponding superfield which is defined on the (D, 2)-dimensional supermanifold. In the above equation (B.1), the translational generators ($\partial_\theta, \partial_{\bar\theta}$) are found to correspond to the (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations $s_{(a)b}$ which are nilpotent of order two due to ($\partial_{\theta}^2= \partial_{\bar\theta}^2 =0$) and they are absolutely anticommuting because it is straightforward to check that: $$\partial_{\bar\theta}\,\partial_{\theta} \, \Sigma(x,\theta, \bar\theta) = i S(x) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad s_b\,s_{ab} \sigma(x), \eqno (B.2)$$ $$\partial_{\theta}\,\partial_{\bar\theta} \, \Sigma(x,\theta, \bar\theta) = -i S(x) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad s_{ab}\,s_{b} \sigma(x). \eqno (B.3)$$ It is clear from the above relationships (B.2) and (B.3), we obtain the following $$(\partial_{\bar\theta}\,\partial_{\theta} + \partial_{\theta}\,\partial_{\bar\theta}) \, \Sigma(x,\theta, \bar\theta) = 0 \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad (s_b\,s_{ab} + s_b\,s_{ab})\, \sigma(x) =0, \eqno (B.4)$$ which shows the absolute anticommutativity property of the (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations. In our present $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM model, we are compelled to avoid the relation (B.4) so that our nilpotent SUSY symmetries could not become absolutely anticommuting in nature. The anticommutator of our present investigation (i.e. SUSY theory), is nothing but the bosonic symmetry (i.e. $s_\alpha {\bar s}_\beta + s_\beta {\bar s}_\alpha = s^\omega_{\alpha\beta}$ with $\alpha,\beta= 1,2$) \[cf. (8)\]. Geometrically, $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY symmetry transformations are identified with the translational generators ($\partial_{\theta^\alpha}, \partial_{\bar\theta^\alpha}$) along the Grassmannian directions ($\theta^\alpha$, $\bar\theta^\alpha$) of the (anti-)chiral super-submanifolds which encapsulate only the nilpotency property (not absolute anticommutativity property). The purpose of this Appendix B is to develop the theoretical tools and techniques so that we could derive the complete structure of the SUSY symmetries for the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY QM model. [99]{} P. A. M. Dirac, [*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University Press, New York (1964) K. Sundermeyer, [*Constrained Dynamics: Lecture Notes in Physics*]{},\ vol. 169, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1982) R. Kumar, S. Krishna, A. Shukla and R. P. Malik,\ [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} A [**29**]{}, 1450135 (2014) R. P. Malik, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**34**]{}, 4167 (2001) E. Witten, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**117**]{}, 353 (1988) E. Witten [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**121**]{}, 351 (1989) A. S. Schwarz, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**2**]{}, 247 (1978) R. P. Malik, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} A [**15**]{}, 2079 (2000) R. P. Malik, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**16**]{}, 477 (2001) S. Krishna, A. Shukla and R. P. Malik,\ [*Advances in High Energy Physics*]{} [**2015**]{}, 21 (2015) R. Kumar, S. Krishna, A. Shukla and R. P. Malik, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} C [**72**]{}, 1980 (2012) R. Kumar and R. P. Malik, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 11002 (2012) R. P. Malik and Avinash Khare, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**334**]{}, 142 (2013) R. Kumar and R. P. Malik, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} C [**73**]{}, 2514 (2013) S. Krishna, A. Shukla and R. P. Malik, [*Canadian J. Phys.*]{} [**92**]{}, 1623 (2014) S. Krishna, A. Shukla and R. P. Malik, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**351**]{}, 558 (2014) S. Krishna and R. P. Malik, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**355**]{}, 204 (2015) T. Eguchi, P. B. Gilkey and A. Hanson, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**66**]{}, 213 (1980) See, e.g., S. Mukhi and N. Mukunda, [*Introduction to Topology, Differential Geometry and Group Theory for Physicists*]{} (Wiley Eastern Private Limited, New Delhi, 1990) K. Nishijima, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**80**]{}, 897 (1988) K. Nishijima, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**80**]{}, 905 (1988) J. W. van Holten, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**64**]{}, 2863 (1990) S. Krishna and R. P. Malik, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**109**]{}, 31001 (2015) S. Krishna and R. P. Malik, arXiv:1505.06045 \[hep-th\]\ (To appear in [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} A) S. -T. Hong, J. Lee, T. H. Lee and P. Oh, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} D [**72**]{}, 015002 (2005) S. -T. Hong, J. Lee, T. H. Lee and P. Oh, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} B [**628**]{}, 165 (2005) S. Deser, A. Gomberoff, M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,\ [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**400**]{}, 80 (1997) M. S. Plyushchay, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**485**]{}, 187 (2000) M. S. Plyushchay, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**582**]{}, 135 (2004) L. Bonora and M. Tonin, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**98**]{}, 48 (1981) L. Bonora, P. Pasti and M. Tonin, [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} A [**63**]{}, 353 (1981) R. Delbourgo and P. D. Jarvis, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**15**]{}, 611 (1981) R. Delbourgo, P. D. Jarvis and G. Thompson, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**109**]{}, 25 (1982) N. Nakanishi and I. Ojima, [*Covariant Operator Formalism of Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity*]{}, World scientific, Singapore (1990) S. Krishna, [*etal.*]{}, in preparation [^1]: On a compact manifold without a boundary, mathematically, there exits three differential operators ($d, \delta, \Delta$) which are called cohomological operators of differential geometry. These three de Rham cohomological operators obey the following algebra: $d^2 =\delta^2 =0, \Delta= (d + \delta)^2 = \{d, \, \delta \}, [\Delta, d]= [\Delta,\,\delta] =0$ where $(\delta)d$ are the (co-)exterior derivatives and $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator. The exterior and co-exterior derivatives together satisfy an interesting relationship: $\, d = \pm *\delta*$ where $*$ is the Hodge duality operation. [^2]: Here the ordinary 1D manifold characterized by $t$ has been generalized to (1, 2)-dimensional super-submanifold. The latter is characterized by the superspace variables $(t, \theta) \equiv (t, \theta^\alpha)$ (with $\alpha = 1, 2$). The Grassmannian variables $\theta^\alpha$ satisfy the following properties such as: $(\theta^1)^2= (\theta^2)^2 = 0$. [^3]: We have chosen here the (anti-)chiral supervariables because the nilpotent $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SUSY transformations do not anticommute (i.e. $\{s_\alpha, \bar s_\beta\} \ne 0$). This should be different from the nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations because (anti-)BRST symmetries are nilpotent as well as absolutely anticommuting (see, e.g. \[30-33\]). Within the framework of superfield approach to (anti-)BRST symmetries, the superfields are expanded along both the Grassmannian directions ($\theta, \bar\theta$) (see, e.g. Appendix B).

--- abstract: 'We introduce the notion of a categorical cone, which provides a categorification of the classical cone over a projective variety, and use our work on categorical joins to describe its behavior under homological projective duality. In particular, our construction provides well-behaved categorical resolutions of singular quadrics, which we use to obtain an explicit quadratic version of the main theorem of homological projective duality. As applications, we prove the duality conjecture for Gushel–Mukai varieties, and produce interesting examples of conifold transitions between noncommutative and honest Calabi–Yau threefolds.' address: - - 'Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 ' author: - Alexander Kuznetsov - Alexander Perry title: Categorical cones and quadratic homological projective duality --- [^1] Introduction {#section-intro} ============ This paper is a sequel to [@categorical-joins], where we introduced categorical joins in the context of homological projective duality (HPD). Building on that work, our goals here are to study a categorical version of the classical cone over a projective variety, to use categorical quadratic cones to give a powerful method for studying derived categories of quadratic sections of varieties, and to give several applications. Background ---------- The basic object of HPD is a *Lefschetz variety*, which consists of a variety mapping to a projective space $X \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ equipped with a *Lefschetz decomposition* of its derived category (a special type of semiorthogonal decomposition). The theory in this form was introduced and developed in [@kuznetsov-hpd]. However, already at that point it was clear that the theory is more categorical in nature, and that for applications it is useful to replace the (perfect) derived category ${\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$ of $X$ by a more general (suitably enhanced) triangulated category ${\mathcal{A}}$ equipped with a Lefschetz decomposition; the structure of a map $X \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is then replaced by a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure (an action of the monoidal category ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))$) on ${\mathcal{A}}$. We call such data a *Lefschetz category* over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and think of it as of a *noncommutative* Lefschetz variety. The reader is encouraged to focus on the case where $X \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is an ordinary morphism of varieties for this introduction, and to consult [@NCHPD; @categorical-joins] for more details on the noncommutative situation. The HPD of a (noncommutative) Lefschetz variety $X \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is another (noncommutative) Lefschetz variety $$X^{{{\natural}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$$ over the dual projective space, which governs the derived categories of linear sections of $X$ and can be thought of as a categorical version of the classical projective dual. For details and applications of this theory, see [@kuznetsov-hpd; @NCHPD; @kuznetsov2014semiorthogonal; @thomas2015notes]. In [@categorical-joins] given a pair of (noncommutative) Lefschetz varieties $X_1 \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ and $X_2 \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$, we constructed a (noncommutative) Lefschetz variety $${\mathcal{J}}(X_1, X_2) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2)$$ called their *categorical join*, which can be thought of as a noncommutative resolution of singularities of the classical join of $X_1$ and $X_2$. Moreover, we proved that various classical properties of joins can be lifted to this level; in particular, (under suitable assumptions) there is an equivalence of Lefschetz varieties $$\label{HPD-joins} {\mathcal{J}}(X_1, X_2)^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathcal{J}}(X_1^{{{\natural}}}, X_2^{{{\natural}}})$$ over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_1 \oplus {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_2)$, i.e. the HP dual of a categorical join is the categorical join of HP duals. This leads to numerous applications, including a nonlinear HPD theorem (see also [@categorical-plucker]) giving an equivalence between the “essential parts” of the derived categories of fiber products $$X_1 \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} X_2 \qquad \text{and} \qquad X^{{\natural}}_1 \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})} X^{{\natural}}_2 .$$ The simplest case of this result — when $X_2$ is a linear subspace of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and $X_2^{{\natural}}$ is its orthogonal linear subspace of ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ — reduces to the main theorem of HPD, and other examples of HPD pairs $(X_2,X_2^{{\natural}})$ provide a generalization of this. Such generalizations are more useful in cases when $X_2$ and $X_2^{{\natural}}$ both have a nice geometric description. One of the goals of this paper is to produce such pairs where both $X_2$ and $X_2^{{\natural}}$ are *categorical resolutions* of singular quadrics and to relate in this way quadratic sections of $X_1$ and $X_1^{{\natural}}$. Allowing the quadrics to be singular is crucial for applications, as we will explain below in §\[subsection:importance\]. Categorical cones ----------------- Assume given an exact sequence of vector spaces $$\label{V0VbarV} 0 \to V_0 \to V \to {\bar{V}}\to 0$$ and a closed subvariety $X \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Recall that the *classical cone* over $X$ with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ is the strict transform $${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$$ of $X$ under the linear projection ${\mathbf{P}}(V) \dashrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ from ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$. Note that ${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ is usually highly singular along its vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \subset {\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X)$. In this paper, given a (noncommutative) Lefschetz variety $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, we construct a (noncommutative) Lefschetz variety $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$$ called the *categorical cone* which provides (if $X$ is smooth) a categorical resolution of ${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X)$. The basic idea of the construction is to first replace the classical cone with the *resolved cone* ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ given by the blowup along ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \subset {\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X)$; the resolved cone is the projectivization of the pullback of a natural vector bundle on ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, and hence makes sense even when $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is not an embedding. The categorical cone is then defined as a certain triangulated subcategory of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X))$ following a construction in [@kuznetsov2008lefschetz], and can be thought of as a noncommutative birational modification of ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X)$ along its exceptional divisor. The categorical cone has several advantages over its classical counterpart: - ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ is defined when $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is not an embedding, and even when $X$ is noncommutative (Definition \[definition-cat-cone\]). - ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ naturally has the structure of a Lefschetz variety over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ induced by that of $X$ (Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\]). - ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ is smooth and proper if $X$ is (Lemma \[lemma-cC-smooth-proper\]). For us, however, the main advantage of the categorical cone is its compatibility with HPD: our first main result is the identification of the HPD of a categorical cone as another categorical cone. In fact, we work in a more general setup than above, that simultaneously allows for extensions of the ambient projective space, because this extra generality is useful in applications (see §\[subsection:importance\]). Namely, let $V$ be a vector space and assume given a pair of subspaces $$V_0 \subset V \qquad \text{and} \qquad V_{\infty} \subset {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$$ such that $V_0 \subset V_\infty^\perp$, or equivalently $V_\infty \subset V_0^\perp$, where the orthogonals are taken with respect to the natural pairing between $V$ and ${V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$. Let $${\bar{V}}= V_\infty^\perp/V_0,\qquad\text{so that}\qquad {\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \cong V_0^\perp/V_\infty.$$ For  this reduces to the situation  above. Let $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ be a Lefschetz variety, with HPD variety $X^{{\natural}}\to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. The categorical cone ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ is then a Lefschetz variety over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_{\infty}^{\perp})$. Via the inclusion ${\mathbf{P}}(V_{\infty}^{\perp}) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ we can regard ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ as a Lefschetz variety over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, which we write as ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)/{\mathbf{P}}(V)$ for emphasis. Similarly, we have a Lefschetz variety ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_{\infty}}(X^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. \[cone-theorem-intro\] In the above situation if $X$ is a right strong, moderate Lefschetz variety over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ and $X^{{\natural}}$ is its HPD over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$, then there is an equivalence $$({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{\natural}}\simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}(X^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$$ of Lefschetz varieties over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$, i.e., ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}(X^{{\natural}})$ is the HPD of ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. In the statement of the theorem “right strong” and “moderate” refer to technical assumptions on a Lefschetz variety (see Definitions \[definition:strong\] and \[def:moderateness\]) which are essentially always satisfied in practice. The theorem categorifies an analogous classical relation between cones and projective duality: for a variety $X \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ we have $$({\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} = {\mathbf{C}}_{V_\infty}(X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) ,$$ where $(-)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ denotes the operation of classical projective duality. Our proof of Theorem \[cone-theorem-intro\] is based on the HPD result  for categorical joins mentioned above, and the following relation between categorical cones and joins. Given an exact sequence  with $V_0 \neq 0$, we show that if $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is a Lefschetz variety, then the choice of a splitting of  induces a natural equivalence $$\label{cones-joins-equivalence} {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X) \simeq {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), X)$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V$) (Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\]). For $V_0 = 0$ the identification fails, since then ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X) \simeq X$ whereas ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), X) = 0$. Moreover, even if $V_0 \neq 0$, we need to choose a splitting of  to be able to form ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), X)$. When working over a field (as we tacitly do in the introduction) this is not a problem, but it is typically not possible when working over a general base scheme, as we do in the body of the paper with a view toward applications. Finally, when  holds, there is an advantage of working with the categorical cone description: ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ becomes isomorphic to the classical cone ${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X)$ over an a priori bigger Zariski open locus than the categorical join ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), X)$, which is also important for geometric applications. Quadratic HPD ------------- We use categorical cones and results from [@kuznetsov-perry-HPD-quadrics] to develop HPD for singular quadrics. By a quadric, we mean an integral scheme isomorphic to a degree $2$ hypersurface in a projective space. Any quadric $Q$ can be expressed as a classical cone $Q = {\mathbf{C}}_K({\bar{Q}})$ over a smooth quadric ${\bar{Q}}$, where ${\mathbf{P}}(K) = {\mathrm{Sing}}(Q)$. We consider the categorical cone $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}= {\mathcal{C}}_{K}({\bar{Q}}),$$ where ${\bar{Q}}$ is equipped with a natural Lefschetz decomposition involving spinor bundles, see Lemma \[lemma-cQ-lc\]. This ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ is in fact a crepant categorical resolution of singularities of $Q$, see Lemma \[lemma-cQ-categorical-resolution\]. We call it the *standard categorical resolution* of $Q$. We deduce from Theorem \[cone-theorem-intro\] and [@kuznetsov-perry-HPD-quadrics Theorem 1.1] that the class of standard categorical resolutions of quadrics is closed under HPD. Namely, we consider pairs $(Q, f)$ where $Q$ is a quadric and $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is a *standard morphism*, i.e. such that $f^*{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)}(1)$ is the ample line bundle that realizes $Q$ as a quadric hypersurface in a projective space. In other words, $f$ is either an embedding as a quadric hypersurface into a linear subspace of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, or a double covering of a linear subspace of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ branched along a quadric hypersurface. We define in Definition \[definition:generalized-duality\] a *generalized duality* operation $(Q, f) \mapsto (Q^{{{\natural}}}, f^{{{\natural}}})$ on such pairs, where the target of $f^{{{\natural}}} \colon Q^{{{\natural}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ is the dual projective space. This generalized duality reduces to classical projective duality when $Q$ has even rank and $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is an embedding, and involves passing to a double covering or branch divisor in other cases. \[intro-hpd-quadrics\] Let $(Q, f)$ and $(Q^{\natural}, f^{\natural})$ be a generalized dual pair as above. Then the HPD of the standard categorical resolution of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is equivalent to the standard categorical resolution of $Q^{\natural}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. By combining Theorem \[intro-hpd-quadrics\] with our nonlinear HPD Theorem from [@categorical-joins], we prove the following quadratic HPD theorem. \[intro-quadratic-HPD\] Let $X \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a right strong, moderate Lefschetz variety. Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and $f^{{{\natural}}} \colon Q^{{{\natural}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ be a generalized dual pair of quadrics, with standard categorical resolutions ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ and ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^\natural$, respectively. Then there are induced semiorthogonal decompositions of $${\mathrm{Perf}}(X) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\qquad\text{and}\qquad {\mathrm{Perf}}(X^\natural) \otimes_{{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^\natural$$ which have a distinguished component in common. Moreover, when $X$ and $X^{\natural}$ are supported away from the singular loci of $Q$ and $Q^{{{\natural}}}$, the above tensor product categories are identified with the derived categories of the fiber products $$X \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} Q \qquad \text{and} \qquad X^\natural \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})} Q^\natural$$ of $X$ and $X^\natural$ with the underlying quadrics $Q$ and $Q^{{\natural}}$. The semiorthogonal decompositions mentioned above are described in Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\]. The importance of being singular {#subsection:importance} -------------------------------- An interesting feature of generalized duality of quadrics is that the dimension of $Q^{{{\natural}}}$ may be very different from the dimension of $Q$; in fact, the dimension of $Q^{{{\natural}}}$ decreases as the dimension of the singular locus of $Q$ increases, see . This observation has interesting consequences. Indeed, imagine we are interested in a fiber product $$\label{eq:z-x-q} Z = X \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} Q,$$ where $X$ is a Lefschetz variety over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, whose homological projective dual variety $X^{{\natural}}$ is known, and $Q \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is a quadric hypersurface (the case where $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is a standard morphism of a quadric of other type works similarly). Imagine also that $X$ itself is an intersection of quadrics (or at least there is a big family of quadrics in ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ containing the image of $X$); note that this assumption is usually satisfied in applications, since most of varieties for which the HPD is known are homogeneous, and every homogeneous variety (in an equivariant embedding) is an intersection of quadrics. Under this assumption the quadric $Q$ such that $Z$ is defined by a fiber product  is not unique; indeed, it can be replaced by any quadric in the affine space of quadrics which contain $Z$ but not $X$. Typically, the rank of $Q$ varies in this family. From this we obtain a family of “dual fiber products”  parameterized by the same affine space, which have varying dimension, but all contain the distinguished component ${\mathcal{K}}(Z) \subset {\mathrm{Perf}}(Z)$. If we want to use these varieties to understand the structure of ${\mathcal{K}}(Z)$, it is natural to chose a fiber product $X^{{\natural}}\times_{{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})} Q^{{\natural}}$ of smallest possible dimension (hence the most singular quadric $Q$ defining $Z$) and use its geometry. To show how this works consider for example the Fermat quartic surface $$Z = \{ x_0^4 + x_1^4 + x_2^4 + x_3^4 = 0 \} \subset {\mathbf{P}}^3 =: {\mathbf{P}}(W) .$$ Note that it can be realized as a fiber product , where , , the map is the double Veronese embedding, and  is any quadric hypersurface, corresponding to a point of an affine space over the vector space of quadrics containing $X$. The most singular quadric among these is the quadric $$Q_0 = \{ x_{00}^2 + x_{11}^2 + x_{22}^2 + x_{33}^2 = 0 \} \subset {\mathbf{P}}^9 = {\mathbf{P}}(V),$$ where $x_{ij}$ is the coordinate on ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ corresponding to the quadratic function $x_i \cdot x_j$ on ${\mathbf{P}}(W)$. Note that the kernel space $K$ of the corresponding quadratic form on $V$ is 6-dimensional. In this case, the generalized dual $Q_0^{{{\natural}}}$ of $Q_0$ coincides with the classical projective dual $Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ of $Q_0$, which is a smooth quadric surface in the linear space $${\mathbf{P}}(\langle x_{00}, x_{11}, x_{22}, x_{33} \rangle) = {\mathbf{P}}(K^\perp) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) = {\mathbf{P}}^9$$ of codimension 6. On the other hand, in this case $X^{{\natural}}= ({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}),\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0)$ is the noncommutative variety whose derived category is the category of coherent sheaves of $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0$-modules on ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$, where $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0$ is the universal sheaf of even parts of Clifford algebras on ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ [@kuznetsov08quadrics]. Therefore, the dual fiber product can be rewritten as $$X^{{\natural}}\times_{{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})} Q_0^{{\natural}}= \left({Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}},\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0\vert_{{Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}\right)$$ and Theorem \[intro-quadratic-HPD\] gives an equivalence of categories $$\label{eq:fermat} {\mathrm{Perf}}(Z) \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}\left({Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}},\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0\vert_{{Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}\right).$$ (See Remark \[remark:rhs-explanation\] below for a more precise description of the right hand side). Note that if we replace $Q_0$ with a general quadric cutting out $Z$ in $X$, then instead of the above equivalence we would obtain a fully faithful embedding of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Z)$ into the derived category of sheaves of $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0$-modules over an 8-dimensional quadric in ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$, which is definitely less effective. \[remark:rhs-explanation\] In fact, the equivalence  can be made more precise as follows. Consider the union of coordinate hyperplanes in the above space ${\mathbf{P}}(K^\perp) = {\mathbf{P}}^3$ (this is a reducible quartic hypersurface) and the double covering $Z' \to {Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$ branched along the intersection of ${Q_0^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$ with these hyperplanes. Then $Z'$ is a K3 surface with 12 ordinary double points. Then the sheaf of algebras $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cliff}}_0$ defines a Brauer class of order 2 on the resolution of singularities of $Z'$, and the right hand side of  is equivalent to the corresponding twisted derived category. Duality of Gushel–Mukai varieties {#subsection-intro-applications} --------------------------------- As an application of our results, we prove the duality conjecture for *Gushel–Mukai* (GM) varieties from [@kuznetsov2016perry]. Abstractly, the class of smooth GM varieties consists of smooth Fano varieties of Picard number $1$, coindex $3$, and degree $10$, together with Brill–Noether general polarized K3 surfaces of degree $10$; concretely, any such variety can be expressed as an intersection of the cone over the Plücker embedded Grassmannian ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,5) \subset {\mathbf{P}}^9$ with a linear space and a quadric $Q$, or equivalently, as a fiber product of ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,5)$ with a standard morphism $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}^9$. In [@debarre2015kuznetsov Definitions 3.22 and 3.26] the notions of *period partnership* and *duality* for a pair of GM varieties of the same dimension were introduced, and in [@debarre2015kuznetsov Proposition 3.28] the notion of duality was related to projective duality of quadrics. Moreover, in [@debarre2015kuznetsov Corollary 4.16 and Theorem 4.20] it was shown that smooth period partners and dual GM varieties are always birational. Finally, [@debarre-kuznetsov-periods Theorem 5.1 and Remark 5.28] combined with [@ogrady2015periods Theorem 1.3] proved that period partners of any smooth GM variety of even dimension form the fiber of the period map from the moduli space of smooth GM varieties to the appropriate period domain (a similar result is also conjectured for GM varieties of odd dimension). On the other hand, in [@kuznetsov2016perry Proposition 2.3] a semiorthogonal decomposition of the derived category ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$ of a smooth GM variety $Y$ consisting of exceptional vector bundles and the *GM category* ${\mathcal{K}}(Y) \subset {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$ was constructed. The GM category was shown to be a noncommutative K3 or Enriques surface according to whether $\dim(Y)$ is even or odd. In [@kuznetsov2016perry Definition 3.5] the notions of period partnership and duality were generalized to allow GM varieties of different dimension (but of the same parity!). The following result settles the duality conjecture [@kuznetsov2016perry Conjecture 3.7], which previously was only known in a very special case by [@kuznetsov2016perry Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.2]. \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] Let $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ be smooth GM varieties whose associated Lagrangian subspaces do not contain decomposable vectors. If $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are generalized partners or duals, then there is an equivalence ${\mathcal{K}}(Y_1) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}(Y_2)$. For the notion of the Lagrangian subspace associated to a GM variety see [@debarre2015kuznetsov §3] and the discussion in §\[subsection:duality-gm\] below. For now we just note that, with the exception of some GM surfaces, the assumption of the theorem holds for all smooth GM varieties. Let us explain some consequences of this result. In combination with the period results from [@debarre-kuznetsov-periods] mentioned above, Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] shows that the assignment $Y \rightsquigarrow {\mathcal{K}}(Y)$ is constant on the fibers of the period morphism (at least in the even-dimensional case); since these fibers are positive-dimensional, this is an interesting phenomenon connecting Hodge theory to derived categories. Moreover, in combination with the birationality results from [@debarre2015kuznetsov] also mentioned above, Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] gives strong evidence for the following conjecture. \[conjecture-equivalent-K3-birational\] If $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are GM varieties of the same dimension such that there is an equivalence ${\mathcal{K}}(Y_1) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}(Y_2)$, then $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are birational. Because of the tight parallels between GM fourfolds, cubic fourfolds, and their associated K3 categories (see [@kuznetsov2016perry Theorem 1.3]), Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] can also be considered as evidence for the analogous conjecture for cubic fourfolds suggested by Huybrechts (see [@macri-K3-survey Question 3.25]). We note that every GM fivefold or sixfold is rational [@debarre2015kuznetsov Proposition 4.2], so Conjecture \[conjecture-equivalent-K3-birational\] is of interest specifically for GM threefolds and fourfolds. As explained in [@kuznetsov2016perry §3.3], Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] also verifies cases of the derived category heuristics for rationality discussed in [@kuznetsov2010derived; @kuznetsov2015rationality]. Finally, we note that Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] implies that for certain special GM fourfolds and sixfolds $Y$, there exists a K3 surface $S$ such that ${\mathcal{K}}(Y) \simeq {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(S)$ (see [@kuznetsov2016perry §3.2]). In fact, for some GM fourfolds this is the main result of [@kuznetsov2016perry], and our proof of Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] gives an extension and a conceptual new proof of this result. We expect this fact that even GM categories are “deformation equivalent” to an ordinary K3 surface to be very important for future applications. For instance, the analogous property for the K3 category of a cubic fourfold is crucial in [@families-stability], where a structure theory for moduli of Bridgeland stable objects in such a category is developed, giving (among other results) infinitely many new locally-complete unirational families of polarized hyperkähler varieties. Other applications {#subsection-intro-other-applications} ------------------ For another application of the quadratic HPD theorem, we introduce a class of *spin GM varieties*. Roughly, these are obtained by replacing the role of the Grassmannian ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,5) \subset {\mathbf{P}}^9$ in the definition of GM varieties with the connected component ${\mathrm{OGr}}_+(5,10) \subset {\mathbf{P}}^{15}$ of the orthogonal Grassmannian ${\mathrm{OGr}}(5,10)$ in its spinor embedding. The *spin GM category* ${\mathcal{K}}(Y) \subset {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$ corresponding to such a variety can be thought of as a $3$-dimensional analogue of a GM category, as it is (fractional) Calabi–Yau of dimension $3$. In this setting, we deduce from Theorem \[intro-quadratic-HPD\] a spin analogue of Theorem \[theorem-duality-conjecture\] (see Theorem \[theorem-sGM-duality\]). Going further, we consider the case where $Y$ is a fivefold, which is particularly interesting from the perspective of rationality. The heuristics of [@kuznetsov2010derived; @kuznetsov2015rationality] lead to the following conjecture: if such a $Y$ is rational, then ${\mathcal{K}}(Y) \simeq {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(M)$ for a Calabi–Yau threefold $M$. We show that such an equivalence cannot exist if $Y$ is smooth (Lemma \[lemma-sGM-not-geometric\]), and hence we expect $Y$ to be irrational. On the other hand, we use Theorem \[intro-quadratic-HPD\] to prove the following result (stated somewhat imprecisely here), which verifies the conjecture in a mildly degenerate case. \[theorem-nodal-spinGM-intro\] For certain nodal spin GM fivefolds $Y$, the variety $Y$ is rational and there exists a smooth Calabi–Yau threefold $M$ which gives a crepant categorical resolution of ${\mathcal{K}}(Y)$. Finally, we note that Theorem \[theorem-nodal-spinGM-intro\] can be regarded as giving a noncommutative conifold transition from a smooth spin GM category to the Calabi–Yau threefold $M$. This suggests a noncommutative version of Reid’s fantasy [@reid-fantasy]: by degenerations and crepant resolutions, can we connect any noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefold to the derived category of a smooth projective Calabi–Yau threefold? When the answer to this question is positive, it opens the way to proving results by deforming to a geometric situation. For instance, using the methods of [@families-stability], this gives a potential way to reduce the construction of stability conditions on noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefolds to the geometric case. Further, once stability conditions are known to exist, one can try to analyze the corresponding moduli spaces of semistable objects by relating them to the case of geometric Calabi–Yau threefolds; this would be a higher-dimensional version of the approach to studying moduli spaces of objects in the K3 category of a cubic fourfold carried out in [@families-stability]. Conventions {#subsection:conventions} ----------- In this paper, we follow the conventions laid out in [@categorical-joins §1.7], which we briefly summarize here. All schemes are quasi-compact and separated, and we work relative to a fixed base scheme $S$. For the applications in §\[section-HPD-for-quadrics\] and §\[section:applications\], we assume the base scheme $S$ is the spectrum of an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$ of characteristic $0$. A vector bundle $V$ on a scheme $T$ means a finite locally free ${\mathcal{O}}_T$-module; we use the convention that $${\mathbf{P}}(V) = {{\mathbf{P}}_T(V) = {}} \operatorname{Proj}(\operatorname{Sym}^\bullet(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})) \to T$$ with ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)}(1)$ normalized so that its pushfoward to $T$ is $V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$. A subbundle $W \subset V$ is an inclusion of vector bundles whose cokernel is a vector bundle. Given such a $W \subset V$, its orthogonal is the subbundle of ${V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$ given by $$W^{\perp} = \ker(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \to W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}).$$ By abuse of notation, given a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ or a divisor class $D$ on a scheme $T$, we denote still by ${\mathcal{L}}$ or $D$ its pullback to any variety mapping to $T$. Similarly, if $X \to T$ is a morphism and $V$ is a vector bundle on $T$, we sometimes write $V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X$ for the pullback of $V$ to $X$. Given morphisms of schemes $X \to T$ and $Y \to T$, the symbol $X \times_T Y$ denotes their *derived* fiber product (see [@lurie-SAG; @gaitsgory-DAG]), which agrees with the usual fiber product of schemes whenever $X$ and $Y$ are $\operatorname{Tor}$-independent over $T$. We write fiber products over our fixed base $S$ as absolute fiber products, i.e. $X \times Y := X \times_S Y$. We work with linear categories as reviewed in [@categorical-joins §1.6 and Appendix A]. In particular, given a scheme $X$ over $T$, we denote by ${\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$ its category of perfect complexes and by ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(X)$ its bounded derived category of coherent sheaves, regarded as $T$-linear categories. If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $T$-linear category and $T' \to T$ is a morphism of schemes, we denote by $${\mathcal{C}}_{T'} = {\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathrm{Perf}}(T')$$ the base change of ${\mathcal{C}}$ along $T' \to T$. If $Z \subset T$ is a closed subset, we say ${\mathcal{C}}$ is *supported over $Z$* if ${\mathcal{C}}_U \simeq 0$, where $U = T \setminus Z$. If $U \subset T$ is an open subset, we say ${\mathcal{C}}$ is *supported over $U$* if the restriction functor ${\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathcal{C}}_U$ is an equivalence. All functors considered in this paper (pullback, pushforward, tensor product) will be taken in the derived sense. Recall that for a morphism of schemes $f \colon X \to Y$ the pushforward $f_*$ is right adjoint to the pullback $f^*$. Sometimes, we need other adjoint functors as well. Provided they exist, we denote by $f^!$ the right adjoint of $f_* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$ and by $f_!$ the left adjoint of $f^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y) \to {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$, so that $(f_!,f^*,f_*,f^!)$ is an adjoint sequence. \[remark-adjoints-exist\] The above adjoint functors all exist if $f \colon X \to Y$ is a morphism between schemes which are smooth and projective over $S$ (see [@categorical-joins Remark 1.14]); this will be satisfied in all of the cases where we need $f^!$ and $f_!$ in the paper. Organization of the paper ------------------------- In §\[section:preliminaries\] we review preliminaries on HPD. In §\[section-categorical-cones\] we define categorical cones, study their basic properties, and relate them to categorical joins. In §\[section-cones-HPD\] we prove Theorem \[cone-theorem-intro\] on HPD for categorical cones. In §\[section-HPD-for-quadrics\] we introduce standard categorical resolutions of quadrics, and prove the HPD result Theorem \[intro-hpd-quadrics\] for them and the quadratic HPD theorem stated as Theorem \[intro-quadratic-HPD\] above. Finally, in §\[section:applications\] we establish the applications discussed in §\[subsection-intro-applications\] and §\[subsection-intro-other-applications\]. In Appendix \[appendix\], we prove some results in the context of HPD that are used in the paper. Acknowledgements ---------------- We are grateful to Roland Abuaf and Johan de Jong for useful conversations. Preliminaries on HPD {#section:preliminaries} ==================== In this section, we discuss preliminary material on HPD that will be needed in the rest of the paper. We fix a vector bundle $V$ over our base scheme $S$. We denote by $N$ the rank of $V$ and by $H$ the relative hyperplane class on the projective bundle ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ such that ${\mathcal{O}}(H) = {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)}(1)$. Lefschetz categories {#subsection-lef-cats} -------------------- The fundamental objects of HPD are Lefschetz categories. We summarize the basic definitions following [@NCHPD §6]. \[definition:lefschetz-category\] Let $T$ be a scheme over $S$ with a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a $T$-linear category. An admissible [$S$-linear]{} subcategory ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}$ is called a *Lefschetz center* of ${\mathcal{A}}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}$ if the subcategories ${\mathcal{A}}_i \subset {\mathcal{A}}$, $i \in {\mathbf{Z}}$, determined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{Ai-igeq0} {\mathcal{A}}_i & = {\mathcal{A}}_{i-1} \cap {}^\perp({\mathcal{A}}_0 \otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-i})\hphantom{{}^\perp}, \quad i \ge 1 \\ \label{Ai-ileq0} {\mathcal{A}}_i & = {\mathcal{A}}_{i+1} \cap \hphantom{{}^\perp}({\mathcal{A}}_0 \otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-i})^\perp, \quad i \le -1 \end{aligned}$$ are right admissible in ${\mathcal{A}}$ for $i \geq 1$, left admissible in ${\mathcal{A}}$ for $i \leq -1$, vanish for all $i$ of sufficiently large absolute value, say for $|i| \geq m$, and provide [$S$-linear]{} semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:right-decomposition} {\mathcal{A}}& = \langle {\mathcal{A}}_0, {\mathcal{A}}_1 \otimes {\mathcal{L}}, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_{m-1} \otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{m-1} \rangle, \\ \label{eq:left-decomposition} {\mathcal{A}}& = \langle {\mathcal{A}}_{1-m} \otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{1-m}, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_{-1} \otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}, {\mathcal{A}}_0 \rangle. \end{aligned}$$ The categories ${\mathcal{A}}_i$, $i \in {\mathbf{Z}}$, are called the *Lefschetz components* of the Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}$. The semiorthogonal decompositions  and  are called *the right Lefschetz decomposition* and *the left Lefschetz decomposition* of ${\mathcal{A}}$. The minimal $m$ above is called the *length* of the Lefschetz decompositions. The Lefschetz components form two (different in general) chains of admissible subcategories $$\label{eq:lefschetz-chain} 0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}_{1-m} \subset \dots \subset {\mathcal{A}}_{-1} \subset {\mathcal{A}}_0 \supset {\mathcal{A}}_1 \supset \dots \supset {\mathcal{A}}_{m-1} \supset 0.$$ Note that the assumption of right or left admissibility of ${\mathcal{A}}_i$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$ is equivalent to the assumption of right or left admissibility in ${\mathcal{A}}_0$. \[definition-lc\] A *Lefschetz category* ${\mathcal{A}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear category equipped with a Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{O}}(H)$. The *length* of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the length of its Lefschetz decompositions, and is denoted by $\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}})$. Given Lefschetz categories ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, an *equivalence of Lefschetz categories* or a *Lefschetz equivalence* is a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}\simeq {\mathcal{B}}$ which induces an $S$-linear equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \simeq {\mathcal{B}}_0$ of centers. By [@NCHPD Lemma 6.3], if the subcategories ${\mathcal{A}}_i \subset {\mathcal{A}}$ are admissible for all $i \geq 0$ or all $i \leq 0$, then the length $m$ defined above satisfies $$m = \min {\left\{ \, i \geq 0 {\mid}{\mathcal{A}}_{i} = 0 \, \right\}} = \min {\left\{ \, i \geq 0 {\mid}{\mathcal{A}}_{-i} = 0 \, \right\}} .$$ \[remark:lc-sp\] If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth and proper over $S$, then in order for a subcategory ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}$ to be a Lefschetz center, it is enough to give only one of the semiorthogonal decompositions  or . This follows from [@NCHPD Lemmas 4.15 and 6.3]. For $i \ge 1$ the $i$-th *right primitive component* ${\mathfrak{a}}_i$ of a Lefschetz center is defined as the right orthogonal to ${\mathcal{A}}_{i+1}$ in ${\mathcal{A}}_i$, i.e. $${\mathfrak{a}}_i = {\mathcal{A}}_{i+1}^\perp \cap {\mathcal{A}}_{i},$$ so that $$\label{eq:ca-fa-ca-plus} {\mathcal{A}}_i = {\left \langle}{\mathfrak{a}}_i, {\mathcal{A}}_{i+1} {\right \rangle}= {\left \langle}{\mathfrak{a}}_i, {\mathfrak{a}}_{i+1}, \dots, {\mathfrak{a}}_{m-1} {\right \rangle}.$$ Similarly, for $i \le {-1}$ the $i$-th *left primitive component* ${\mathfrak{a}}_i$ of a Lefschetz center is the left orthogonal to ${\mathcal{A}}_{i-1}$ in ${\mathcal{A}}_i$, i.e. $${\mathfrak{a}}_i = {}^\perp{\mathcal{A}}_{i-1} \cap {\mathcal{A}}_{i},$$ so that $$\label{eq:ca-fa-ca-minus} {\mathcal{A}}_i = {\left \langle}{\mathcal{A}}_{i-1}, {\mathfrak{a}}_{i} {\right \rangle}= {\left \langle}{\mathfrak{a}}_{1-m}, \dots, {\mathfrak{a}}_{i-1}, {\mathfrak{a}}_{i} {\right \rangle}.$$ For $i = 0$, we have both right and left primitive components, defined by $${\mathfrak{a}}_{+0} = {\mathcal{A}}_1^{\perp} \cap {\mathcal{A}}_0 \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathfrak{a}}_{-0} = {}^\perp{\mathcal{A}}_{-1} \cap {\mathcal{A}}_0,$$ and then  and  hold true for $i = 0$ with ${\mathfrak{a}}_{+0}$ taking the place of ${\mathfrak{a}}_0$ for the first and ${\mathfrak{a}}_{-0}$ for the second. For HPD we will need to consider Lefschetz categories that satisfy certain “strongness” and “moderateness” conditions, defined below. \[definition:strong\] A Lefschetz category ${\mathcal{A}}$ is called *right strong* if all of its right primitive components ${\mathfrak{a}}_{+0}, {\mathfrak{a}}_i$, $i \geq 1$, are admissible in ${\mathcal{A}}$, *left strong* if all of its left primitive components ${\mathfrak{a}}_{-0}, {\mathfrak{a}}_{i}$, $i \leq -1$, are admissible in ${\mathcal{A}}$, and *strong* if all of its primitive components are admissible. \[remark:smooth-strong\] If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth and proper over $S$, then any Lefschetz structure on ${\mathcal{A}}$ is automatically strong, see [@NCHPD Remark 6.7]. By [@NCHPD Corollary 6.19(1)], the length of a Lefschetz category ${\mathcal{A}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ satisfies $$\label{length-leq-rank} \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}) \leq {\mathrm{rank}}(V).$$ \[def:moderateness\] A Lefschetz category ${\mathcal{A}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is called *moderate* if its length satisfies the strict inequality $$\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}) < {\mathrm{rank}}(V) .$$ Moderateness of a Lefschetz category ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a very mild condition, see [@categorical-joins Remark 2.12]. There are many examples of interesting Lefschetz categories, see [@kuznetsov2014semiorthogonal] for a survey; the most basic is the following. \[example-projective-bundle-lc\] Let $0 \ne W \subset V$ be a subbundle of rank $m > 0$. The morphism ${\mathbf{P}}(W) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ induces a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure on ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))$. Pullback along the projection ${\mathbf{P}}(W) \to S$ gives an embedding ${\mathrm{Perf}}(S) \subset {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))$; its image is a Lefschetz center in ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))$ and provides it with the structure of a strong Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. The corresponding right and left Lefschetz decompositions are given by Orlov’s projective bundle formulas: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W)) & = {\left \langle}{\mathrm{Perf}}(S), {\mathrm{Perf}}(S)(H), \dots, {\mathrm{Perf}}(S)((m-1)H) {\right \rangle}, \\ {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W)) & = {\left \langle}{\mathrm{Perf}}(S)((1-m)H), \dots, {\mathrm{Perf}}(S)(-H), {\mathrm{Perf}}(S) {\right \rangle}. \end{aligned}$$ We call this the *standard Lefschetz structure* on ${\mathbf{P}}(W)$. Note that the length of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))$ is $m$, so it is a moderate Lefschetz category as long as $W \neq V$. The HPD category {#subsection-HPD} ---------------- Let $H'$ denote the relative hyperplane class on ${\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$ such that ${\mathcal{O}}(H') = {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})}(1)$. Let $$\delta \colon {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V)) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}).$$ be the natural incidence divisor. We think of ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))$ as the universal hyperplane in ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. If $X$ is a scheme with a morphism $X \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$, then the universal hyperplane section of $X$ is defined by $${\mathbf{H}}(X) = X \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V)).$$ This definition extends directly to linear categories as follows. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear category. The *universal hyperplane section* of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is defined by $${\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))).$$ We sometimes use the more elaborate notation $${\mathbf{H}}(X/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) = {\mathbf{H}}(X) \qquad\text{and}\qquad {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) = {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})$$ to emphasize the universal hyperplane section is being taken with respect to ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. There is a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:h-diagram} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=6em{ & {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V)) \ar[dl]_\pi \ar[d]^\delta \ar[dr]^h \\ {\mathbf{P}}(V) & {\mathbf{P}}(V) \times {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \ar[l]^-{{\mathrm{pr}}_1} \ar[r]_-{{\mathrm{pr}}_2} & {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}). }}$$ Here we follow the notation of [@categorical-joins §2.2] and deviate slightly from the notation of [@NCHPD], where the morphisms $\pi$, $\delta$, and $h$ are instead denoted $p$, $\iota$, and $f$. For a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear category ${\mathcal{A}}$ there are canonical identifications $${\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V) \times {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \simeq {\mathcal{A}}{\otimes}{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})), \quad {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V)) \simeq {\mathcal{A}},$$ by which we will regard the functors induced by morphisms in  as functors $$\delta_* \colon {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) \to {\mathcal{A}}{\otimes}{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})), \quad \pi_* \colon {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) \to {\mathcal{A}},$$ and so on. The following definition differs from the original in [@kuznetsov-hpd], but is equivalent to it by [@categorical-joins Lemma 2.22]. \[definition-HPD-category\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Then the *HPD category* ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the full ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear subcategory of ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})$ defined by $$\label{eq:hpd-category} {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}= {\left\{ \, C \in {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) {\mid}\delta_*(C) \in {\mathcal{A}}_0 {\otimes}{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \, \right\}}.$$ We sometimes use the notation $$({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}} = {\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}}$$ to emphasize the dependence on the ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure. The HPD category ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}$ depends on the choice of the Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}$, although this is suppressed in the notation. For instance, for the “stupid” Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0 = {\mathcal{A}}$ we have ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}= {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})$. A less trivial example of HPD is the following. \[ex:categorical-linear-hpd\] Consider the Lefschetz category ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))$ of Example \[example-projective-bundle-lc\] and assume . Then by  [@kuznetsov-hpd Corollary 8.3] there is a Lefschetz equivalence $${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))^{{\natural}}\simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W^\perp)).$$ This is usually referred to as *linear* HPD. If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ of length $m$, there is a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear semiorthogonal decomposition $$\label{HC-sod} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\left \langle}{{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}, \delta^*({\mathcal{A}}_1(H) {\otimes}{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}))), \dots, \delta^*({\mathcal{A}}_{m-1}((m-1)H) {\otimes}{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}))) {\right \rangle}.$$ Moreover, ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}$ is an admissible subcategory in ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})$, i.e. its inclusion functor $$\label{def:gamma} \gamma \colon {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}\to {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})$$ has both left and right adjoints $\gamma^*,\gamma^! \colon {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) \to {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}$. Further, if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category, then ${\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}}$ is equipped with a natural left strong, moderate Lefschetz structure over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ with center ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_0 = \gamma^*\pi^*({\mathcal{A}}_0)$, see [@NCHPD Theorem 8.7]. \[remark:left-hpd\] When ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth and proper, the HPD operation is an involution; in other words, the double dual category ${\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}{{\natural}}}$ is naturally Lefschetz equivalent to ${\mathcal{A}}$. In a more general situation, the inverse operation to HPD duality is called “left HPD”, see [@NCHPD Definition 7.1]. The left HPD category ${}^{{\natural}}{\mathcal{A}}$ is defined analogously to Definition \[definition-HPD-category\], one just needs to replace the right adjoint functor $\delta_*$ of $\delta^*$ by its left adjoint $\delta_!$ in , see [@NCHPD (7.4)]. Alternatively, one can replace in  the right orthogonal to the components coming from the ambient variety by the left orthogonal, see [@NCHPD (7.2)]. Then there are natural Lefschetz equivalences $${}^{{\natural}}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}) \simeq {\mathcal{A}}\simeq ({}^{{\natural}}{\mathcal{A}})^{{\natural}}.$$ See [@NCHPD Theorem 8.9] for the first equivalence; the second is analogous. In particular, these equivalences imply that showing a Lefshetz equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}\simeq {\mathcal{B}}$ is equivalent to showing ${\mathcal{A}}\simeq {}^{{\natural}}{\mathcal{B}}$. We will use this observation several times in the paper. Categorical joins {#subsection:categorical-joins} ----------------- In this section, we summarize some of our results on categorical joins from [@categorical-joins]. Let $V_1$ and $V_2$ be vector bundles on $S$. Denote by $H_i$ the relative hyperplane class of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_i)$ such that ${\mathcal{O}}(H_i) \cong {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V_i)}(1)$. The *universal resolved join* is defined as the ${\mathbf{P}}^1$-bundle $$\label{eq:universal-resolved-join} {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)) = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V_1) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)}({\mathcal{O}}(-H_1) \oplus {\mathcal{O}}(-H_2)).$$ The canonical embedding of vector bundles on ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2))$ $${\mathcal{O}}(-H_1) \oplus {\mathcal{O}}(-H_2) \hookrightarrow (V_1 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}) \oplus (V_2 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}) = (V_1 \oplus V_2) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}$$ induces a morphism $$f \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2)$$ which can be identified with a blowup along ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1) \sqcup {\mathbf{P}}(V_2) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2)$ with exceptional divisors $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{E}}_1 & = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2)}({\mathcal{O}}(-H_1)) \cong {\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2) \stackrel{{\varepsilon}_1} \hookrightarrow {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)), \\ {\mathbf{E}}_2 & = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2)}({\mathcal{O}}(-H_2)) \cong {\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2) \stackrel{{\varepsilon}_2} \hookrightarrow {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)). \end{aligned}$$ This situation is summarized in the following commutative diagram $$\label{diagram-tJ-blowup} \vcenter{\xymatrix{ & {\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2) \\ {\mathbf{E}}_1 \ar[r]_-{{\varepsilon}_1} \ar[d] { \ar[ur] \ar@<0.7ex>@{}[ur]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} & {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)) \ar[d]_f \ar[u]_p & {\mathbf{E}}_2 \ar[l]^-{{\varepsilon}_2} \ar[d] { \ar[ul] \ar@<-0.95ex>@{}[ul]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} \\ {\mathbf{P}}(V_1) \ar[r]^-{} & {\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2) & {\mathbf{P}}(V_2) \ar[l]_-{} }}$$ where $p$ is the canonical projection morphism. \[definition-tJ\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ be a ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$-linear category and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ a ${\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$-linear category. The *resolved join* of ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ is the category $${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2) = \left( {\mathcal{A}}^1 {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}^2 \right) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1), {\mathbf{P}}(V_2))).$$ Further, for $k=1,2$, we define $${\mathbf{E}}_k({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2) = \left( {\mathcal{A}}^1 {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}^2 \right) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}(V_2))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{E}}_k) \cong {\mathcal{A}}^1 {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}^2 .$$ We define the categorical join of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$ as a certain subcategory of the resolved join. \[definition-cat-join\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ be Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$ with Lefschetz centers ${\mathcal{A}}^1_0$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2_0$. The *categorical join* ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2)$ of ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ is defined by $${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2) = \left\{ C \in {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2) \ \left|\ \begin{aligned} {\varepsilon}_1^*(C) &\in {\mathcal{A}}^1 {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}^2_0 \subset {\mathbf{E}}_1({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2) , \\ {\varepsilon}_2^*(C) &\in {\mathcal{A}}^1_0 {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}^2 \subset {\mathbf{E}}_2({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2) \end{aligned} \right.\right\}.$$ The categorical join is an admissible subcategory in the resolved join; its orthogonal complements are supported on the exceptional divisors ${\mathbf{E}}_k$ and can be explicitly described in terms of Lefschetz components of ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$, see [@categorical-joins Lemma 3.12]. Furthermore, ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2)$ is smooth and proper as soon as both ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ are [@categorical-joins Lemma 3.14]. Note also that the categorical join depends on the choice of Lefschetz centers for ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$, although this is suppressed in the notation. Finally, by [@categorical-joins Theorem 3.21], ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2)$ has a natural Lefschetz structure with center $$\label{eq:cat-join-center} {\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2)_0 = p^* {\left({\mathcal{A}}^1_0 {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}^2_0 \right)} \subset {\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}_1,{\mathcal{A}}_2).$$ It is right or left strong if both ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ are, its length is equal to $\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}^1) + \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}^2)$, and its Lefschetz and primitive components can be explicitly described, see [@categorical-joins (3.14), (3.15), (3.16), and Lemma 3.24]. The main property of categorical joins is that they commute with the HPD in the following sense. \[theorem-joins-HPD\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ be right strong, moderate Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$. Then there is an equivalence $${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathcal{J}}(({\mathcal{A}}^1)^{{{\natural}}}, ({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}})$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_1 \oplus {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_2)$. By [@categorical-joins Proposition 3.17] the fiber product of ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2)$ with any ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2)$-linear category supported over the complement of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1) \sqcup {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$ is equivalent to the fiber product of the resolved join with the same category. On the other hand, if $\xi \colon V_1 \xrightarrow{\, \sim \,} V_2$ is an isomorphism, the graph of $\xi$ is contained in the complement of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1) \sqcup {\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$ and its fiber product with ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathcal{A}}_1,{\mathcal{A}}_2)$ is equivalent to ${\mathcal{A}}_1 \otimes_{{\mathbf{P}}(V_1)} {\mathcal{A}}_2$. A combination of this observation with Theorem \[theorem-joins-HPD\] and the main theorem of HPD gives the following. \[theorem-nonlinear-HPD\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ be right strong, moderate Lefschetz categories over projective bundles ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$, where $V_1$ and $V_2$ have the same rank $$r = {\mathrm{rank}}(V_1) = {\mathrm{rank}}(V_2).$$ Let $W$ be a vector bundle on $S$ equipped with isomorphisms $\xi_{k} \colon W \xrightarrow{\, \sim \,} V_k$ for $k =1,2$, and let $(\xi_{k}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})^{-1} \colon W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \xrightarrow{\, \sim \,} V_k^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ be the inverse dual isomorphisms. Set $$m = \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}^1) + \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}^2) \qquad\text{and}\qquad m^{{\natural}}= \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}(({\mathcal{A}}^1)^{{{\natural}}}) + \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}(({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}}).$$ For $i , j \in {\mathbf{Z}}$ let ${\mathcal{J}}_i$ and ${\mathcal{J}^{{{\natural}}}}_j$ be the Lefschetz components of ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2)$ and ${\mathcal{J}}(({\mathcal{A}}^1)^{{{\natural}}},({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}})$ respectively. Denote by $H$ and $H'$ the relative hyperplane classes on ${\mathbf{P}}(W)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. Then there are semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{A}}^1_{{\mathbf{P}}(W)} \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W))} {\mathcal{A}}^2_{{\mathbf{P}}(W)} & = \notag\\ \label{CQ} & \hspace{-6em} {\left \langle}{\mathcal{K}}_W({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2), {\mathcal{J}}_r(H), \dots, {\mathcal{J}}_{m-1}((m-r)H) {\right \rangle}, \\ ({\mathcal{A}}^1)^{{{\natural}}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} {\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))}} ({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} & = \notag \\ \label{DQ} & \hspace{-6em} {\left \langle}{\mathcal{J}^{{{\natural}}}}_{1-{m^{{\natural}}}}((r-{m^{{\natural}}})H'), \dots, {\mathcal{J}^{{{\natural}}}}_{-r}(-H'), {\mathcal{K}}'_{W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}(({\mathcal{A}}^1)^{{{\natural}}}, ({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}}) {\right \rangle}, \end{aligned}$$ and an $S$-linear equivalence $${\mathcal{K}}_W({\mathcal{A}}^1, {\mathcal{A}}^2) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}'_{W^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}(({\mathcal{A}}^1)^{{{\natural}}}, ({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{{\natural}}}) .$$ In the case where ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ and $({\mathcal{A}}^2)^{{\natural}}$ is an HPD pair from Example \[ex:categorical-linear-hpd\], this recovers the main theorem of HPD. Categorical resolutions {#subsection:categorical-resolutions} ----------------------- Finally, we recall the notion of a categorical resolution of singularities developed in [@kuznetsov2008lefschetz], which we will need later. \[def:categorical-resolution\] Given a projective variety $Y$ over a field ${\mathbf{k}}$, a ${\mathbf{k}}$-linear category ${\mathcal{C}}$ is called a *categorical resolution* of $Y$ if ${\mathcal{C}}$ is smooth and proper and there exists a pair of functors $$\pi_* \colon {\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \pi^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y) \to {\mathcal{C}},$$ such that $\pi^*$ is left adjoint to $\pi_*$, and $\pi^*$ is fully faithful. If further $\pi^*$ is right adjoint to $\pi_*$ on ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$, then the categorical resolution ${\mathcal{C}}$ is called *[weakly]{} crepant*. If $\pi \colon X \to Y$ is a morphism from a smooth proper scheme such that $\pi_*{\mathcal{O}}_X \cong {\mathcal{O}}_Y$ (for instance, if $Y$ has rational singularities and $\pi$ is a resolution of singularities) then the pullback and the pushforward functors provide ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(X) = {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$ with a structure of a categorical resolution of $Y$ (and if the singularities of $Y$ are worse than rational, a categorical resolution of $Y$ was constructed in [@kuznetsov-lunts]). Such resolution is weakly crepant if and only if $K_{X/Y} = 0$, i.e. if and only if the morphism $\pi$ is crepant. \[remark-nc-cat-res\] The notion of a categorical resolution and weak crepancy extends to the noncommutative case where $Y$ is replaced with an admissible subcategory ${\mathcal{A}}\subset {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$; then ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\mathrm{perf}}} = {\mathcal{A}}\cap {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$ plays the role of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$. In this case, we say that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a categorical resolution (or weakly crepant categorical resolution) of ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\mathrm{perf}}}$. Categorical cones {#section-categorical-cones} ================= In this section, we introduce the operation of taking the categorical cone of a Lefschetz category. This operation is closely related to that of a categorical join reviewed in §\[subsection:categorical-joins\]; in fact, in §\[subsection-cJ-cC-comparison\] we show that under a splitting assumption, categorical cones can be described in terms of categorical joins. We fix an exact sequence $$\label{extension-v0-v} 0 \to V_0 \to V \to {\bar{V}}\to 0$$ of vector bundles on $S$. We write $H_0$, $H$, and ${\bar{H}}$ for the relative hyperplane classes on the projective bundles ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$, ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, and ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, and denote by $N_0$ the rank of $V_0$. Resolved cones {#subsection-resolved-cones} -------------- Let ${\mathcal{V}}$ be the vector bundle on ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ defined as the preimage of the line subbundle ${\mathcal{O}}(-{\bar{H}}) \subset {\bar{V}}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}$ under the surjection $V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})} \to {\bar{V}}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}$, so that on ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ we have a commutative diagram $$\label{extension-v0-cv} \vcenter{ \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & V_0 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})} \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & {\mathcal{V}}\ar[r] \ar[d] & {\mathcal{O}}(-{\bar{H}}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & V_0 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})} \ar[r] & V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})} \ar[r] & {\bar{V}}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})} \ar[r] & 0 }}$$ with exact rows. If  is split then ${\mathcal{V}}\cong V_0 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}\oplus {\mathcal{O}}(-{\bar{H}})$. Now let $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ be a morphism of schemes. Then the *resolved cone* over $X$ with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ is defined as the projective bundle $$\label{resolved-cone-X} {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X) = {\mathbf{P}}_X({\mathcal{V}}_X),$$ where ${\mathcal{V}}_X$ denotes the pullback of ${\mathcal{V}}$ to $X$. The embedding ${\mathcal{V}}_X \hookrightarrow V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X$ induced by the middle vertical arrow in  gives a morphism $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V).$$ If $X \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is an embedding, then this morphism factors birationally through the classical cone ${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$, and provides a resolution of singularities if $X$ is smooth. Note that there is an isomorphism $$\label{resolved-cone-X-base-change} {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X) \cong X \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})} {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})).$$ Motivated by this, we call ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}({\mathcal{V}})$ the *universal resolved cone* with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$. Denote by $${\bar{p}}\colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$$ the canonical projection morphism. Note that the rank of ${\mathcal{V}}$ is $N_0+1$, so ${\bar{p}}$ is a ${\mathbf{P}}^{N_0}$-bundle. Further, denote by $$f \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$$ the morphism induced by the canonical embedding ${\mathcal{V}}\hookrightarrow V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}$ from . Define $${\mathbf{E}}= {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}(V_0 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}) \cong {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$$ and let $${\varepsilon}\colon {\mathbf{E}}\to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$$ be the canonical divisorial embedding induced by the first map in the top row of . We have a commutative diagram $$\label{diagram-tC-blowup} \vcenter{\xymatrix{ {\mathbf{E}}\ar[r]^-{\varepsilon}\ar[d] & {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \ar[d]^f \ar[r]^-{{\bar{p}}} & {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \\ {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \ar[r] & {\mathbf{P}}(V) }}$$ The isomorphism ${\mathbf{E}}\cong {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is induced by the product of the vertical arrow and ${\bar{p}}\circ {\varepsilon}$. The next result follows easily from the definitions. \[lemma-tC-divisors\] The following hold: 1. \[tC-f-blowup\] The morphism $f \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is the blowup of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ in ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$, with exceptional divisor ${\mathbf{E}}$. 2. The ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ line bundle for the projective bundle ${\bar{p}}\colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is ${\mathcal{O}}(H)$. 3. \[E-Hk-H\] We have the following equality of divisors modulo linear equivalence: $${\mathbf{E}}= H - {\bar{H}}, \qquad H|_{{\mathbf{E}}} = H_0.$$ 4. \[omega-barp\] The relative dualizing complex of the morphism ${\bar{p}}$ is given by $$\omega_{{\bar{p}}} \cong \det({\bar{p}}^*{\mathcal{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})(-(N_0+1)H)[N_0].$$ Following we define the resolved cone of a category linear over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ by base change from the universal resolved cone. \[definition-tbC\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$-linear category. The *resolved cone* over ${\mathcal{A}}$ with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ is the category $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))).$$ Further, we define $${\mathbf{E}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{E}}).$$ \[remark-E\] The isomorphism ${\mathbf{E}}\cong {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ induces a canonical equivalence $${\mathbf{E}}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}.$$ We identify these categories via this equivalence; in particular, below we will regard subcategories of the right side as subcategories of the left. [Furthermore, using this identification the morphism ${\varepsilon}$ from  induces functors between ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}$ and ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$.]{} \[remark-tbC-spaces\] If $X$ is a scheme over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, then by the isomorphism  and [@bzfn Theorem 1.2] the resolved cone satisfies $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathrm{Perf}}(X)) \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(X)).$$ \[remark-tC-functorial\] Resolved cones are functorial. Namely, given a ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$-linear functor $\gamma \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{B}}$, its base change along ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ gives a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear functor $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(\gamma) \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{B}}).$$ Moreover, if $\gamma^* \colon {\mathcal{B}}\to {\mathcal{A}}$ is a left adjoint functor to $\gamma$, then ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(\gamma^*)$ is left adjoint to ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(\gamma)$, and similarly for right adjoints, see [@NCHPD Lemma 2.12]. Categorical cones {#subsection-categorical-cones} ----------------- We define the categorical cone of a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ as a certain subcategory of the resolved cone, similarly to Definition \[definition-cat-join\] of a categorical join. \[definition-cat-cone\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ with Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0$. The *categorical cone* ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ over ${\mathcal{A}}$ with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ is the subcategory of ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ defined by $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) = \left\{ C \in {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \ \left|\ {\varepsilon}^*(C) \in {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathbf{E}}({\mathcal{A}}) \right.\right\}.$$ Here, we have used the identification of Remark \[remark-E\]. If ${\mathcal{A}}= {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$ for a scheme $X$ over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, we abbreviate notation by writing $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}(X) = {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathrm{Perf}}(X)).$$ The categorical cone depends on the choice of a Lefschetz center for ${\mathcal{A}}$, although this is suppressed in the notation. For instance, for the “stupid” Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0 = {\mathcal{A}}$, the condition in the definition is void, so ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) = {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$. We note that if $V_0 = 0$, then taking the categorical cone does nothing: \[lemma:cone-0\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. If $V_0 = 0$ then ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{A}}$. If $V_0 = 0$ then ${\mathcal{V}}\cong {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}(-{\bar{H}})$ by , hence ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}({\mathcal{V}}) \cong {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ and ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{A}}$. Furthermore, the divisor ${\mathbf{E}}$ is empty in this case, hence the defining condition of ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \subset {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is void and ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) = {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$. \[lemma-tC\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ of length $m$. Then the categorical cone ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is an admissible ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear subcategory of ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$, and there are ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} \label{sod-tC} {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) = \Big \langle & \notag {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}), \\ & {\varepsilon}_{!}{\left( {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}_{1}({\bar{H}}) \right)}, \dots, {\varepsilon}_{!}{\left( {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}_{m-1}((m-1){\bar{H}}) \right)} \Big\rangle, \\ \label{sod-tC-other} {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) = \Big\langle & \notag {\varepsilon}_{*}\left( {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}_{1-m}((1-m){\bar{H}}) \right), \dots, {\varepsilon}_{*}\left( {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}_{-1}(-{\bar{H}}) \right), \\ & {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \Big\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}_!$ denotes the left adjoint of ${\varepsilon}_*$. Apply [@categorical-joins Proposition 3.11] with $T = {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, $Y = {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$, and $E = {\mathbf{E}}$. Then in the notation of that proposition, we have ${\mathcal{A}}_Y = {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_E = {\mathbf{E}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) \otimes {\mathcal{A}}$, and the result follows. \[example-cone-PbarV\] Let $\bar{W} \subset {\bar{V}}$ be a subbundle, so that ${\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. The classical cone over ${\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W})$ with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ is given by ${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W})) = {\mathbf{P}}(W)$, where $W \subset V$ is the preimage of $\bar{W}$ under the epimorphism $V \to {\bar{V}}$. Consider the Lefschetz structure on ${\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W})$ defined in Example \[example-projective-bundle-lc\]. Then it follows from Lemma \[lemma-tC-divisors\] and Orlov’s blowup formula that the pullback functor $f^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W)) \to {\mathrm{Perf}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W})))$ induces an equivalence ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(W)) \simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W}))$. Further, Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\] below equips ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}(\bar{W}))$ with a canonical Lefschetz structure, with respect to which this equivalence is easily seen to be a Lefschetz equivalence. \[lemma-cC-smooth-proper\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ which is smooth and proper over $S$. Then the categorical cone ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is smooth and proper over $S$. Being the base change of ${\mathcal{A}}$ along the projective bundle ${\bar{p}}\colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, the resolved cone ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is smooth and proper over $S$ by [@NCHPD Lemma 4.11]. Hence the result follows from Lemma \[lemma-tC\] and [@NCHPD Lemma 4.15]. \[proposition-cC-tC-agree\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Let $T \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a morphism of schemes which factors through the complement of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ in ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Then there are $T$-linear equivalences $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_T \simeq {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_T \simeq {\mathcal{A}}_T,$$ where the base change of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is taken along the morphism $T \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ obtained by composing $T \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ with the linear projection from ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. By Lemma \[lemma-tC-divisors\], the morphism $f \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is an isomorphism over the complement of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$. Hence there is an isomorphism ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))_T \cong T$. The equivalence ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_T \simeq {\mathcal{A}}_T$ then follows from the definition of the resolved cone. Further, the components to the right of ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ in  are supported over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$, hence their base change along $T \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ vanish. This shows ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_T \simeq {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_T$. For future use we fix the following immediate corollary of the proposition. \[corollary:cone-trivial\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Let $T \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a morphism of schemes which factors through the complement of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ in ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, and such that the composition $T \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is an isomorphism. Then there is an equivalence $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_T \simeq {\mathcal{A}}.$$ Relation to categorical joins {#subsection-cJ-cC-comparison} ----------------------------- In this subsection, we assume $V_0 \neq 0$ and we are given a splitting of : $$V = V_0 \oplus {\bar{V}}.$$ Under these assumptions, we relate the cone operations discussed above (classical, resolved, and categorical) to taking a join (in the corresponding senses) with ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$. The relation between the classical operations is easy: if $X \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is a closed subscheme, then the classical join of $X$ with ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ coincides with the cone over $X$ with vertex ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$, i.e. $${\mathbf{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), X) = {\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V).$$ Note that the assumption $V_0 \neq 0$ is necessary for this equality; if $V_0 = 0$ then ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) = \varnothing$ and hence ${\mathbf{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), X) =\varnothing$, while ${\mathbf{C}}_{V_0}(X) = X$. Next we compare the universal resolved join  to the universal resolved cone $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}((V_0 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}) \oplus {\mathcal{O}}(-{\bar{H}})) .$$ The natural embedding ${\mathcal{O}}(-H_0) \hookrightarrow V_0 \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}$ induces a morphism $$\beta \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})).$$ Denoting $Z = {\mathbf{P}}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})}({\mathcal{O}}(-{\bar{H}})) \cong {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \subset {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$, the diagram  (with $V_1 = V_0$ and $V_2 = {\bar{V}}$) and the diagram  merge to a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ {\mathbf{E}}_1 \ar[r] { \ar[d] \ar@<-0.95ex>@{}[d]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} & {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \ar[d]_{\beta} & \ar[l] {\mathbf{E}}_2 \ar[d] \\ {\mathbf{E}}\ar[r] \ar[d] & {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \ar[d] & \ar[l] Z { \ar[d] \ar@<-0.95ex>@{}[d]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} \\ {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \ar[r] & {\mathbf{P}}(V_0 \oplus {\bar{V}}) & \ar[l] {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) }$$ where under the isomorphisms ${\mathbf{E}}_2 \cong {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ and $Z \cong {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, the map ${\mathbf{E}}_2 \to Z$ is identified with the projection. \[lemma-tJ-tC\] The morphism $\beta \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0),{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) ) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$ is the blowup of ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$ in $Z$, with exceptional divisor ${\mathbf{E}}_2$. Follows from Lemma \[lemma-tC-divisors\] and [@categorical-joins Lemma 3.1(1)]. Using this, we can finally compare categorical joins and cones. We consider the categorical join ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))$ (with the standard Lefschetz structure from Example \[example-projective-bundle-lc\]) and a Lefschetz category ${\mathcal{A}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. \[proposition-cJ-cC\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, and let $V_0$ be a nonzero vector bundle on $S$. Then there is an equivalence $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$$ of ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0 \oplus \bar{V})$-linear categories. More precisely, pullback and pushforward along the blowup morphism $\beta \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$ give functors $$\begin{aligned} \beta^* & \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \to {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) , \\ \beta_* & \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) , \end{aligned}$$ which induce mutually inverse equivalences between the subcategories $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \subset {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) \subset {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) .$$ Moreover, for any ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$-linear functor $\gamma \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{B}}$ there [are commutative diagrams]{} $$\label{eq:tj-tc-diagram} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=4em{ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0),{\mathcal{A}}) \ar[r]^-{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}},\gamma)} \ar[d]_{\beta_*} & {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0),{\mathcal{B}}) \ar[d]_{\beta_*} \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \ar[r]^-{{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(\gamma)}} & {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{B}}) }} \quad\text{and}\quad \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=4em{ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0),{\mathcal{A}}) \ar[r]^-{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}},\gamma)} & {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0),{\mathcal{B}}) \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \ar[r]^-{{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(\gamma)}} \ar[u]_{\beta^*} & {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{B}}), \ar[u]_{\beta^*} }}$$ where the functor ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}},\gamma)$ is defined for resolved joins in the same way as ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(\gamma)$ for cones, see [@categorical-joins (3.4)]. Diagrams  are obtained from the functor $\gamma$ by base change along the morphism $\beta$. Lemma \[lemma-tJ-tC\] together with Orlov’s blowup formula implies $\beta^* \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \to {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ is fully faithful and gives an equivalence onto the subcategory $$\beta^* ({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})) = {\left\{ \, C \in {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) {\mid}{\varepsilon}_2^*(C) \in {\mathrm{Perf}}(S) \otimes {\mathcal{A}}\subset {\mathbf{E}}_2({\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\mathcal{A}}) \, \right\}}$$ with the inverse functor given by $\beta_*$. Since $\beta$ maps ${\mathbf{E}}_1$ isomorphically onto ${\mathbf{E}}$, it thus follows from Definition \[definition-cat-cone\] that $\beta^*$ induces an equivalence from ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ onto the subcategory $$\beta^*({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})) = \left\{ C \in {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) \ \left|\ \begin{aligned} {\varepsilon}_1^*(C) &\in {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) {\otimes}{\mathcal{A}}_0 &&\subset {\mathbf{E}}_1({\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\mathcal{A}}) , \\ {\varepsilon}_2^*(C) &\in {\mathrm{Perf}}(S) \otimes {\mathcal{A}}&&\subset {\mathbf{E}}_2({\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\mathcal{A}}) \end{aligned} \right.\right\} ,$$ with the inverse equivalence induced by $\beta_*$. But by Definition \[definition-cat-join\] this subcategory coincides with ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ since ${\mathrm{Perf}}(S)$ is the Lefschetz center of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))$. Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\] does not apply if $V_0 = 0$. Indeed, if $V_0 = 0$ then ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) = \varnothing$ and hence ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}) = 0$, while ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{A}}$ by Lemma \[lemma:cone-0\]. In Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\] we will equip any categorical cone with a canonical Lefschetz structure in such a way that the equivalence ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ of Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\] is an equivalence of Lefschetz categories. Let ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^2$ be Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_2)$, where $V_1$ and $V_2$ are nonzero. Then there is a ${\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2)$-linear equivalence $${\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}^1,{\mathcal{A}}^2) \simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{V_1}({\mathcal{A}}^2) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2))} {\mathcal{C}}_{V_2}({\mathcal{A}}^1).$$ This can be proved either directly, or (in its dual form) by combining Corollary \[corollary:cones-HPD-special\] below and [@categorical-joins Corollary 7.6]. The right side can be endowed with a semiorthogonal decomposition by an application of [@categorical-joins Corollary 5.3], which can be shown to be a Lefschetz decomposition compatible with the Lefschetz structure of the left side. Note also that the equivalence of Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\] is a special case of this. Indeed, take and use the equivalence ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_2}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1)) \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_1 \oplus V_2))$ of Example \[example-cone-PbarV\]. We omit further details as we shall not need this. The Lefschetz structure of a categorical cone {#subsection-ld-cC} --------------------------------------------- Our goal in this subsection is to equip any categorical cone with a canonical Lefschetz structure. \[lemma-cone-A0\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Then the image of ${\mathcal{A}}_0$ under the functor ${\bar{p}}^* \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is contained in the categorical cone ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$. If ${\mathcal{A}}_i$ are the Lefschetz components of ${\mathcal{A}}$, then ${\bar{p}}^*({\mathcal{A}}_i) \subset {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is left admissible for $i < 0$, admissible for $i = 0$, and right admissible for $i > 0$. Because the morphism ${\bar{p}}\colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ is a projective bundle, the pullback functor ${\bar{p}}^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathrm{Perf}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})))$ is fully faithful and admits left and right adjoints. Thus the same holds for its base change ${\bar{p}}^* \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ (see [@NCHPD Lemma 2.12]). Further, by Definition \[definition-cat-cone\] we see that the image of ${\mathcal{A}}_0$ under ${\bar{p}}^*$ is contained in ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$. The result follows. \[definition-lef-center-cone\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. For $i \in {\mathbf{Z}}$, we define a subcategory ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_i \subset {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ by $$\label{ci-cone} {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_i = \begin{cases} {\bar{p}}^*({\mathcal{A}}_{i+N_0}) & \text{if $i \le -N_0$,}\\ {\bar{p}}^*({\mathcal{A}}_0) & \text{if $-N_0 \le i \le N_0$,}\\ {\bar{p}}^*({\mathcal{A}}_{i-N_0}) & \text{if $i \ge N_0$,} \end{cases}$$ where $N_0$ is the rank of $V_0$. Note that the containment ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_i \subset {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ holds by Lemma \[lemma-cone-A0\]. \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Then the categorical cone ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ has the structure of a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ with Lefschetz components ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_i$ given by . If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is either right or left strong, then so is ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$. Moreover, we have $$\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})) = \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}) + N_0,$$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is moderate if and only if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is moderate. One could prove this directly by an analogue of the argument of [@categorical-joins §3.4]. However, we prefer to reduce to the case of categorical joins using Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\] and the local-to-global result of Lemma \[lemma-sod-local\]. We may also assume $V_0 \neq 0$, otherwise the result is trivial. The key claim is that we have semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} \label{sod-cC} {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) & = {\left \langle}{\mathcal{C}}_0 , {\mathcal{C}}_1(H), \dots, {\mathcal{C}}_{m+N_0-1}((m+N_0-1)H) {\right \rangle}, \\ \label{sod-cC-left} {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) & = {\left \langle}{\mathcal{C}}_{1-m-N_0}((1-m-N_0)H), \dots, {\mathcal{C}}_{-1}(-H), {\mathcal{C}}_0 {\right \rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{C}}_i = {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})_i$ and $m = \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}})$. By Lemma \[lemma-sod-local\] — whose hypotheses are satisfied by Lemma \[lemma-cone-A0\] — it is enough to prove  and  after base change to any fpqc cover of $S$. Therefore, we may assume that we have a splitting $V = V_0 \oplus {\bar{V}}$ of . Then Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\] gives an equivalence $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}}).$$ By [@categorical-joins Theorem 3.21] the categorical join ${\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ has the structure of a Lefschetz category of length $\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}) + N_0$. By Example \[example-projective-bundle-lc\] the nonzero primitive components $\mathfrak{p}_i$ of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))$ are $\mathfrak{p}_{\pm (N_0-1)} = {\mathrm{Perf}}(S)$, hence the second formula of [@categorical-joins Lemma 3.24] shows that the Lefschetz components ${\mathcal{J}}_i \subset {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ are equal to $${\mathcal{J}}_i = \begin{cases} p^*{\mathrm{pr}}_2^*({\mathcal{A}}_{i+N_0}) & \text{if $i \le -N_0$,}\\ p^*{\mathrm{pr}}_2^*({\mathcal{A}}_0) & \text{if $-N_0 \le i \le N_0$,}\\ p^*{\mathrm{pr}}_2^*({\mathcal{A}}_{i-N_0}) & \text{if $i \ge N_0$,} \end{cases}$$ Using the commutative diagram $$\begin{gathered}[b] \xymatrix{ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \ar[r]^{p} \ar[d]_{\beta} & {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \ar[d]^{{\mathrm{pr}}_2} \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \ar[r]^{{\bar{p}}} & {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) } \\[-\dp\strutbox] \end{gathered}$$ it is easy to see the equivalence ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})$ identifies ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ with ${\mathcal{J}}_i$; thus the decompositions  and  hold. By [@categorical-joins Lemma 2.4] and Lemma \[lemma-cone-A0\], we thus deduce that ${\mathcal{C}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a Lefschetz center with ${\mathcal{C}}_i$, $i \in {\mathbf{Z}}$, the corresponding Lefschetz components. The strongness claims follow from the definitions and Lemma \[lemma-cone-A0\], and the claims about the length and moderateness of ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ follow from the definitions. HPD for categorical cones {#section-cones-HPD} ========================= In this section we show that (under suitable hypotheses) the formation of categorical cones commutes with HPD. We formulate the theorem in a way that allows for extensions of the base projective bundle (in the sense of Definition \[definition-base-extension\]), because this extra generality is useful in applications. \[theorem-cones-HPD\] Let $V$ be a vector bundle on $S$, let $$V_0 \subset V \quad \text{and} \quad V_\infty \subset {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$$ be subbundles such that the natural pairing $V \otimes {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}\to {\mathcal{O}}_S$ is zero on $V_0 \otimes V_{\infty}$, so that we have a pair of filtrations $$\label{eq:filtrations} 0 \subset V_0 \subset V_\infty^\perp \subset V \quad \text{and} \quad 0 \subset V_\infty \subset V_0^\perp \subset {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}.$$ Set $$\label{eq:factors} {\bar{V}}= V_\infty^\perp /V_0, \qquad\text{so that}\quad V_0^\perp/V_\infty \cong {\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}.$$ Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Then there is an equivalence $$({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. \[remark-cones-HPD\] Let us explain the structure of the categories appearing in Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\]. By Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\] the categorical join ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty^{\perp})$. By extending the base along the inclusion ${\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty^\perp) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$, we obtain by Remark \[remark-base-extension\] a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V)$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Hence by [@NCHPD Theorem 8.7(1)], the HPD category $({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}$ has the structure of a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. The structure of ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ as a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ is similarly obtained by a combination of [@NCHPD Theorem 8.7(1)], Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\], and base extension. The case $V_0 = 0$ gives the following (we take $V_\infty = W^\perp \subset {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$). \[corollary:cones-HPD-special\] Let $W \subset V$ be an inclusion of vector bundles on $S$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(W)$. Then there is an equivalence $$({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^\natural \simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{W^\perp}({\mathcal{A}}^\natural)$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. Our strategy for proving Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\] is the following. First, we use the relation between categorical cones and categorical joins described in Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\] and linear HPD of Example \[ex:categorical-linear-hpd\] to deduce the theorem in case when both $V_0$ and $V_\infty$ are nonzero and the filtrations  are split (which always holds locally over the base scheme $S$). Then we use a local-to-global argument analogous to the one used in the proof of Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\] to deduce the theorem without the splitting assumption, and finally a relation between HPD and hyperplane sections (Proposition \[proposition-HPD-projection\]) and duality to deduce the theorem in full generality. For the local-to-global argument it is important to define a functor between the categories ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ and $({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}$ in general. This is what we start with in §\[subsection-double-resolved-cones\], where we define a functor $$\gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}} \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \to {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$$ via a double cone construction, an analogue of the double join construction from [@categorical-joins §4.1]. Next, in §\[subsection-cone-HPD-split-case\] we check its compatibility with the analogous functor between resolved joins, deduce the theorem in the split nonzero case, and then by the local-to-global argument remove the splitting assumption. Finally, in §\[subsection-cone-HPD-general-case\] we prove the general case. Double resolved cones and the HPD functor for categorical cones {#subsection-double-resolved-cones} --------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout this section we fix filtrations , and use  to identify their quotients with $(V_0, {\bar{V}}, {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_{\infty})$ and $(V_\infty, {\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}, {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_0)$ respectively. Let $Y$ be a scheme equipped with a morphism $Y \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. In this situation, we can form two resolved cones, ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(Y)$ and ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(Y)$, using the projection to ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$ for the first and the projection to ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$ for the second. We define the *double resolved cone* over $Y$ as the fiber product $$\label{eq:double-cone} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}(Y) = {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}(Y) \times_Y {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(Y),$$ which is a ${\mathbf{P}}^{N_0} \times {\mathbf{P}}^{N_\infty}$-bundle over $Y$, where $N_0 = \dim V_0$ and $N_\infty = \dim V_\infty$. In particular, we can consider the universal double resolved cone with its natural projection $$\label{tCC-bc} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0,V_\infty}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}).$$ Now, given a category ${\mathcal{B}}$ which has a ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$-linear structure, we define the *double resolved cone* ${{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}({\mathcal{B}})$ over ${\mathcal{B}}$ as $${{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}({\mathcal{B}}) = {\mathcal{B}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0,V_\infty}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) \times {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))),$$ that is the base change of ${\mathcal{B}}$ along . The key case for us is when $Y$ is the universal space of hyperplanes in ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$, which we denote by $$\label{eq:barbh} {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}= {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) .$$ Note that ${\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}$ indeed naturally maps to ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}) {\times}{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$, hence we can form the double resolved cone over ${\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}$. We write ${\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$ for the universal hyperplane section of ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$ with respect to the morphism ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_{\infty}^{\perp}) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. The second projection in  defines a map $\tilde{p}$ in , and the first projection together with the map ${{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \to {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}\to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ define the map $\alpha$. It is easy to show the following. We have a diagram $$\label{tCC-functor-spaces} \vcenter{ \xymatrix{ & {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[dl]_{\tilde{p}} \ar[dr]^{\alpha} \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) && {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) } }$$ of schemes over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$, where all schemes appearing are smooth and projective over $S$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$-linear category. Then ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) = {\mathrm{Perf}}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))} {\mathcal{A}}$ according to the notation . Recall the canonical ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$-linear inclusion functor  $$\gamma \colon {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}= ({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))^{{\natural}}\to {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) = {\mathrm{Perf}}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))} {\mathcal{A}}.$$ This induces a ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0^{\perp})$-linear functor (see Remark \[remark-tC-functorial\]) $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_{\infty}}(\gamma) \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})),$$ which can be regarded as a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear functor $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_{\infty}}(\gamma) \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}))/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) .$$ Here, we have written ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ and ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}))/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ to emphasize that we regard the resolved cones ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})$ and ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}))$ as ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear categories, via the inclusion ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0^{\perp}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. By base change from diagram  we obtain a diagram of ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear functors $$\xymatrix@C=1.6em{ &&& {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0,V_{\infty}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})) \ar[dr]^{\alpha_*} \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \ar[rr]^-{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_{\infty}}(\gamma)} && {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}))/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \ar[ur]^{\tilde{p}^*} && {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) }$$ We define a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear functor as the composition $$\label{gammatC} \gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}} = \alpha_* \circ {{\tilde{p}}}^* \circ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_{\infty}}(\gamma) \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \to {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) .$$ The following fact will be needed later. \[lemma:gtc-adjoints\] The functor $\gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}}$ has both left and right adjoints. The functor $\gamma$ has both left and right adjoints by [@NCHPD Lemma 7.2], hence so does ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_{\infty}}(\gamma)$ (see Remark \[remark-tC-functorial\]). Further, $\alpha_*$ and ${{\tilde{p}}}^*$ have both left and right adjoints, by Lemma \[tCC-functor-spaces\] and Remark \[remark-adjoints-exist\]. The functor $\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}$ can also be described in terms of Fourier–Mukai kernels, similarly to [@categorical-joins Remark 4.8]. We leave this as an exercise. Note that by definition the HPD category $({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}$ is a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear subcategory of ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$, and hence also of ${\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$ by [@NCHPD Lemma 2.12]. The nonzero case {#subsection-cone-HPD-split-case} ---------------- The goal of this subsection is to prove the following more precise version of Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\] when $V_0$ and $V_\infty$ are nonzero. \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})$. Assume $V_0$ and $V_{\infty}$ are nonzero. Then the functor $$\gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}} \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \to {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$$ defined in  induces a Lefschetz equivalence between the subcategories $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \subset {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \quad \text{and} \quad ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}} \subset {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) .$$ The proof takes the rest of the subsection. Let us outline the strategy. By Lemma \[lemma:gtc-adjoints\] the functor $\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}$ has adjoints. Therefore, by Corollary \[corollary-equivalence-lef-cat-local\] the claim of Proposition \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\] is fpqc-local, so it is enough to prove it over a fpqc cover of the base scheme $S$. Passing to such a cover we may assume that the filtrations  split, so that $$V = V_0 \oplus {\bar{V}}\oplus {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_{\infty}.$$ For the rest of this subsection, we fix such a splitting. Using this, we will reduce Proposition \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\] to [@categorical-joins Theorem 4.9]. We set $$V_1 = V_0 \oplus {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_\infty.$$ Then the orthogonal to $V_0 \subset V_1$ is $V_{\infty} \subset {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_1$, so by Example \[ex:categorical-linear-hpd\] there is an equivalence $$\label{PV0-PVinfty-hpd} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty))$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_1)$. Hence we have a commutative diagram of equivalences of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$: $$\label{eq:cc-cj-diagram} \vcenter{\xymatrix{ {\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) { \ar[r] \ar@<0.7ex>@{}[r]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} & ({\mathcal{J}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}} { \ar[d] \ar@<0.7ex>@{}[d]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} \\ {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) { \ar[u] \ar@<0.7ex>@{}[u]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} { \ar[r] \ar@<0.7ex>@{}[r]|-*=0[@]{\sim}} & ( {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V) )^{{{\natural}}} }}$$ where the vertical equivalences are consequences of Proposition \[proposition-cJ-cC\], the top equivalence is given by Theorem \[theorem-joins-HPD\] (note that $V = V_1 \oplus {\bar{V}}$) combined with , and the bottom equivalence is the composition of the other three. To prove Proposition \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\], we check that the bottom equivalence is in fact induced by the functor $\gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}}$. The above argument (even without checking the bottom arrow is induced by $\gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}}$) already proves Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\] under the assumptions that $V_0$ and $V_\infty$ are nonzero and the filtrations are split. However, for the local-to-global argument above by which we reduced to the split case, it is essential that we verify the equivalence is given by a globally defined functor. To check that the bottom equivalence in  is induced by $\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}$, we prove commutativity of the analogous diagram of resolved joins and cones. Below we use the notations ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}$ and ${{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}$ for resolved joins introduced in [@categorical-joins §4.1]. There is a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:tc-tj-diagram} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=6em{ {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \ar[r]^-{\gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_{\infty}}} & {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) \ar[d]^{\beta_{0*}} \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \ar[u]^{\beta_\infty^*} \ar[r]^-{\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}} & {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V) ), }}$$ where $\beta_0$ and $\beta_\infty$ are the blowup morphisms from Lemma  of the cones with vertices ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty)$, respectively, and $\gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_{\infty}}$ is the composition $$\gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_{\infty}} \colon {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \xrightarrow{\ \sim \ } {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))^{{{\natural}}}, {\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \xrightarrow{ \ \gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}} \ } {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$$ where the equivalence is induced by  and $\gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}}$ is the functor from [@categorical-joins Theorem 4.9] (with $V_2 = {\bar{V}}$). First, we unwind the definition of the functor $\gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_{\infty}}$. By [@kuznetsov-hpd Corollary 8.3] the functor $$\iota_* \circ {\mathrm{pr}}_2^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty)) \to {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)))$$ induces the HPD between ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty)$, where ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)) = {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)/{\mathbf{P}}(V_1))$ is the universal hyperplane section of the morphism ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$, $\iota \colon {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty) \to {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))$ is the embedding, and ${\mathrm{pr}}_2 \colon {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty)$ is the projection. It follows from the definitions that we have $$\gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_{\infty}} \simeq \alpha_{0*} \circ {{\tilde{p}}}_0^* \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}(\iota_* \circ {\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, \gamma),$$ where the morphisms $${{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \xleftarrow{\ {{\tilde{p}}}_0 \ } {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \xrightarrow{ \ \alpha_0 \ } {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$$ are the base change along ${\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V_1)$ of [@categorical-joins diagram (4.4)] (with $V_2 = {\bar{V}}$), and ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}(\iota_* \circ {\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, \gamma)$ is the join of the functors $\iota_* \circ {\mathrm{pr}}_2^*$ and $\gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the inclusion . Further, note that we can write ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}(\iota_* \circ {\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, \gamma)$ as a composition $$\begin{aligned} {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}) \xrightarrow{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}}, \gamma)} {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})) & \xrightarrow{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}( {\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, {\mathrm{id}})} {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})) \\ & \xrightarrow{{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}}( \iota_*, {\mathrm{id}})} {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})), \end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\label{tJinfty} \gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_{\infty}} \simeq \alpha_{0*} \circ {{\tilde{p}}}_0^* \circ {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota_*, {\mathrm{id}}) \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, {\mathrm{id}}) \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}}, \gamma) .$$ By definition $\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}$ is a composition  of three functors analogous to ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}}, \gamma)$, ${{\tilde{p}}}_0^*$, and $\alpha_{0*}$ in . To prove the proposition, we will relate the analogous functors appearing in these compositions, using the blowup morphisms $\beta_\infty$ and $\beta_0$ and the morphisms $\iota$ and ${\mathrm{pr}}_2$. The relation between ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}}, \gamma)$ and ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\gamma})$ is provided by the commutative diagram , that in our case takes the form $$\label{eq:tc-tj-infinity} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=6em{ {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}}) \ar[r]^-{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}},{\gamma})} & {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})) \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}}) \ar[u]^{\beta_\infty^*} \ar[r]^-{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\gamma})} & {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}})). \ar[u]_{\beta_\infty^*} }}$$ To relate the other functors, we write down diagrams of schemes that induce diagrams of functors by base change. First note that we have a fiber square $$\label{eq:iota-tp} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=6em{ {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[d]^{{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota,{\mathrm{id}})} & \ar[l]_{{{\tilde{p}}}_{0\infty}} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[d]^{{{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota,{\mathrm{id}})} \\ {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) & \ar[l]_{{{\tilde{p}}}_0} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) }}$$ where ${{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota,{\mathrm{id}})$ denotes the morphism between the double resolved joins induced by the morphisms $\iota \colon {\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty) \to {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0))$ and ${\mathrm{id}}\colon {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}\to {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}$. Next observe that $$\begin{aligned} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) & = {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \times_{({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty)) \times {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}} {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \\ & \cong {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \times_{{\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}} {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_{\infty}), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}), \end{aligned}$$ where the first equality holds by definition. We also have by definition $${{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) = {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \times_{{\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}} {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) .$$ The blowup morphisms $\beta_{0} \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}})$ and $\beta_{\infty} \colon {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}})$ from Lemma \[lemma-tJ-tC\] thus combine to give a morphism $$\beta_{0\infty} \colon {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \to {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0, V_{\infty}}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}).$$ It is easy see that the morphism $\beta_{0\infty}$ makes the diagrams $$\label{eq:8-08} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=4.25em{ {{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) & \ar[l]_-{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2,{\mathrm{id}})} {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) & \ar[l]_-{{{\tilde{p}}}_{0\infty}} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \\ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[u];[]_{\beta_\infty} && \ar[ll]_{{{\tilde{p}}}} {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0,V_\infty}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[u];[]^{\beta_{0\infty}} }}$$ and $$\label{eq:abi} \vcenter{\xymatrix@C=3em{ {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0) \times {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[r]^-{{{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota,{\mathrm{id}})} \ar[d]_{\beta_{0\infty}} & {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0)), {\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[r]^-{\alpha_0} & {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) \ar[d]^{\beta_{0}} \\ {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0,V_\infty}({\bar{{\mathbf{H}}}}) \ar[rr]^-{\alpha} && {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) }}$$ commutative, where in  we abusively write $\beta_0$ for the morphism induced by the blowup $\beta_0 \colon {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathbf{P}}(V_0), {\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}})) \to {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathbf{P}}({\bar{V}}))$. Note also that since $\beta_{0\infty}$ is a product of two blowup morphisms, the functor $\beta_{0\infty}^*$ is fully faithful, so we have an isomorphism of functors $$\label{beta0infty} \beta_{0\infty*} \circ \beta_{0\infty}^* \simeq {\mathrm{id}}.$$ Finally, combining the above ingredients and taking into account that ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}(\iota_*, {\mathrm{id}}) \cong {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}(\iota, {\mathrm{id}})_*$ and ${{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, {\mathrm{id}}) \cong {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2, {\mathrm{id}})^*$, we can rewrite the composition of the three upper arrows in  as $$\begin{aligned} \beta_{0*} \circ \gamma_{{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}_\infty} \circ \beta_\infty^* & \simeq \beta_{0*} \circ \alpha_{0*} \circ {{\tilde{p}}}_0^* \circ {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota_*, {\mathrm{id}}) \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, {\mathrm{id}}) \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{id}}, \gamma) \circ \beta_\infty^* && \eqref{tJinfty}\\ & \simeq \beta_{0*} \circ \alpha_{0*} \circ {{\tilde{p}}}_0^* \circ {{{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota_*, {\mathrm{id}}) \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2^*, {\mathrm{id}}) \circ \beta_\infty^* \circ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(\gamma) && \eqref{eq:tc-tj-infinity} \\ & \simeq \beta_{0*} \circ \alpha_{0*} \circ {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota_*,{\mathrm{id}}) \circ {{\tilde{p}}}_{0\infty}^* \circ {{\tilde{\mathbf{J}}}}({\mathrm{pr}}_2^*,{\mathrm{id}}) \circ \beta_\infty^* \circ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(\gamma) && \eqref{eq:iota-tp} \\ & \simeq \beta_{0*} \circ \alpha_{0*} \circ {{\widetilde{{\mathbf{J}}{\mathbf{J}}}}}(\iota_*,{\mathrm{id}}) \circ \beta_{0\infty}^* \circ {{\tilde{p}}}^* \circ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(\gamma) && \eqref{eq:8-08} \\ & \simeq \alpha_* \circ \beta_{0\infty*} \circ \beta_{0\infty}^* \circ {{\tilde{p}}}^* \circ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(\gamma) && \eqref{eq:abi} \\ & \simeq \alpha_* \circ {{\tilde{p}}}^* \circ {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}(\gamma) && \eqref{beta0infty} \\ & = \gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}} && \eqref{gammatC} \end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof. As explained above, we first consider the case where the filtrations  split. Then we have a commutative diagram , whose vertical arrows and top horizontal arrow induce the corresponding arrows of . Hence by commutativity of these diagrams, the functor $\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}$ induces the Lefschetz equivalence given by the bottom horizontal arrow of . In the nonsplit case we use Proposition \[proposition-equivalence-local\] with ${\mathcal{C}}= {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})$, ${\mathcal{D}}= {\mathbf{H}}({{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))$, , ${\mathcal{A}}= {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})$, and ${\mathcal{B}}= ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}$. We note that the assumptions of the proposition are satisfied by Lemmas \[lemma-tC\] and \[lemma:gtc-adjoints\]. We take an fpqc cover of our base scheme $S$ over which the filtrations  split. By the argument above the functor $\gamma_{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}$ induces the desired Lefschetz equivalence after base change to this cover. Hence by Proposition \[proposition-equivalence-local\] the functor $\gamma_{{{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}}$ induces an equivalence between ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ and $({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}$, which is in fact a Lefschetz equivalence by Corollary \[corollary-equivalence-lef-cat-local\]. The general case {#subsection-cone-HPD-general-case} ---------------- In this subsection we bootstrap from Proposition \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\] to the general case of Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\]. \[lemma-cones-HPD-V0\] The claim of Theorem  holds if $V_0$ is nonzero. By Proposition \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\] we only need to consider the case where $V_\infty = 0$. Take an auxiliary nonzero vector bundle ${\tilde{V}}_{\infty}$ on $S$, and set ${\tilde{V}}= V \oplus {\tilde{V}}_{\infty}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$. Then $V_0 \subset {\tilde{V}}$ and ${\tilde{V}}_{\infty} \subset {\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ are such that the pairing ${\tilde{V}}\otimes {\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \to {\mathcal{O}}_S$ is zero on $V_0 \otimes {\tilde{V}}_{\infty}$. Hence Proposition \[proposition-cones-HPD-precise\] gives an equivalence $$\label{Vinfty01} {\mathcal{C}}_{{\tilde{V}}_\infty}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}) \simeq ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))^{{{\natural}}}$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. By base change along the embedding ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$ we obtain a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear equivalence $$\Big( {\mathcal{C}}_{{\tilde{V}}_\infty}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}) \Big) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \simeq ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))^{{{\natural}}} \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) ,$$ On the one hand, we have ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear equivalences $$\label{Vinfty02} \left( {\mathcal{C}}_{{\tilde{V}}_\infty}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}) \right) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \simeq {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}) / {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}),$$ where the first holds by Corollary \[corollary:cone-trivial\] and the second by Lemma \[lemma:cone-0\] since $V_{\infty} = 0$. On the other hand, note that ${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$ is supported over the open ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}) \setminus {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}_{\infty}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$ since this category’s ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$-linear structure is induced from a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure via the morphism ${\mathbf{P}}(V) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(V_\infty^\vee) = \varnothing$. Hence by Proposition \[proposition-HPD-projection\] we have a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear equivalence $$\label{Vinfty03} ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))^{{{\natural}}} \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \simeq ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}.$$ Combining the above equivalences, we thus obtain a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear equivalence $$\label{Vinfty04} {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}) / {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \simeq ({\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V))^{{{\natural}}}.$$ Finally, tracing through the equivalences  and  and using Remark \[remark-HPD-projection\] and the fact that  is a Lefschetz equivalence, one verifies that identifies the Lefschetz centers on each side. Now we can handle the general case. By Lemma \[lemma-cones-HPD-V0\] it remains to consider the case where $V_0 = 0$. We may assume $V_\infty \neq 0$, otherwise there is nothing to prove. Using Remark \[remark:left-hpd\] we reduce the claim of Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\] to the existence of a Lefschetz equivalence $${\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({\mathcal{A}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V) \simeq {^{{\natural}}} \left( {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \right).$$ Since $V_\infty \neq 0$ we can apply (the left version of) Lemma \[lemma-cones-HPD-V0\] to obtain a Lefschetz equivalence $${^{{\natural}}} \left( {\mathcal{C}}_{V_\infty}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}})/{\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \right) \simeq {\mathcal{C}}_{V_0}({^{{\natural}}}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}}))/{\mathbf{P}}(V).$$ We conclude by noting that ${^{{\natural}}}({\mathcal{A}}^{{{\natural}}}) \simeq {\mathcal{A}}$, again by Remark \[remark:left-hpd\]. HPD for quadrics {#section-HPD-for-quadrics} ================ In this section, we use categorical cones to describe HPD for quadrics. We assume the base scheme $S$ is the spectrum of an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$ of characteristic not equal to $2$. The main reason for this assumption is that our results depend on our work [@kuznetsov-perry-HPD-quadrics], reviewed in §\[subsection-HPD-smooth-quadrics\] below, where we described HPD for certain *smooth* quadrics over such a field ${\mathbf{k}}$. In fact, it is possible to generalize the results of [@kuznetsov-perry-HPD-quadrics] to the case of families of quadrics with simple degenerations, and then the arguments of this section go through in a suitable relative setting, where $S$ is not assumed to be a point; however, we will not address this here. We study the following class of morphisms from a quadric to a projective space. \[definition-standard-morphism\] Let $Q$ be a quadric, i.e. an integral scheme over ${\mathbf{k}}$ which admits a closed immersion into a projective space as a quadric hypersurface. We denote by ${\mathcal{O}}_Q(1)$ the restriction of the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ from this ambient space. A morphism $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is *standard* if there is an isomorphism $$f^*{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)}(1) \cong {\mathcal{O}}_Q(1).$$ In other words, $f$ is either an embedding as a quadric hypersurface into a linear subspace of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, or a double covering of a linear subspace of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ branched along a quadric hypersurface. [We call $f$ *non-degenerate* if its image is not contained in a hyperplane of ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$.]{} Note that $Q$ is not required to be smooth, but is required to be integral. In the preliminary §\[subsection-HPD-smooth-quadrics\], we recall that if $Q$ *is* smooth then it has a natural Lefschetz structure, and if  is a non-degenerate standard morphism the HPD category can be described in terms of classical projective duality. In §\[ssubsection-quadric-resolution\] we use categorical cones to construct for a general standard morphism a Lefschetz category ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ — called the *standard categorical resolution* of $Q$ — which is smooth and proper over ${\mathbf{k}}$ and agrees with ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$ over the complement of . In §\[ssubsection-generalized-quadric-duality\] we introduce a “generalized duality” operation that associates to a standard morphism of a quadric another such morphism . We use HPD for categorical cones to prove that this notation is compatible with the notation for the HPD category, i.e. that the HPD of the standard categorical resolution of $Q$ is Lefschetz equivalent to the standard categorical resolution of the generalized dual $Q^{{{\natural}}}$ (Theorem \[theorem:hpd-quadrics-general\]). By combining this with the nonlinear HPD theorem, we prove in §\[subsection-quadratic-HPD\] a quadratic HPD theorem (Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\]). HPD for smooth quadrics {#subsection-HPD-smooth-quadrics} ----------------------- In this subsection, we briefly review HPD for smooth quadrics following [@kuznetsov-perry-HPD-quadrics]. Given a smooth quadric $Q$, we will denote by ${\mathcal{S}}$ a chosen spinor bundle on it. Note that there is either one or two choices for ${\mathcal{S}}$ depending on whether $\dim(Q)$ is odd or even. \[lemma-smooth-Q-lc\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a smooth quadric $Q$. Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ denote a spinor bundle on $Q$. Then ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$ is smooth and proper over ${\mathbf{k}}$, and has the structure of a strong, moderate Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ with Lefschetz center $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}_0 = \langle {\mathcal{S}}, {\mathcal{O}}\rangle \subset {\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$$ and length $\dim(Q)$. Further, if $p \in {\left\{ \, 0,1 \, \right\}}$ is the parity of $\dim(Q)$, i.e. $p = \dim(Q) \pmod 2$, then the nonzero Lefschetz components of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$ are given by $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}_i = \begin{cases} \langle {\mathcal{S}}, {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{for $|i| \leq 1-p$} , \\ \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{for $1-p < |i| \leq \dim(Q)-1$}. \end{cases}$$ \[remark:other-spinor-center\] If $\dim Q$ is even there are two choices of ${\mathcal{S}}$, but up to equivalence, the Lefschetz structure on ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$ does not depend on this choice, see [@kuznetsov-perry-HPD-quadrics Remark 1.2]. Further, the Lefschetz center ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}_0$ of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$ can be also written as $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}_0 = \langle {\mathcal{O}}, {{\mathcal{S}}'}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \rangle$$ where ${\mathcal{S}}' = {\mathcal{S}}$ if $\dim(Q)$ is not divisible by 4, and the other spinor bundle otherwise. The nonzero primitive Lefschetz components (as defined in §\[subsection-lef-cats\]) of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)$ are given by $${\mathfrak{q}}_i = \begin{cases} \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{if $i = -(\dim(Q) - 1)$} , \\ \langle {{\mathcal{S}}'}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \rangle & \text{if $i = -(1-p)$} , \\ \langle {\mathcal{S}}\rangle & \text{if $i = 1-p$} , \\ \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{if $i = \dim(Q)-1$}. \end{cases}$$ The next result describes HPD for [non-degenerate]{} standard morphisms of smooth quadrics. This will be generalized to arbitrary standard morphisms of quadrics in Theorem \[theorem:hpd-quadrics-general\]. Recall that the classical projective dual of a smooth quadric hypersurface $Q \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is itself a smooth quadric hypersurface $Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \subset {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. \[theorem-HPD-quadrics\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a [non-degenerate]{} standard morphism of a smooth quadric $Q$. Then there is an equivalence $${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q)^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}(Q^{\natural})$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$, where: 1. \[HPD-quadrics-1\] If $f$ is a divisorial embedding and $\dim(Q)$ is even, then $Q^{{{\natural}}} = Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ is the projective dual of $Q$ and $Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ is its natural embedding. 2. \[HPD-quadrics-d-odd\] If $f$ is a divisorial embedding and $\dim(Q)$ is odd, then $Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ is the double cover branched along the projective dual of $Q$. 3. \[HPD-quadrics-dc-even\] If $f$ is a double covering and $\dim(Q)$ is even, then $Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ is the projective dual of the branch locus of $f$. 4. \[HPD-quadrics-dc-odd\] If $f$ is a double covering and $\dim(Q)$ is odd, then $Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$ is the double cover branched along the projective dual of the branch locus of $f$. Standard categorical resolutions of quadrics {#ssubsection-quadric-resolution} -------------------------------------------- In this subsection, we will obtain a categorical resolution of a singular quadric by expressing it as a cone over a smooth quadric, and then taking a categorical cone. To start with, we analyze the general structure of a standard morphism of quadrics. The following result is clear. \[lemma:standard-morphism\] Let $Q \subset {\mathbf{P}}({{\widetilde}{W}})$ be a quadric hypersurface. Then there are a unique subspace  and a smooth quadric ${\bar{Q}}\subset {\mathbf{P}}({{\widetilde}{W}}/K)$ such that $$Q \cong {\mathbf{C}}_K({\bar{Q}}).$$ Moreover, if $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is a standard morphism of $Q$, there is a unique commutative diagram of vector spaces $$\xymatrix@C=4em{ 0 \ar[r] & K \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{=}[d] & {{\widetilde}{W}}\ar@{->>}[r] \ar@{->>}[d]_{{\mathbf{C}}_K(\bar{f})} & {{\widetilde}{W}}/K \ar[r] \ar@{->>}[d]_{\bar{f}} & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & K \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & W \ar@{->>}[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & W/K \ar[r] & 0 \\ && V }$$ with surjective morphism $\bar{f}$ such that $f$ is the composition $Q \xrightarrow{\ {\mathbf{C}}_K(\bar{f})\vert_Q \ } {\mathbf{P}}(W) \hookrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Moreover, one of the following two possibilities hold: 1. \[type:embedding\] The map $\bar{f}$ is an isomorphism. In this case, $f$ is an embedding. 2. \[type:covering\] The spaces $\ker(\bar{f})$ and $\ker({\mathbf{C}}_K(\bar{f}))$ are $1$-dimensional, and the corresponding points of the projective spaces ${\mathbf{P}}({{\widetilde}{W}})$ and ${\mathbf{P}}({{\widetilde}{W}}/K)$ do not lie on the quadrics $Q$ and ${\bar{Q}}$ respectively. In this case, $f$ is a double covering onto ${\mathbf{P}}(W) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. We define $K$ to be the kernel of the quadratic form on ${{\widetilde}{W}}$ corresponding to $Q$ and ${\bar{Q}}$ to be the quadric corresponding to the induced quadratic form on ${{\widetilde}{W}}/K$. We set $$W = \operatorname{im}\left(V^\vee = H^0({\mathbf{P}}(V),{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)}(1)) \xrightarrow{\ f^*\ } H^0(Q,{\mathcal{O}}_Q(1)) = {{\widetilde}{W}}^\vee\right)^\vee.$$ This gives a factorization of $f^*$ as a composition $V^\vee \to W^\vee \to {{\widetilde}{W}}^\vee$ and we define the maps in the middle column of the diagram as the dual maps. The rest is clear. We call the quadric ${\bar{Q}}$ above the *base quadric* of $Q$. Moreover, if  holds we say $f$ is of *embedding type*, and if  holds we say $f$ is of *covering type*. Next we define some useful numerical invariants of a standard morphism of a quadric. In the definition below we use the notation introduced in Lemma \[lemma:standard-morphism\]. \[def:numerical-invariants\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. Then: - $r(Q) = \dim{{\widetilde}{W}}- \dim K$ denotes the rank of $Q$, i.e. the rank of the quadratic form on ${{\widetilde}{W}}$ corresponding to $Q$. - $p(Q) \in \{0,1\}$ denotes the *parity* of $r(Q)$, i.e. $p(Q) = r(Q) \pmod 2$. - $k(Q) = \dim K$. - $c(f) = \dim V - \dim W$ denotes the codimension of the linear span $\langle {f(Q)} \rangle \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. - $t(f) = \dim{{\widetilde}{W}}- \dim W \in \{0,1\}$ denotes the *type* of $Q$, defined by $$t(f) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ if $f$ is of embedding type}, \\ 1 & \text{ if $f$ is of covering type}. \end{cases}$$ Note that our convention that $Q$ is integral is equivalent to $r(Q) \ge 3$. \[remark-Q-invariants\] As indicated by the notation, $r(Q)$, $p(Q)$, and $k(Q)$ depend only on $Q$, while $c(f)$ and $t(f)$ are invariants of the morphism $f$. We note the relations $$\begin{aligned} \label{dimQ-quadric} \dim(Q) & = r(Q) + k(Q) - 2 , \\ \label{dimV-quadric} \dim(V) & = r(Q) + k(Q) + c(f) - t(f) .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if ${\bar{Q}}$ is the base quadric of $Q$, we have $r(Q) = r({\bar{Q}})$ and $p(Q) = p({\bar{Q}})$. Using the identification of Lemma \[lemma:standard-morphism\] of a quadric $Q$ with the cone over a smooth quadric, we see that the corresponding resolved cone gives a resolution of $Q$. We call the induced map $$\label{equation-tQ} \pi \colon {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_K({\bar{Q}}) \to {\mathbf{C}}_{K}({\bar{Q}}) = Q$$ the *standard geometric resolution* of $Q$. Note that this map is nothing but the blowup of $Q$ in its singular locus ${\mathrm{Sing}}(Q) = {\mathbf{P}}(K)$. \[definition-standard-cat-res-Q\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. Using the above notation, the *standard categorical resolution* of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is the Lefschetz category ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ defined as the categorical cone over the base quadric ${\bar{Q}}$: $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}= {\mathcal{C}}_K({\bar{Q}})/{\mathbf{P}}(V) .$$ In Lemma \[lemma-cQ-lc\] we explicitly describe the Lefschetz components of ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$, and in Lemma \[lemma-cQ-categorical-resolution\] we justify calling ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ a categorical resolution. \[lemma-cQ-lc\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be a spinor bundle on the base quadric of $Q$. Then the standard categorical resolution ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is smooth and proper over ${\mathbf{k}}$, with a strong, moderate Lefschetz structure of length $\dim(Q)$. If $k = k(Q)$ and $p = p(Q)$, then its nonzero Lefschetz components are given by $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}_i = \begin{cases} \langle {\mathcal{S}}, {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{for $|i| \leq k+1-p$} , \\ \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{for $k+1-p < |i| \leq \dim(Q) - 1$} , \end{cases}$$ and its nonzero primitive Lefschetz components are given by $${\mathfrak{q}}_i = \begin{cases} \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{if $i = -(\dim(Q) - 1)$} , \\ \langle {{\mathcal{S}}'}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \rangle & \text{if $i = -(k+1-p)$} , \\ \langle {\mathcal{S}}\rangle & \text{if $i = k+1-p$} , \\ \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle & \text{if $i = \dim(Q) - 1$}, \end{cases}$$ where ${\mathcal{S}}'$ is described in Remark . Combine Theorem \[theorem-cone-lef-cat\], Lemma \[lemma-cC-smooth-proper\], Lemma \[lemma-smooth-Q-lc\], and the formula . In Lemma \[lemma-cQ-lc\] and below, we tacitly identify the objects ${\mathcal{O}}$, ${\mathcal{S}}$, and ${\mathcal{S}}'$ on the base quadric [${\bar{Q}}$]{} of $Q$ with their pullbacks to [${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\subset {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_K({\bar{Q}})$]{}. The next lemma justifies our terminology by showing that ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ is a weakly crepant categorical resolution in the sense of Definition \[def:categorical-resolution\]. Recall that by definition the standard categorical resolution of a quadric is a subcategory of the derived category of the standard geometric resolution . \[lemma-cQ-categorical-resolution\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric, with standard geometric resolution $\pi \colon {{{\widetilde}{Q}}}= {{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_K({\bar{Q}}) \to Q$ and standard categorical resolution ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Then $\pi_*$ and $\pi^*$ restrict to functors $$\pi_* \colon {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\to {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Q) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \pi^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}(Q) \to {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}},$$ which give ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ the structure of a [weakly]{} crepant categorical resolution of $Q$. Furthermore, the object ${\mathcal{R}}= \pi_* {\mathcal{E}\!{\it nd}}( {\mathcal{O}}\oplus {\mathcal{S}}) \in {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Q)$ is a coherent sheaf of ${\mathcal{O}}_Q$-algebras on $Q$ of finite homological dimension, and there is an equivalence $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\simeq {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Q, {\mathcal{R}}) ,$$ where ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Q, {\mathcal{R}})$ denotes the bounded derived category of coherent ${\mathcal{R}}$-modules on $Q$. Recall that the morphism $\pi$ is the blowup with center at ${\mathbf{P}}(K)$. Consider the blowup diagram $$\vcenter{\xymatrix{ E \ar[r] \ar[d]_{\pi_E} & {{{\widetilde}{Q}}}\ar[d]^\pi \\ {\mathbf{P}}(K) \ar[r] & Q }}$$ where $E$ is the exceptional divisor; note moreover that $E \cong {\mathbf{P}}(K) \times {\bar{Q}}$, where ${\bar{Q}}$ is the base quadric of $Q$. It is easy to see that $\pi$ is a resolution of rational singularities (recall that the rank of ${\bar{Q}}$ is assumed to be greater than 2). Moreover, $\pi_E^*({\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(K)))$ is contained in the Lefschetz center $${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(K)) \otimes \langle {\mathcal{S}}, {\mathcal{O}}\rangle \subset {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(K) \times {\bar{Q}}) \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}(E).$$ Hence by [@kuznetsov2008lefschetz Theorem 4.4] the functors $\pi^*$ and $\pi_*$ indeed give ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ the structure of a categorical resolution of $Q$. Moreover, $Q$ is Gorenstein and a direct computation shows that $$K_{{{{\widetilde}{Q}}}} = \pi^*(K_Q) + (\dim({\bar{Q}}) - 1)E .$$ Note that $\dim({\bar{Q}})$ is the length of the Lefschetz decomposition of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(E)$ above. Hence [@kuznetsov2008lefschetz Proposition 4.5] shows that ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ is a [weakly]{} crepant categorical resolution of $Q$. By an argument similar to [@kuznetsov2008lefschetz Proposition 7.1], the bundle ${\mathcal{O}}\oplus {\mathcal{S}}$ on ${{{\widetilde}{Q}}}$ is tilting over $Q$ (i.e. the derived pushforward $\pi_* {\mathcal{E}\!{\it nd}}({\mathcal{O}}\oplus {\mathcal{S}})$ is a pure sheaf) if and only if for all $t \geq 0$ we have $${\mathrm{H}}^{>0}({\bar{Q}}, {\mathcal{E}\!{\it nd}}( {\mathcal{O}}\oplus {\mathcal{S}})(t{\bar{H}})) = 0.$$ A computation shows that this vanishing holds, and then the rest of the lemma follows from [@kuznetsov2008lefschetz Theorem 5.2]. The last statement of Lemma \[lemma-cQ-categorical-resolution\] shows that ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ can also be considered as a noncommutative resolution in the sense of Van den Bergh [@vdb-flops; @vdb-crepant]. The following lemma relates standard categorical resolutions of quadrics to geometry and shows that ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ is “birational” to $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. \[lemma-cQ-resolution\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. Let ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ be the standard categorical resolution of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Let $U = {\mathbf{P}}(V) \setminus f({\mathrm{Sing}}(Q))$. 1. \[cQ-resolution\] There is a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear functor ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Q) \to {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ whose base change to $U$ gives an equivalence $${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}_U \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}(Q_U) .$$ 2. \[cQ-fiber-product\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear category supported over $U$. Then there is an equivalence $${\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\simeq {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\mathrm{Perf}}(Q).$$ In particular, if ${\mathcal{A}}= {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$ for a scheme $X$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ supported over $U$, then $${\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}{\left(X \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} Q \right)}.$$ Part follows from Proposition \[proposition-cC-tC-agree\] because the morphism ${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_{K}({\bar{Q}}) \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ factorizes as $${{\tilde{{\mathbf{C}}}}}_K({\bar{Q}}) \to {\mathbf{C}}_{K}({\bar{Q}}) = Q \xrightarrow{\, f \,} {\mathbf{P}}(V),$$ where the first map is the blowup in ${\mathbf{P}}(K) = {\mathrm{Sing}}(Q)$. Part follows from Lemma \[lemma-C-support-fiber\] and part . Generalized quadratic duality and HPD {#ssubsection-generalized-quadric-duality} ------------------------------------- Our goal in this subsection is to define a geometric duality operation on standard morphisms of quadrics, which after passing to standard categorical resolutions corresponds to the operation of taking the HPD category. The desired duality operation will be defined using a combination of the following three operations. \[def:generalized-duality\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. - If $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is of embedding type, we denote by $$f^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} : Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \to {\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$$ the embedding of the classical projective dual of $Q \subset {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. - If [$f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$]{} is of embedding type, we define $${{f}_{\textrm{cov}}} \colon {{Q}_{\textrm{cov}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$$ as the composition of the double cover ${{Q}_{\textrm{cov}}} \to \langle Q \rangle$ branched along $Q \subset \langle Q \rangle$ with the embedding $\langle Q \rangle \hookrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. - If [$f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$]{} is of covering type, we define $${{f}_{\textrm{br}}} \colon {{Q}_{\textrm{br}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$$ as the composition of the inclusion ${{Q}_{\textrm{br}}} \hookrightarrow \langle {f(Q)} \rangle$ of the branch divisor of the double cover  with the embedding $\langle {f(Q)} \rangle \hookrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}(V)$. \[remark:duality-spaces\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric, and recall the canonical diagram of vector spaces associated to $f$ in Lemma \[lemma:standard-morphism\]. The operations of Definition \[def:generalized-duality\] affect this diagram as follows. - If $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is of embedding type, then its classical projective dual can be described as follows. The filtration $0 \subset K \subset W \subset V$ gives a filtration $0 \subset W^{\perp} \subset K^{\perp} \subset {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$ by taking orthogonals. The pairing between $V$ and ${V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}$ induces a nondegenerate pairing between $W/K$ and $K^{\perp}/W^{\perp}$, and hence an isomorphism $K^{\perp}/W^{\perp} \cong (W/K)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$. Via this isomorphism, the base quadric ${\bar{Q}}\subset {\mathbf{P}}(W/K)$ of $Q$ corresponds to a quadric in (its projective dual), and $Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} = {\mathbf{C}}_{W^{\perp}}({\bar{Q}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. Thus, the operation $f \mapsto f^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ replaces $W$ by $K^{\perp}$ and $K$ by $W^{\perp}$. - If $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is of embedding type, then note that ${{\widetilde}{W}}= W$. The operation $f \mapsto {{f}_{\textrm{cov}}}$ replaces ${{\widetilde}{W}}$ by $W \oplus {\mathbf{k}}$, and keeps $W$ and $K$ fixed. - Similarly, if $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is of covering type, then the operation $f \mapsto {{f}_{\textrm{br}}}$ replaces ${{\widetilde}{W}}$ by $W$, and keeps $W$ and $K$ fixed. All of the above operations preserve the integrality of $Q$, except for the branch divisor operation in case $r(Q) = 3$ and $f$ is a morphism of covering type. Indeed, this follows from the formulas: $$r(Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}) = r(Q), \quad r({{Q}_{\textrm{cov}}}) = r(Q) + 1, \quad r({{Q}_{\textrm{br}}}) = r(Q) -1.$$ Note, however, that the above operations are defined even for non-integral quadrics. The next definition is modeled on the cases considered in Theorem \[theorem-HPD-quadrics\]. \[definition:generalized-duality\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. The *generalized dual* of $f$ is the standard morphism $$f^{\natural} \colon Q^\natural \to {\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$$ of the quadric $Q^{\natural}$ defined as follows: - If $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is of embedding type, then: - If $r(Q)$ is even, we set $Q^\natural = Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ and $f^{\natural} = f^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \colon Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. - If $r(Q)$ is odd, we set $Q^\natural = {{(Q^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})}_{\textrm{cov}}}$ and $f^{\natural} = {{(f^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})}_{\textrm{cov}}} \colon Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. - If $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is of covering type, then: - If $r(Q)$ is even, we set $Q^\natural = ({{Q}_{\textrm{br}}})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ and $f^{\natural} = ({{f}_{\textrm{br}}})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \colon Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. - If $r(Q)$ is odd, we set $Q^\natural = {{(({{Q}_{\textrm{br}}})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})}_{\textrm{cov}}}$ and $f^{\natural} = {{(({{f}_{\textrm{br}}})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})}_{\textrm{cov}}} \colon Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. In other words, we first pass to a morphism of the embedding type (by taking the branch divisor if necessary), then apply projective duality, and then if necessary go to the double covering. \[remark-natural-invariants\] Using the description of Remark \[remark:duality-spaces\] it is easy to check that generalized duality affects the numerical invariants of $f$ described in Definition \[def:numerical-invariants\] as follows: $$r(Q^{\natural}) = r(Q) + p(Q) - t(f), \quad p(Q^{\natural}) = t(f) , \quad k(Q^{\natural}) = c(f), \quad c(f^{\sharp}) = k(Q), \quad t(f^{\natural}) = p(Q).$$ In particular, note that generalized duality preserves the integrality of $Q$. Note also that by  we have $$\label{dimQd-quadric} \dim(Q^{\natural}) = r(Q) + p(Q) + c(f) - t(f) - 2.$$ \[remark:parity-dimension\] By , , and we have $$\begin{aligned} \dim(Q^\natural) + \dim(Q) & = (r(Q) + k(Q) + c(f) - t(f)) + (r(Q) + p(Q) - 4) \\ & = \dim(V) + (r(Q) + p(Q) - 4) , \end{aligned}$$ which is congruent to $\dim(V) \bmod 2$ since by definition $p(Q) \equiv r(Q) \bmod 2$. This means that if $\dim(V)$ is even, then the parities of the dimensions of $Q^\natural$ and $Q$ are the same, and if $\dim(V)$ is odd, then the parities are opposite. Now we can bootstrap from Theorem \[theorem-HPD-quadrics\] to a result for arbitrary standard morphisms. \[theorem:hpd-quadrics-general\] Let $f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ be a standard morphism of a quadric. Let ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ be the standard categorical resolution of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Then the HPD category ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{{{\natural}}}$ is Lefschetz equivalent to the standard categorical resolution of $Q^{\natural}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. Follows from Theorem \[theorem-HPD-quadrics\], Theorem \[theorem-cones-HPD\], and the definitions. The quadratic HPD theorem {#subsection-quadratic-HPD} ------------------------- Now we can prove our quadratic HPD theorem, by combining the above results with the nonlinear HPD Theorem \[theorem-nonlinear-HPD\]. \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a right strong, moderate Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Let $$f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(V) \qquad \text{and} \qquad f^{\natural} \colon Q^{\natural} \to {\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$$ be a standard map of a quadric and its generalized dual. Let ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ be the standard categorical resolution of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, and let ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{\natural}$ be the standard categorical resolution of $Q^{\natural}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. Let ${\mathcal{S}}\in {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ and ${\mathcal{S}}^{\natural} \in {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{\natural}$ be the pullbacks of spinor bundles on the base quadrics of $Q$ and $Q^{{{\natural}}}$. Let $H$ and $H'$ denote the hyperplane classes on ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$. Let $$N = \dim(V), \quad m = \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}), \quad m^{{\natural}}= \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}), \quad d = \dim(Q), \quad d^\natural = \dim(Q^{\natural}).$$ Then there are semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}= \Big \langle & {\mathcal{K}}_Q({\mathcal{A}}) , \\ & {\mathcal{A}}_{d^\natural}(H) {\otimes} \langle {\mathcal{S}}\rangle, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_{m-1}((m-d^\natural)H) {\otimes} \langle {\mathcal{S}}\rangle, \\ & {\mathcal{A}}_{N-d}(H) {\otimes} \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_{m-1}((m+d-N)H) {\otimes} \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle \Big\rangle. \end{split}\\ \begin{split} {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{\natural} = \Big\langle & {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{1-m^{{\natural}}}((N-d^\natural-m^{{\natural}})H') {\otimes} \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle, \dots, {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{d^\natural-N}(-H') {\otimes} \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle , \\ & {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{1-m^{{\natural}}}((d-m^{{\natural}})H') {\otimes} \langle ({\mathcal{S}}^{\natural})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \rangle, \dots, {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{-d}(-H') {\otimes} \langle ({\mathcal{S}}^{\natural})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \rangle, \\ & {\mathcal{K}}'_{Q^{\natural}}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}) \Big\rangle , \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and an equivalence of categories ${\mathcal{K}}_Q({\mathcal{A}}) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}'_{Q^{\natural}}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}})$. We apply the nonlinear HPD Theorem \[theorem-nonlinear-HPD\] in case ${{\mathcal{A}}^1} = {\mathcal{A}}$, ${{\mathcal{A}}^2} = {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$; it gives semiorthogonal decompositions  and  and the equivalence; so we only have to check that the components ${\mathcal{J}}_i = {\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{A}}, {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}})_i$ of  and ${\mathcal{J}^{{{\natural}}}}_j = {\mathcal{J}}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}, {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{{{\natural}}})_j$ of  have the prescribed form. By [@categorical-joins Lemma 3.24] and Lemma \[lemma-cQ-lc\], for $i \geq N$ we have $${\mathcal{J}}_i = \big \langle {\mathcal{A}}_{i-k+p-2} \otimes \langle {\mathcal{S}}\rangle, {\mathcal{A}}_{i-d} \otimes \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle \big \rangle \subset {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}.$$ Combined with the observation that $k-p+2 = N - d^\natural$ by  and , it follows that the semiorthogonal decomposition  takes the claimed form. Using the expression for the numerical invariants of $Q^{\natural}$ in terms of those of $Q$ (Remark \[remark-natural-invariants\]), it follows similarly that the semiorthogonal decomposition  takes the claimed form. It is natural to combine Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] with the result of Lemma \[lemma-cQ-resolution\] that provides the left hand sides of the semiorthogonal decompositions with a clear geometric meaning. In the next section we use this to derive the applications promised in §\[subsection-intro-applications\]. Applications {#section:applications} ============ In this section we collect some applications of the quadratic HPD Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] obtained above. In §\[subsection:duality-gm\] we prove the duality conjecture for Gushel–Mukai varieties and in §\[subsection-sGM\] we discuss and prove its spin analogue. We continue to assume the base scheme $S$ is the spectrum of an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$ of characteristic not equal to $2$. Duality of Gushel–Mukai varieties {#subsection:duality-gm} --------------------------------- We will prove [@kuznetsov2016perry Conjecture 3.7] on the duality of Gushel–Mukai varieties. For context and consequences of this conjecture, see the discussion in §\[subsection-intro-applications\]. The definition of this class of varieties from [@debarre2015kuznetsov] can be rephrased as follows; note that unlike [@debarre2015kuznetsov], by convention we require GM varieties to have dimension at least $2$. \[def:gm\] A *Gushel–Mukai (GM) variety* is a dimensionally transverse fiber product $$X = {\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)} Q ,$$ where $V_5$ is a $5$-dimensional vector space, ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5) \to {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ is the Plücker embedding of the Grassmannian of $2$-dimensional subspaces of $V_5$, and $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ is a standard morphism of a quadric with $\dim Q \geq 5$. In [@kuznetsov2016perry] a semiorthogonal decomposition of ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(X) = {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$ (appearing as  below) for any smooth GM variety was constructed, and in particular, an interesting subcategory $${\mathcal{K}}(X) \subset {\mathrm{Perf}}(X),$$ (called the *GM category* of $X$) was defined. In [@kuznetsov2016perry] GM categories were thoroughly studied, and in particular, it was shown that a GM category ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is either a K3 category or an Enriques type category, depending on whether $\dim(X)$ is even or odd. On the other hand, in [@debarre2015kuznetsov] GM varieties were classified. In particular, in [@debarre2015kuznetsov Theorem 3.6] to every GM variety there was associated its *Lagrangian data set*, which consists of a triple of vector spaces $(V_6(X),V_5(X),A(X))$, where: - $V_6(X)$ is a 6-dimensional vector space; - $V_5(X) \subset V_6(X)$ is a hyperplane; and - $A(X) \subset \wedge^3V_6(X)$ is a Lagrangian subspace. Here we endow the 20-dimensional space $\wedge^3V_6(X)$ with a symplectic form given by wedge product $\wedge^3V_6(X) \otimes \wedge^3V_6(X) \to \wedge^6V_6(X) \cong {\mathbf{k}}$. The form depends on a choice of isomorphism above, but the property of being Lagrangian does not. Conversely, to every triple $(V_6,V_5,A)$ as above two *GM intersections* $X_{A,V_5}^{\mathrm{ord}}$ and $X_{A,V_5}^{\mathrm{spe}}$ were associated. Both $X_{A,V_5}^{\mathrm{ord}}$ and $X_{A,V_5}^{\mathrm{spe}}$ have the form $$X_{A,V_5} = {\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)} Q,$$ and their type (*ordinary* or *special*) corresponds to the type of the morphism $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ (embedding or covering). Note that a GM intersection $X_{A,V_5}$ is not necessarily dimensionally transverse (so it is not necessarily a GM variety). Furthermore, in [@debarre2015kuznetsov Theorem 3.16] it was shown that if $X$ is a smooth GM variety of dimension $d_X \ge 3$ then the Lagrangian $A(X) \subset \wedge^3V_6(X)$ *contains no decomposable vectors*, i.e., ${\mathbf{P}}(A(X))$ does not intersect ${\mathrm{Gr}}(3, V_6(X)) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^3 V_6(X))$. Conversely, if $A \subset \wedge^3V_6$ contains no decomposable vectors, then for any $V_5 \subset V_6$ both GM intersections $X_{A,V_5}$ are smooth GM varieties. Note that the dimension of the two types of $X_{A,V_5}$ differs by 1 and depends on $V_5$. This already shows that the Lagrangian $A(X)$ controls many important properties of a GM variety $X$. Motivated by this and a birationality result [@debarre2015kuznetsov Corollary 4.16 and Theorem 4.20], we introduced in [@kuznetsov2016perry Definition 3.5] the notions of generalized duality and partnership of GM varieties (generalizing [@debarre2015kuznetsov Definition 3.22 and 3.26]). \[def:gm-duality\] Let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be GM varieties such that $\dim(X_1) \equiv \dim(X_2) \pmod 2$. - $X_1$ and $X_2$ are *generalized partners* if there exists an isomorphism $V_6(X_1) \cong V_6(X_2)$ identifying $A(X_1) \subset \wedge^3V_6(X_1)$ with $A(X_2) \subset \wedge^3V_6(X_2)$. - $X_1$ and $X_2$ are *generalized dual* if there exists an isomorphism $V_6(X_1) \cong V_6(X_2)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ identifying $A(X_1) \subset \wedge^3V_6(X_1)$ with $A(X_2)^\perp \subset \wedge^3V_6(X_2)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$. The duality conjecture [@kuznetsov2016perry Conjecture 3.7] predicted that for [(smooth)]{} GM varieties whose associated Lagrangians contain no decomposable vectors, being generalized partners or duals implies an equivalence of GM categories. A special case was proved in [@kuznetsov2016perry Theorem 4.1]; below we prove the conjecture in full generality. The idea of our proof is as follows. First, we note that the ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5)$ factor in the fiber product defining a GM variety in Definition \[def:gm\] is homologically projectively self-dual, so one can use the quadratic HPD theorem to relate the derived categories of two GM varieties. Second, we note that generalized duality of the quadric factors corresponds to generalized duality of the corresponding GM intersections. Finally, we iterate equivalences of GM categories obtained in this way to prove the conjecture. Now we start implementing this approach. First, recall the homological projective self-duality of ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5)$: \[theorem-HPD-Gr\] Let ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{U}}'$ be the tautological rank $2$ subbundles on ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5)$ and ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)$. Then ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5))$ and ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2,{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5))$ have the structure of strong, moderate Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)$, respectively, of length $5$, with Lefschetz components given by $${\mathcal{A}}_i = \langle {\mathcal{O}}, {\mathcal{U}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}\rangle \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathcal{A}}'_i = \langle {\mathcal{U}}', {\mathcal{O}}\rangle$$ for $|i| \leq 4$. Moreover, there is an equivalence $${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5))^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2,{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5))$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)$. Now we apply Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] to GM varieties. \[theorem-GM-duality\] Let $$\label{eq:gm-varieties} X = {\mathrm{Gr}}(2, V_5) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)} Q \quad \text{and} \quad Y = {\mathrm{Gr}}(2, {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)} Q^{{\natural}}$$ be smooth GM varieties of dimensions $d_X \geq 2$ and $d_Y \geq 2$, where $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ is a standard morphism of a quadric and $Q^{{{\natural}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)$ is its generalized dual. Let ${\mathcal{U}}_X$ and ${\mathcal{U}}_Y$ denote the pullbacks of ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{U}}'$ to $X$ and $Y$, and let ${\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(1)$ denote the pullbacks of the ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ line bundles on ${\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)$. Then there are semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} \label{GMX} {\mathrm{Perf}}(X) & = \langle {\mathcal{K}}(X), {\mathcal{O}}_X(1), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(1), \dots, {\mathcal{O}}_X(d_X-2), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(d_X-2) \rangle , \\ \label{GMY} {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y) & = \langle {\mathcal{U}}_Y(2-d_Y), {\mathcal{O}}_Y(2-d_Y), \dots, {\mathcal{U}}_Y(-1), {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-1), {\mathcal{K}}'(Y) \rangle , \end{aligned}$$ and an equivalence ${\mathcal{K}}(X) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}'(Y)$. Before giving a proof note that if $d_X \le 1$ then $Y$ is necessarily singular. Indeed, in this case we have $\dim(Q) \le 4$, hence $c(Q) \ge 4$, hence $k(Q^{{\natural}}) \ge 4$, hence ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)$ intersects the image of the singular locus of $Q^{{\natural}}$, hence $Y$ is singular. This is a combination of Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\], Theorem \[theorem-HPD-Gr\], and Lemma \[lemma-cQ-resolution\]. Indeed, the smoothness of $X$ and $Y$ implies that the Grassmannians in  do not intersect the singular loci of the quadrics, so by Lemma \[lemma-cQ-resolution\] we have $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2, V_5^{\hphantom{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5^{\hphantom{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{\hphantom{\natural}} & \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}(X), \\ {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2, {V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5)) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}^{\natural} & \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y). \end{aligned}$$ We just need to show the semiorthogonal decompositions of Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] take the prescribed form. The length of the Lefschetz decompositions of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5))$ is $m = 5$, and the codimension of ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5)$ in ${\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2V_5)$ is 3, so by dimensional transversality $$d^{{\natural}}= \dim (Q^\natural) = d_Y + 3 \ge 5.$$ Thus $m - d^{{\natural}}\le 0$, hence ${\mathcal{S}}$ does not show up in the semiorthogonal decomposition of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$. The same argument shows that $({\mathcal{S}}^{\natural})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$ does not show up in the decomposition of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$. Similarly, $N = \dim \wedge^2V_5 = 10$ and $d = \dim(Q) = d_X + 3$, hence $$m + d - N = 5 + (d_X + 3) - 10 = d_X - 2,$$ and so the Lefschetz components ${\mathcal{A}}_i = \langle {\mathcal{O}},{\mathcal{U}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}} \rangle$ of ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2,{V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}_5))$ appear $d_X - 2$ times in the decomposition of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$. The same argument shows that $\langle {\mathcal{U}}_Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y \rangle$ appears $d_Y - 2$ times in the decomposition of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$. Hence the semiorthogonal decompositions of Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] take the prescribed form. Now we are ready to prove the duality conjecture. \[corollary-duality-GM\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be [smooth]{} GM varieties whose associated Lagrangian subspaces $A(X)$ and $A(Y)$ do not contain decomposable vectors. If $X$ and $Y$ are generalized partners or duals, then there is an equivalence ${\mathcal{K}}(X) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}(Y)$. By [@debarre2015kuznetsov Theorem 3.16] the assumption that the Lagrangian subspace $A(X)$ does not contain decomposable vectors holds automatically unless $X$ is a special GM surface or an ordinary GM surface with singular Grassmannian hull. First assume $X$ and $Y$ are generalized duals. Under the isomorphism $V_6(X) \cong V_6(Y)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$, the hyperplane $V_5(Y) \subset V_6(Y)$ corresponds to a point ${\mathbf{q}_Y} \in {\mathbf{P}}(V_6(X))$. Further assume that $$\label{eq:bq-v5-condition} {\mathbf{q}_Y} \notin {\mathbf{P}}(V_5(X)).$$ Then $X$ and $Y$ can be obtained as in Theorem \[theorem-GM-duality\] from an appropriate pair of generalized dual quadrics, cf. [@debarre2015kuznetsov Proposition 3.28]. Twisting the decomposition  by ${\mathcal{O}}_X(-1)$ shows that ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is equivalent to the GM category of $X$, as defined in [@kuznetsov2016perry Definition 2.5]. On the other hand, twisting the decomposition  by ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(1)$ and using [@kuznetsov2016perry (2.20) and (2.21)] shows that ${\mathcal{K}}'(Y)$ is equivalent to the GM category of $Y$. Thus Theorem \[theorem-GM-duality\] gives the result under our above assumptions. Next assume $X$ and $Y$ are generalized partners. Choose a point $\mathbf{p} \in {\mathbf{P}}(V_6(X)) = {\mathbf{P}}(V_6(Y))$ away from the hyperplanes ${\mathbf{P}}(V_5(X))$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(V_5(Y))$. Let $V_5 \subset V_6 := V_6(X)^\vee$ be the corresponding hyperplane, and let $A = A(X)^{\perp} \subset \wedge^3 V_6$. Then by [@debarre2015kuznetsov Theorem 3.10] there is a GM variety $Z$ such that $(V_6(Z), V_5(Z), A(Z)) = (V_6, V_5, A)$. Since $A$ does not contain decomposable vectors, $Z$ is smooth by [@debarre2015kuznetsov Theorem 3.16]. By construction, $X$ and $Y$ are both generalized duals of $Z$ satisfying the extra assumption considered in the previous paragraph. Thus $X$ and $Y$ have equivalent GM categories. The final case to consider is when $X$ and $Y$ are generalized duals, and under the isomorphism $V_6(X) \cong V_6(Y)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$, the hyperplane $V_5(Y) \subset V_6(Y)$ corresponds to a point $\mathbf{q} \in {\mathbf{P}}(V_6(X))$ which lies in ${\mathbf{P}}(V_5(X))$. In this case, arguing as in the previous paragraph we can construct a GM variety $Y'$ generalized dual to $X$, such that under the isomorphism $V_6(X) \cong V_6(Y')^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$, the hyperplane $V_5(Y') \subset V_6(Y')$ corresponds to a point $\mathbf{q}' \in {\mathbf{P}}(V_6(X)) \setminus {\mathbf{P}}(V_5(X))$. Then the GM category of $X$ is equivalent to that of $Y'$ by the first paragraph. On the other hand, by construction $Y'$ and $Y$ are generalized partners, so their GM categories are equivalent by the previous paragraph. As we already mentioned, the duality conjecture does not cover the case of smooth GM varieties $X$ whose Lagrangians contain decomposable vectors, i.e. all special GM surfaces and some ordinary GM surfaces. Note that such $X$ have neither generalized partners nor duals of dimension greater than 2 and moreover ${\mathcal{K}}(X) = {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$. Thus, extending [@kuznetsov2016perry Conjecture 3.7] it is natural to ask: If $X$ and $Y$ are smooth GM surfaces which are generalized partners or duals and whose Lagrangians contain decomposable vectors, then is there an equivalence ${\mathrm{Perf}}(X) \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$? We expect that the answer is positive, although the argument of Corollary \[corollary-duality-GM\] does not work as the crucial assumption  never holds for smooth generalized partners when the corresponding Lagrangian has decomposable vectors. There are two possible strategies to work around this. First, one can also consider (mildly) singular GM varieties and prove that if $X$ and $Y$ are generalized dual with $X$ singular and $Y$ smooth, then ${\mathcal{K}}(Y)$ is a categorical resolution of ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ (cf. the proof of Theorem \[theorem-singular-sGM\] below). Then, however, one will have to check that the resolutions ${\mathcal{K}}(Y_1)$ and ${\mathcal{K}}(Y_2)$ obtained from two smooth generalized duals $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ of the same $X$ are equivalent. This seems possible, but does not fit into the scope of this paper. Another possibility is to extend the arguments of [@debarre2015kuznetsov Theorem 4.7 and Propositions 4.13 and 4.19] to show that if $X$ and $Y$ are two smooth generalized partners or duals, then $X$ is birational to $Y$, and hence $X \cong Y$. Duality of spin GM varieties {#subsection-sGM} ---------------------------- It is well known that the Grassmannian ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5)$ shares many properties with its elder brother, the spinor tenfold ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10})$. The content of this subsection provides yet another confirmation of this principle. Let $V_{10}$ be $10$-dimensional vector space. Recall the orthogonal Grassmannian ${\mathrm{OGr}}({5},V_{10})$ of ${5}$-dimensional isotropic subspaces for a nondegenerate quadratic form on $V_{10}$ has two connected components, ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}({5}, V_{10})$ and ${\mathrm{OGr_-}}({5}, V_{10})$, which are abstractly isomorphic. The Plücker embedding ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}({5},V_{10}) \to {{\mathrm{Gr}}(5,V_{10}) \to {}} {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^{{5}}V)$ is given by the square of the generator of $\operatorname{Pic}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}({5},V_{10}))$; the generator itself gives an embedding ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$, where ${\mathsf{S}_{16}}$ is the $16$-dimensional half-spinor representation of ${\mathrm{Spin}}(V_{10})$. Note that $$\dim{\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) = 10 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \operatorname{codim}_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})} {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) = 5.$$ The spinor tenfold ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ shares a very special property with the Grassmannian : both are projectively self-dual, and even homologically projectively self-dual. More precisely, the classical projective dual variety of ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ is given by the spinor embedding ${\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5, V_{10}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. This lifts to the homological level as follows. \[theorem-HPD-OGr\] Let ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{U}}'$ be the tautological rank $5$ subbundles on ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})$ and ${\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5,V_{10})$. Then ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}))$ and ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5,V_{10}))$ have the structure of strong, moderate Lefschetz categories over the spinor spaces ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ and ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$, respectively, of length $8$, with Lefschetz components given by $${\mathcal{A}}_i = \langle {\mathcal{O}}, {\mathcal{U}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}\rangle \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathcal{A}}'_i = \langle {\mathcal{U}}', {\mathcal{O}}\rangle$$ for $|i| \leq 7$. Moreover, there is an equivalence $${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}))^{{{\natural}}} \simeq {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5,V_{10}))$$ of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. This parallel between ${\mathrm{Gr}}(2,V_5)$ and ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})$ motivates the following definition. A smooth *spin GM variety* is a smooth dimensionally transverse fiber product $$X = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}}_{16})} Q ,$$ where $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ is a standard morphism of a quadric. We note that if $X$ is a smooth spin GM variety of dimension $d$, then $X$ is a Fano variety of Picard number $1$, coindex $4$, and degree $24$ for $d \geq 4$, and $X$ is a polarized Calabi–Yau threefold of Picard number $1$ and degree $24$ for $d = 3$. Using Theorem \[theorem-HPD-OGr\] in place of Theorem \[theorem-HPD-Gr\], the argument of Theorem \[theorem-sGM-duality\] proves the following spin analogue. \[theorem-sGM-duality\] Let $$X = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})} Q \quad \text{and} \quad Y = {\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5, V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} Q^{{\natural}}$$ be smooth spin GM varieties of dimensions $d_X \geq 4$ and $d_Y \geq 4$, where $Q \to {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ is a standard morphism of a quadric and $Q^{{{\natural}}} \to {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$ is its generalized dual. Let ${\mathcal{U}}_X$ and ${\mathcal{U}}_Y$ denote the pullbacks of ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{U}}'$ to $X$ and $Y$, and let ${\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(1)$ denote the pullbacks of the ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ line bundles on ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ and ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. Then there are semiorthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned} \label{sGMX} {\mathrm{Perf}}(X) & = \langle {\mathcal{K}}(X), {\mathcal{O}}_X(1), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(1), \dots, {\mathcal{O}}_X(d_X-3), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(d_X-3) \rangle , \\ \label{sGMY} {\mathrm{Perf}}(Y) & = \langle {\mathcal{U}}_Y(3-d_Y), {\mathcal{O}}_Y(3-d_Y), \dots, {\mathcal{U}}_Y(-1), {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-1), {\mathcal{K}}'(Y) \rangle , \end{aligned}$$ and an equivalence ${\mathcal{K}}(X) \simeq {\mathcal{K}}'(Y)$. We call the category ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ occurring in a *spin GM category*. Spin GM categories should be thought of as $3$-dimensional counterparts of GM categories. Indeed, whereas a GM category is always (fractional) Calabi–Yau of dimension $2$, a spin GM category is (fractional) Calabi–Yau of dimension $3$ by [@kuznetsov2015calabi Remark 4.9]. More precisely, if $X$ is odd-dimensional then ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is $3$-Calabi–Yau, while if $X$ is even-dimensional then the Serre functor of ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is given by ${\mathrm{S}}_{{\mathcal{K}}(X)} = \sigma \circ [3]$ where $\sigma$ is an involutive autoequivalence of ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$. Furthermore, one can develop the notion of a Lagrangian data set for spin GM varieties: this should consist of triples $(V_{12},V_{10},A)$, where $V_{12}$ is a 12-dimensional space endowed with a non-degenerate quadratic form, $V_{10} \subset V_{12}$ a 10-dimensional subspace to which the quadratic from restricts non-degenerately, and $A \subset {{\mathsf{S}}_{32}}(V_{12})$ is a Lagrangian subspace in the 32-dimensional half-spinor representation of ${\mathrm{Spin}}(V_{12})$ (note that ${{\mathsf{S}}_{32}}(V_{12})$ has a natural ${\mathrm{Spin}}(V_{12})$-invariant symplectic form). Then the notion of generalized spin partnership and duality for spin GM varieties can be defined analogously to Definition \[def:gm-duality\], and the argument of Corollary \[corollary-duality-GM\] would prove that spin GM categories of generalized spin partners or duals are equivalent. It would be interesting to investigate the rationality question for spin GM varieties in relation to Theorem \[theorem-sGM-duality\], following the GM case discussed in [@kuznetsov2016perry §3]. The critical case is when $X$ has dimension $5$; then ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is a $3$-Calabi–Yau category, which is conjecturally equivalent to the derived category of a Calabi–Yau threefold if and only if $X$ is rational. Theorem \[theorem-sGM-duality\], however, does *not* give examples of this sort. Indeed, if $Y = {\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5, V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} Q^{{\natural}}$ is a smooth GM variety of dimension $3$, then it is easy to see that $X = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})} Q$ cannot be smooth because ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})$ must meet the singular locus of $Q$. More generally, we have the following result. \[lemma-sGM-not-geometric\] Let $X$ be a smooth spin GM variety whose dimension is odd and at least $5$. 1. \[HH-cKX\] The $0$-th Hochschild homology of ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is given by ${\mathrm{HH}}_0({\mathcal{K}}(X)) \cong {\mathbf{k}}^2$. 2. \[cKX-not-geometric\] ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is not equivalent to the derived category of a projective variety. We first note that ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})$ has cohomology of Tate type, and Poincaré polynomial given by $$1 + t^2 + t^4 + 2 t^6 + 2 t^8 + 2 t^{10} + 2 t^{12} + 2 t^{14} + t^{16} + t^{18} + t^{20},$$ see [@double-spinor §2.2] or [@kuznetsov2018spinor Corollary 3.8]. The Lefschetz hyperplane theorem combined with the HKR theorem then determines ${\mathrm{HH}}_0(X)$, and the claimed formula for ${\mathrm{HH}}_0({\mathcal{K}}(X))$ follows from the additivity of Hochschild cohomology [@kuznetsov2009hochschild Theorem 7.3]. If ${\mathcal{K}}(X) \simeq {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(M)$ for a projective variety $M$, then $M$ is smooth by [@kuznetsov2006hyperplane Lemma D.22]. Moreover, $M$ must have dimension $3$ since ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ is $3$-Calabi–Yau. The HKR theorem then implies $\dim {\mathrm{HH}}_0(M) \geq 4$, contradicting part . Nonetheless, by considering a mild degeneration of the situation of Theorem \[theorem-sGM-duality\], we can find spin GM fivefolds whose category ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ admits a geometric resolution of singularities. Recall from Definition \[def:categorical-resolution\] and Remark \[remark-nc-cat-res\] the notion of a weakly crepant categorical resolution. \[theorem-singular-sGM\] Let $K \subset W \subset {\mathsf{S}}_{16}$ be generic subspaces with $\dim(K) = 6$ and $ \dim(W) = 12$, and let ${\bar{Q}}\subset {\mathbf{P}}(W/K)$ be a general smooth quadric. Set $Q = {\mathbf{C}}_K({\bar{Q}})$ and let $$f \colon Q \to {\mathbf{P}}(W) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}}_{16})$$ be the induced morphism. Let $$X = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})} Q \quad \text{and} \quad Y = {\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5, V_{10}) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} Q^{{\natural}}.$$ Then $X$ is a spin GM fivefold with $12$ nodal singularities and $Y$ is a smooth spin GM threefold. Moreover, there is a semiorthogonal decomposition $$\label{cKX-singular} {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(X) = \langle {{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X), {\mathcal{O}}_X(1), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(1), {\mathcal{O}}_X(2), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(2) \rangle ,$$ and ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$ is a weakly crepant categorical resolution of ${\mathcal{K}}(X) = {{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X) \cap {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$. The spinor embedding ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ has degree $12$ and codimension $5$. Thus for general $K$ the intersection $Z = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(K)$ consists of $12$ reduced points, say $z_1,\dots,z_{12}$, and the dual intersection ${\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5, V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(K^\perp)$ is a smooth fourfold. Furthermore, for general $W$ containing $K$ the intersection ${\mathrm{OGr_-}}(5, V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(W^\perp)$ is empty, and the intersection ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(W)$ is a smooth sixfold containing $Z$. The embedded tangent space to ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10})$ at the point $z_i$ corresponds to an 11-dimensional subspace $T_i \subset {\mathsf{S}_{16}}$ such that $\dim(T_i \cap K) = 1$. The intersection $T_i \cap W$ corresponds to the embedded tangent space to ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5, V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(W)$ at $z_i$, hence $\dim(T_i \cap W) = 7$ and the natural map $T_i \cap W \to W/K$ is surjective with kernel $T_i \cap K$. For any smooth quadric ${\bar{Q}}\subset {\mathbf{P}}(W/K)$ its strict preimage in ${\mathbf{P}}(T_i \cap W)$ is the cone over ${\bar{Q}}$ with vertex $z_i = {\mathbf{P}}(T_i \cap K)$ and it is identified with the normal cone to $X$ at $z_i$, hence $z_i$ is a node. This proves that for $K$ and $W$ chosen as above and any smooth ${\bar{Q}}$ the intersection $X$ has nodes at points of $Z$. Also, for general ${\bar{Q}}$ by Bertini’s theorem $X$ is smooth away from $Z$ and $Y$ is smooth. Thus $Y$ is a smooth spin GM threefold. The semiorthogonal decomposition  is induced by the Lefschetz decomposition of the spinor tenfold ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})$, cf. [@cyclic-covers Lemma 5.5]. Let ${\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ denote the standard categorical resolution of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$. Then arguing as in Theorem \[theorem-sGM-duality\], we see that Theorem \[theorem-quadric-intersection\] gives a semiorthogonal decomposition $$\label{OGrp-cQ} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}= {\left \langle}{\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X), \langle {\mathcal{O}}(1) , {\mathcal{U}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(1) \rangle \otimes \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle, \langle {\mathcal{O}}(2), {\mathcal{U}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(2) \rangle \otimes \langle {\mathcal{O}}\rangle {\right \rangle}$$ and an equivalence ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y) \simeq {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$. Note that ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y) = {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$ since $Y$ is smooth. Thus to finish it suffices to show that ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ is a weakly crepant categorical resolution of ${{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X)$. The functors $\pi_* \colon {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\to {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Q)$ and $\pi^* \colon {\mathrm{Perf}}(Q) \to {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ of Lemma \[lemma-cQ-categorical-resolution\] induce by base change along ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \to {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$ functors $$\begin{aligned} \pi_* &\colon {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}\to {\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(X),\\ \pi^* &\colon {\mathrm{Perf}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}},\end{aligned}$$ such that $\pi^*$ is left and right adjoint to $\pi_*$ and $\pi_* \circ \pi^* \cong {\mathrm{id}}$. Thus, these functors provide the category ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ with the structure of a weakly crepant categorical resolution of $X$. Furthermore, also induces a semiorthogonal decomposition $$\label{eq:sod-perf-x} {\mathrm{Perf}}(X) = \langle {\mathcal{K}}(X), {\mathcal{O}}_X(1), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(1), {\mathcal{O}}_X(2), {\mathcal{U}}_X^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}(2) \rangle ,$$ where ${\mathcal{K}}(X) = {{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X) \cap {\mathrm{Perf}}(X)$. Indeed, by [@kuznetsov-base-change Proposition 4.1] it is enough to show that the components of  are admissible; this is clear for the exceptional objects that appear, and then follows for ${{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X)$ by Serre duality and the fact that $X$ is Gorenstein. Clearly, $\pi^*$ takes the four exceptional objects from  to the four exceptional objects in . Therefore, from full faithfulness it follows that $\pi^*$ takes the right orthogonal ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ of the former to the right orthogonal ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ of the latter, and thus defines a functor $$\pi^* \colon {\mathcal{K}}(X) \to {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X).$$ Similarly, by adjunction it follows that the right adjoint functor $\pi_*$ takes ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ to ${{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X)$, and hence defines a functor $$\pi_* \colon {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X) \to {{\mathcal{K}}^\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{coh}}(X).$$ Since we have already shown that $\pi_*$ and $\pi^*$ provide ${\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}}))} {\scalerel*{\mathcal{Q}}{Q}}$ with the structure of a weakly crepant categorical resolution of $X$, it follows that ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{K}}}(X)$ is a weakly crepant categorical resolution of ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ via these functors. The proof of the theorem shows that the resolution ${{{\widetilde}{X}}}\to X$ given by blowing up the singular points of $X$ has a semiorthogonal decomposition consisting of exceptional objects and the derived category of the Calabi–Yau threefold $Y$. Thus, the philosophy of [@kuznetsov2010derived; @kuznetsov2015rationality] suggests that ${{{\widetilde}{X}}}$ (and therefore $X$) should be rational. We will prove this as a consequence of the following. \[lemma-singular-sGM-fibration\] If $X$ is as in Theorem , then there is a resolution of singularities $X' \to X$ and a morphism $X' \to {\mathbf{P}}^2$ whose general fiber is a smooth Fano threefold of Picard number $1$, degree $12$, and index $1$. Moreover, the morphism $X' \to {\mathbf{P}}^2$ has $12$ sections. The following argument is inspired by [@debarre2015kuznetsov Lemma 4.1]. Recall that the kernel space $K$ of the quadric $Q$ defining $X$ is 6-dimensional and its span $W$ is 12-dimensional. Therefore, the maximal isotropic spaces for $Q$ are $9$-dimensional. Let $I \supset K$ be a generic such space. Then linear projection from ${\mathbf{P}}^8 = {\mathbf{P}}(I) \subset {\mathbf{P}}(W)$ induces a morphism $$q \colon X' \to {\mathbf{P}}(W/I) = {\mathbf{P}}^2,$$ where $X'$ is the blowup of $X$ along $$X \cap {\mathbf{P}}(I) = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(I).$$ The genericity of $I$ guarantees that $X'$ is smooth. The fibers of $q$ can be described as follows: a point $b \in {\mathbf{P}}^2$ corresponds to a ${\mathbf{P}}^9_b \subset {\mathbf{P}}(W)$ containing ${\mathbf{P}}(I)$; we have $Q \cap {\mathbf{P}}^9_b = {\mathbf{P}}(I) \cup {\mathbf{P}}(I_b)$ where $I_b$ is the residual isotropic space for $Q$; and the fiber over $b$ is $q^{-1}(b) = {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(I_b)$. Thus the general fiber of $q$ is a smooth threefold given as a codimension $7$ linear section of ${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathsf{S}_{16}})$, i.e. a threefold of the claimed type. Furthermore, since any maximal isotropic subspace in $Q$ contains $K$, we have $K \subset I_b$, hence $${\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(K) \subset {\mathrm{OGr_+}}(5,V_{10}) \cap {\mathbf{P}}(I_b).$$ It remains to note that the left side is a set of 12 reduced points; each of these points gives a section of the morphism $X' \to {\mathbf{P}}^2$. \[corollary-singular-sGM-rational\] If $X$ is as in Theorem  and the base field ${\mathbf{k}}$ is algebraically closed of characteristic $0$, then $X$ is rational. By Lemma \[lemma-singular-sGM-fibration\], it suffices to show that a smooth Fano threefold of Picard number $1$, degree $12$, and index $1$ is rational if it has a rational point. This holds by [@kuznetsov-prokhorov]. We note that Theorem \[theorem-singular-sGM\] can be thought of as giving a conifold transition from the noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefold ${\mathcal{K}}(X)$ to the Calabi–Yau threefold $Y$. In the spirit of Reid’s fantasy [@reid-fantasy], we pose the following (loosely formulated) question: Can any noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefold be connected to a geometric Calabi–Yau threefold via a sequence of degenerations and crepant resolutions? Theorem \[theorem-singular-sGM\] gives a positive answer to this question for spin GM categories of spin GM fivefolds, and similar arguments also give a positive answer for spin GM varieties of dimension $7$ or $9$. The results of [@favero-kelly] give a positive answer for noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefolds associated to cubic sevenfolds (using, however, degenerations with worse-than-nodal singularities). It would be interesting to investigate more examples, in particular the list of noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefolds given in [@kuznetsov2015calabi §4.5]. If $Y$ is a smooth *strict* Calabi–Yau threefold in the sense that $\omega_Y \cong {\mathcal{O}}_Y$ and  for $j = 1,2$, then the HKR theorem shows that ${\mathrm{HH}}^2(Y) \cong {\mathrm{H}}^1({\mathrm{T}}_Y)$, so ${\mathrm{D^b_{coh}}}(Y)$ has no noncommutative infinitesimal deformations. Thus to have a hope of connecting a noncommutative Calabi–Yau threefold to a geometric Calabi–Yau threefold, we should indeed allow more operations than deformations. HPD results {#appendix} =========== In this appendix we provide some material on semiorthogonal decompositions and HPD that is used in the body of the paper. In §\[subsection:local-criterion\] we establish a local criterion for an equivalence of $T$-linear categories. In §\[subsection-HPD-projection\] we describe the behavior of HPD under linear projections. A local criterion for an equivalence {#subsection:local-criterion} ------------------------------------ The main result of this subsection is the following proposition. \[proposition-equivalence-local\] Let $\phi \colon {\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathcal{D}}$ be a $T$-linear functor and let ${\mathcal{A}}\subset {\mathcal{C}}$ be a $T$-linear subcategory. Assume that either $\phi$ has a left adjoint and ${\mathcal{A}}$ is left admissible, or $\phi$ has a right adjoint and ${\mathcal{A}}$ is right admissible. Let also ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathcal{D}}$ be a $T$-linear subcategory which is either right or left admissible. Let ${U \to T}$ be an fpqc cover, and let $\phi_{U} \colon {\mathcal{C}}_{U} \to {\mathcal{D}}_{U}$ denote the induced functor. Then $\phi$ induces an equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}\simeq {\mathcal{B}}$ if and only if $\phi_{U}$ induces an equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}_{U} \simeq {\mathcal{B}}_{U}$. As we observe in Corollary \[corollary-equivalence-lef-cat-local\], the proposition also implies a local criterion for a functor between Lefschetz categories to be a Lefschetz equivalence. We build up some preliminary results before giving the proof. If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $T$-linear category and $T' \to T$ is a morphism, we write $C \vert_{T'}$ for the image of $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$ under the canonical functor ${\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathcal{C}}_{T'}$ induced by pullback. \[lemma-object-vanish-locally\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $T$-linear category, and let $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Let ${U \to T}$ be an fpqc cover. Then $C \simeq 0$ if and only if $C \vert_{U} \simeq 0$. The forward implication is obvious. Conversely, by the Künneth formula in the form of [@NCHPD Lemma 2.10], we have $${\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}}_T(C,C)\vert_{U} \simeq {\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}}_{U}(C\vert_{U}, C\vert_{U}) ,$$ where ${\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}}_T(C,C) \in {\mathrm{D_{qc}}}(T)$ is the mapping object defined in [@NCHPD §2.3.1]. Hence if $C \vert_{U} \simeq 0$, we have ${\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}}_T(C,C)\vert_{U} \simeq 0$. Then ${\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}}_T(C,C) \simeq 0$ since the vanishing of an object in ${\mathrm{D_{qc}}}(T)$ can be checked fpqc locally, and therefore $C \simeq 0$. \[corollary-functor-vanish-locally\] Let $\phi \colon {\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathcal{D}}$ be a $T$-linear functor. Let ${U \to T}$ be an fpqc cover. Then $\phi \simeq 0$ if and only if $\phi_{U} \simeq 0$. The forward implication is obvious. Conversely, we must show that $\phi(C) \simeq 0$ for all $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$ if $\phi_{U} \simeq 0$. For this, just note that $\phi(C)\vert_{U} \simeq \phi_{U}(C\vert_{U})$ and apply Lemma \[lemma-object-vanish-locally\]. \[lemma-factor-locally\] Let $\phi \colon {\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathcal{D}}$ be a $T$-linear functor. Let ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathcal{D}}$ be a $T$-linear subcategory which is left or right admissible. Let ${U \to T}$ be an fpqc cover. Then $\phi$ factors through the inclusion ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathcal{D}}$ if and only if $\phi_{U}$ factors through the inclusion ${\mathcal{B}}_{U} \subset {\mathcal{D}}_{U}$. We consider the case where ${\mathcal{B}}$ is left admissible; the right admissible case is similar. Since ${\mathcal{B}}$ is left admissible, its left orthogonal ${}^\perp{\mathcal{B}}$ is right admissible, hence its inclusion functor $j \colon {^\perp}{\mathcal{B}}\to {\mathcal{D}}$ has a right adjoint $j^!$ whose kernel is ${\mathcal{B}}$. Therefore $\phi$ factors through ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathcal{D}}$ if and only if the composition $j^! \circ \phi$ vanishes. By Corollary \[corollary-functor-vanish-locally\], this composition vanishes if and only if its base change to $U$ vanishes. But this base change identifies with $j_{U}^! \circ \phi_{U}$ where $j^!_{U}$ is the right adjoint to the inclusion ${^{\perp}}{\mathcal{B}}_{U} \subset {\mathcal{D}}_{U}$ (see [@NCHPD Lemma 3.15]), and hence vanishes if and only if $\phi_{U}$ factors through ${\mathcal{B}}_{U} \subset {\mathcal{D}}_{U}$. We consider the left adjoints case of the proposition; the right adjoints case is similar. First assume ${\mathcal{A}}= {\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}= {\mathcal{D}}$. Note that a functor with a left adjoint is an equivalence if and only if the cones of the unit and counit of the adjunction vanish. If $\psi$ denotes the cone of the unit or counit for the adjoint pair $(\phi, \phi^*)$, then $\psi_{U}$ is the cone of the unit or counit for the adjoint pair $(\phi_{U}, \phi^*_{U})$ (cf. [@NCHPD Lemma 2.12] or [@kuznetsov2006hyperplane §2.6]). Hence applying Corollary \[corollary-functor-vanish-locally\] proves the lemma in this case. Now consider the case of general ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$. Denote by $\alpha \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{C}}$ and $\beta \colon {\mathcal{B}}\to {\mathcal{D}}$ the inclusions. If $\phi_{U}$ induces an equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}_{U} \simeq {\mathcal{B}}_{U}$, then by Lemma \[lemma-factor-locally\] the composition of functors $\phi \circ \alpha \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{D}}$ factors through ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathcal{D}}$, i.e. there is a functor $\phi_{{\mathcal{A}}} \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{B}}$ such that $\phi \circ \alpha = \beta \circ \phi_{{\mathcal{A}}}$. We want to show $\phi_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ is an equivalence. But $\phi_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ admits a left adjoint, namely $\alpha^* \circ \phi^* \circ \beta$, and $(\phi_{{\mathcal{A}}})_{U} \colon {\mathcal{A}}_{U} \to {\mathcal{B}}_{U}$ is an equivalence, so we conclude by the case handled above. Let $S' \to S$ be a morphism of schemes, and let $V_{S'}$ denote the pullback of a vector bundle $V$ on $S$ to $S'$. Then if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$, the base change ${\mathcal{A}}_{S'}$ is naturally a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_{S'})$ with Lefschetz center given by the base change . This follows from a combination of [@categorical-joins Lemma 2.4] and [@NCHPD Lemmas 3.15 and 3.17]. Proposition \[proposition-equivalence-local\] then implies the following. \[corollary-equivalence-lef-cat-local\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ be Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$. Let $\phi \colon {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{B}}$ be a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear functor which admits a left or right adjoint. Let ${U \to S}$ be an fpqc cover of $S$, and let $\phi_{U} \colon {\mathcal{A}}_{U} \to {\mathcal{B}}_{U}$ denote the induced functor. Then $\phi$ is an equivalence of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ if and only if $\phi_{U}$ is an equivalence of Lefschetz categories over ${\mathbf{P}}(V_{U})$. The following related result is useful for establishing the existence of a semiorthogonal decomposition, by reduction to a local situation. \[lemma-sod-local\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $T$-linear category, and let ${\mathcal{A}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_n \subset {\mathcal{C}}$ be a sequence of right or left admissible $T$-linear subcategories. Let $U \to T$ be an fpqc cover. Then ${\mathcal{C}}= \langle {\mathcal{A}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_n \rangle$ if and only if ${\mathcal{C}}_{U} = \langle {\mathcal{A}}_{1U}, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_{nU} \rangle$. The forward implication holds by [@NCHPD Lemma 3.15]. Conversely, assume we have a semiorthogonal decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}_{U} = \langle {\mathcal{A}}_{1U}, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_{nU} \rangle$. Then the argument of Lemma \[lemma-object-vanish-locally\] shows that the categories ${\mathcal{A}}_i \subset {\mathcal{C}}$ are semiorthogonal. Assume the categories ${\mathcal{A}}_i \subset {\mathcal{C}}$ are right admissible (a similar argument works in the left admissible case). Then setting ${\mathcal{D}}= \langle {\mathcal{A}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_n \rangle {^\perp}$ we have a semiorthogonal decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}= \langle {\mathcal{D}}, {\mathcal{A}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{A}}_n \rangle$. But ${\mathcal{D}}= 0$ by Lemma \[lemma-object-vanish-locally\]. HPD over quotients and subbundles {#subsection-HPD-projection} --------------------------------- Given a surjective morphism ${\tilde{V}}\to V$ of vector bundles with kernel $K$, we consider the corresponding rational map ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}) \dashrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and denote by $U = {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}) \setminus {\mathbf{P}}(K) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$ the open subset on which it is regular. If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$-linear category supported over $U$ (i.e. if the restriction functor ${\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{A}}_U$ is an equivalence), then it inherits a natural ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure via the linear projection map. In this situation, we can ask for a relation between HPD with respect to the two linear structures on ${\mathcal{A}}$. Before answering this, we make some preliminary observations. \[definition-base-extension\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $T$-linear category, and let $T \to T'$ be a morphism of schemes. We write ${\mathcal{C}}/T'$ for ${\mathcal{C}}$ regarded as a $T'$-linear category via the pullback functor ${\mathrm{Perf}}(T') \to {\mathrm{Perf}}(T)$, and say ${\mathcal{C}}/T'$ is obtained from ${\mathcal{C}}$ by *extending the base scheme* along $T \to T'$. \[remark-base-extension\] If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and $V \to V'$ is an embedding of vector bundles, then the category ${\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}(V')$ is naturally a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V')$, with the same center. Moreover, this operation preserves (right or left) strongness and moderateness of Lefschetz categories. \[lemma-C-support-fiber\] Let $T$ be a scheme and let $U \subset T$ be an open subscheme. Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $T$-linear category which is supported over $U$. Then for any $T$-linear category ${\mathcal{D}}$, there is a canonical $T$-linear equivalence $${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathcal{D}}\simeq {\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathcal{D}}_U.$$ We have equivalences $${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathcal{D}}\simeq {\mathcal{C}}_U \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathcal{D}}\simeq {\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathrm{Perf}}(U) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathcal{D}}\simeq {\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}(T)} {\mathcal{D}}_U. \qedhere$$ Now we can answer the question posed above about HPD under linear projection. Note that the surjection ${\tilde{V}}\to V$ induces an embedding of bundles ${V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}\to {\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$, so that ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})$. \[proposition-HPD-projection\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$ with center ${\mathcal{A}}_0$. Assume ${\tilde{V}}\to V$ is a surjection of vector bundles with kernel $K$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is supported over ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}) \setminus {\mathbf{P}}(K)$. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ has the structure of a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ (with the same center ${\mathcal{A}}_0$), and there is a ${\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})$-linear equivalence $$({\mathcal{A}}/{{\mathbf{P}}(V)})^{{{\natural}}} \simeq ({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))^{{{\natural}}} \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})).$$ The proposition can be generalized to the case where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is not assumed to be supported over ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}) \setminus {\mathbf{P}}(K)$, by working with a suitable “blowup” of ${\mathcal{A}}$. In the situation where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is geometric, this is the main result of [@carocci2015homological]; for general Lefschetz categories, see [@categorical-joins Proposition 7.1]. For convenience, we supply the proof in the simpler case needed in the paper. Let $U = {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}) \setminus {\mathbf{P}}(K)$. Then by the support assumption, ${\mathcal{A}}$ has a $U$-linear structure such that the ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$-linear structure is induced by pullback along $U \to {\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$. Via the morphism  given by linear projection, ${\mathcal{A}}$ also carries a ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure. Let $H$ and $\tilde{H}$ denote the relative hyperplane classes on ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ and ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$. Note that ${\mathcal{O}}(H)$ and ${\mathcal{O}}(\tilde{H})$ both pull back to the same object of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(U)$, and hence their actions on ${\mathcal{A}}$ coincide. From this, it follows that the given Lefschetz center ${\mathcal{A}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{A}}$ is also a Lefschetz center with respect to the ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$-linear structure [with the same Lefschetz components]{}. Consider the induced embedding ${V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}\hookrightarrow {\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}$. There is a canonical isomorphism $$\label{hyperplane-V-VW} U \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \cong U \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V)) .$$ Using this, we deduce $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})) &\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \\ & = {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \\ & \simeq {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}(U) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \\ & \simeq {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}\left(U \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})) \times_{{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}})} {\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}}) \right) \\ & \simeq {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}\left(U \times_{{\mathbf{P}}(V)} {\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V)) \right) \\ & \simeq {\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{P}}(V))) \\ & = {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}(V)) .\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, the second line holds by definition of ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))$, the third and the sixth follow from the fact that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is supported over $U$ (see Lemma \[lemma-C-support-fiber\]), the fourth holds by [@bzfn Theorem 1.2], the fifth holds by , and the last holds by definition. Using the semiorthogonal decomposition defining the HPD category, it is easy to check that this equivalence induces an equivalence between the subcategories $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))^{{{\natural}}} \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) & \subset {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})) \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) \intertext{and} ({\mathcal{A}}/{{\mathbf{P}}(V)})^{{{\natural}}} & \subset {\mathbf{H}}({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}(V)). \end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof. \[remark-HPD-projection\] In the situation of Proposition \[proposition-HPD-projection\], note that we have $K = ({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})^\perp$ and ${\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}(K)) = 0$ by the support assumption for ${\mathcal{A}}$. Assume that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is right strong and moderate as a Lefschetz category over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ (and hence also over ${\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}})$). Then [@NCHPD Theorem 8.7] implies there is a semiorthogonal decomposition $$({\mathcal{A}}/{\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}))^{{{\natural}}} \otimes_{{\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({\tilde{V}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}))} {\mathrm{Perf}}({\mathbf{P}}({V^{{\scriptscriptstyle\vee}}})) = {\left \langle}{{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{1-n}((1+r-n)H') , \dots, {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{-r} {\right \rangle},$$ where $n = \operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}})$ and $r = {\mathrm{rank}}(K)$. This provides the left side with a Lefschetz structure of length $n - r$ and center ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{-r}$, with respect to which the equivalence of Proposition \[proposition-HPD-projection\] is a Lefschetz equivalence. We also note that ${{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_{-r} = {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_0$. To explain this, we use the equivalence ${\mathcal{A}}\simeq {^{{\natural}}}({{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}})$, see Remark \[remark:left-hpd\]. By (the left HPD version of) [@NCHPD Theorem 8.7(1)] we have $$\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathrm{rank}}({\tilde{V}}) - \# \{ \, i \leq 0 \mid {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_i = {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_0 \, \}.$$ On the other hand, by moderateness of ${\mathcal{A}}$ over ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ we also have $$\operatorname{\mathrm{length}}({\mathcal{A}}) < {\mathrm{rank}}(V) = {\mathrm{rank}}({\tilde{V}}) - r .$$ Hence $\# \{ \, i \leq 0 \mid {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_i = {{\mathcal{A}}^{{\natural}}}_0 \, \} > r$. [10]{} Arend Bayer, Martí Lahoz, Emanuele Macrì, Howard Nuer, Alexander Perry, and Paolo Stellari, *Stability conditions in families*, arXiv:1902.08184 (2019). David Ben-Zvi, John Francis, and David Nadler, *Integral transforms and [D]{}rinfeld centers in derived algebraic geometry*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **23** (2010), no. 4, 909–966. Francesca Carocci and Zak Turčinović, *Homological projective duality for linear systems with base locus*, International Mathematics Research Notices (2018), rny222. Olivier Debarre and Alexander Kuznetsov, *[[G]{}ushel–[M]{}ukai varieties: linear spaces and periods]{}*, to appear in Kyoto J. Math. arXiv:1605.05648 (2017). [to3em]{}, *[Gushel]{}–[Mukai]{} varieties: classification and birationalities*, Algebr. Geom. **5** (2018), no. 1, 15–76. David Favero and Tyler Kelly, *Fractional [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au categories from [L]{}andau-[G]{}inzburg models*, Algebr. Geom. **5** (2018), no. 5, 596–649. Dennis Gaitsgory and Nick Rozenblyum, *A study in derived algebraic geometry*, available at <http://www.math.harvard.edu/~gaitsgde/GL/>, 2016. Qingyuan Jiang, Conan Naichung Leung, and Ying Xie, *Categorical [P]{}l[ü]{}cker formula and homological projective duality*, arXiv:1704.01050 (2017). Alexander Kuznetsov, *[Hyperplane sections and derived categories]{}*, Izvestiya: Mathematics **70** (2006), no. 3, 447. [to3em]{}, *Homological projective duality*, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. (2007), no. 105, 157–220. [to3em]{}, *Derived categories of quadric fibrations and intersections of quadrics*, Adv. Math. **218** (2008), no. 5, 1340–1369. [to3em]{}, *[Lefschetz decompositions and categorical resolutions of singularities]{}*, Selecta Mathematica **13** (2008), no. 4, 661–696. [to3em]{}, *[Hochschild homology and semiorthogonal decompositions]{}*, arXiv:0904.4330 (2009). [to3em]{}, *[Derived categories of cubic fourfolds]{}*, [Cohomological and geometric approaches to rationality problems]{}, Springer, 2010, pp. 219–243. [to3em]{}, *Base change for semiorthogonal decompositions*, Compos. Math. **147** (2011), no. 3, 852–876. [to3em]{}, *Semiorthogonal decompositions in algebraic geometry*, Proceedings of the [I]{}nternational [C]{}ongress of [M]{}athematicians, [V]{}ol. [II]{} ([S]{}eoul, 2014), 2014, pp. 635–660. [to3em]{}, *[Calabi]{}–[Yau]{} and fractional [Calabi]{}–[Yau]{} categories*, to appear in J. Reine Angew. Math. arXiv:1509.07657 (2016). [to3em]{}, *Derived categories view on rationality problems*, pp. 67–104, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016. [to3em]{}, *On linear sections of the spinor tenfold, [I]{}*, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. **82** (2018), no. 4, 53–114. Alexander Kuznetsov and Valery Lunts, *Categorical resolutions of irrational singularities*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2015), no. 13, 4536–4625. Alexander Kuznetsov and Alexander Perry, *Derived categories of cyclic covers and their branch divisors*, Selecta Math. (N.S.) **23** (2017), no. 1, 389–423. [to3em]{}, *Derived categories of [G]{}ushel–[M]{}ukai varieties*, Compos. Math. **154** (2018), no. 7, 1362–1406. [to3em]{}, *Categorical joins*, arXiv:1804.00144 (2019). [to3em]{}, *Homological projective duality for quadrics*, arXiv:1902.09832 (2019). Alexander Kuznetsov and Yuri Prokhorov, *Rationality of [F]{}ano threefolds over nonclosed fields*, in preparation (2019). Jacob Lurie, *Spectral algebraic geometry*, available at <http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/>. Emanuele Macr[ì]{} and Paolo Stellari, *Lectures on non-commutative [$K3$]{} surfaces, [B]{}ridgeland stability, and moduli spaces*, arXiv:1807.06169 (2018). Laurent Manivel, *Double spinor [Calabi]{}–[Yau]{} varieties*, arXiv:1709.07736 (2017). Kieran G. O’Grady, *Periods of double [EPW]{}-sextics*, Math. Z. **280** (2015), no. 1-2, 485–524. [MR ]{}[3343917]{} Alexander Perry, *Noncommutative homological projective duality*, arXiv:1804.00132 (2018). Miles Reid, *The moduli space of [$3$]{}-folds with [$K=0$]{} may nevertheless be irreducible*, Math. Ann. **278** (1987), no. 1-4, 329–334. Richard Thomas, *Notes on homological projective duality*, Algebraic geometry: [S]{}alt [L]{}ake [C]{}ity 2015, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 97, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2018, pp. 585–609. Michel Van den Bergh, *Non-commutative crepant resolutions*, The legacy of [N]{}iels [H]{}enrik [A]{}bel, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 749–770. [to3em]{}, *Three-dimensional flops and noncommutative rings*, Duke Math. J. **122** (2004), no. 3, 423–455. [^1]: A.K. was partially supported by the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5-100”. A.P. was partially supported by an NSF postdoctoral fellowship, DMS-1606460.